Peter F

Canadian kids in Canada cannot possibly become a minority. I think you are probably referring to White Canadian kids. Please be specific.

Nicely put. unfortunatley no one wants to hear it.

You gather wrongly. But the thread morphed and it is now believed that what you have observed is true. Federal Court - David vs. Canada The orginal post proclaimed this to be an example of Muslim thuggery.

Well, he did something you wouldn't. If it had have been you, and they put three earthworms on your plate would you eat them? Say 'hold the worms please sir' or say 'may I have something other than worms please?' To you and ScottSA, the answer to that question determines wether you are a thug or not.

Why is this guy some sort of freak for wanting something else other than bacon? What is so unbelievably outlandish about that? Why not give him something else other than bacon? Whys is this a huge deal to you?

Well, I have no doubt that you consider his actions outlandish. So do I. I consider the behaviour of those who were to deal with his outlandish complaint also outlandish ... at wich point (and this is the part you don't seem to grasp) the prisoner was correct to persue the matter. the bacon is meaningless.

particularly in Caledonia

I have no idea. Im not a follower of the Prophet, so I cannot say. The Muslim in question thought different. Go figure.

I agree. Jbg said earlier What would be the point of military aid unless there was a serious danger of being victimized by the surrounding states? I know Jbg thinks playing the victim card is a disgusting thing. It isn't. It is a perfectly viable diplomatic, political, and morale raising tool. There is nothing wrong with claiming victimhood. It can actually be quite usefull. See Pearl Harbour or War on Terrorism

Yes, well we wouldn't want our prisoners trying to adhere to any religious practices now would we? No need for enlightenment in prison.

I think it was frivolous too. But that was never ScottSA's point, nor mine. ScottSA in the original post said: To wich I say ScottSA is full of poo. There was nothing thuggish about the prisoners behaviour. Whiney perhaps but then arn't we all? ScottSA has been whining about muslims for ages and I've been whining about the civilian casualties being acceptable and jbg has been whining that too many people support palestinians and you've been whining about the stupid courts. There is nothing wrong with whining. There is something wrong when posters claim that whiners following the judicial process are thugs and not law abiding citizens. Wich is ScottSA's point. ScottSA claims that Muslims who follow the judicial process, like every other citizen of this country are expected to do; Who do not resort to violence and threats - are thugs nevertheless. ScottSA's statement was a huge steaming pile of bullshit....Wich, I like to think I immediately addressed. I couln't give two shits about whether he has or hasn't bacon on his plate. Its trivial. Its meaningless, its of no importance. And youve bought the bullshitj about this guy being a violent thug for doing what is perfectly well within his or anyone elses right to do: Complain. I recommend you read FTA's post above and the courts decision. What began and should have remained trivial got turned into a Federal Case - not because the Thug threatened everyone with Jihad - but because the beurocrats that were to deal with the mans complaint in good faith chose instead to lie, to hide information, to deny government policy, to claim they've done nothing wrong when they did. The prisoner did what I hope I would have done also. Recognize the bullshit and appeal to higher authority, So I say good for him. Ihope he doe's it again. He is example of good citizenship. and all you can think about is his three pieces of bacon...l

Certainly. ScottSA: you would join the fun yourself.....would but won't. Instead you will whine and bleat.

according to the judge making the decision: "There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. Counsel for Mr. David submitted that costs in the range of $2,000.00 to $2,500.00 would be reasonable. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that reasonable costs would be in the range of $1,500.00 to $2,000.00. On the base of these submissions, costs are fixed in the amount of $2,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and GST." Federal Court - David vs. Canada Costs. He didn't win a damn thing except have his expenses covered. Now somebody explain how this is Muslim thuggery...

We know, ScottSA, the muslims are going to ruin the white redoubt. Just look at this muslims behaviour; He writes a greivance to the prison complaining that his religious rights are being infringed upon. Prison disagrees. The thug then submits a written complaint to the federal court. Federal court agrees with him. One thing this country cannot stand is people using the judicial process in good faith. There should be a law... The little brown folks can't win; When they refuse to accept western ways they're scum. When they accept western ways they're still scum.

May I remind you that the Federal Court agreed with him. Helluva system eh? I love it.

or maybe Muslims, or at least the one muslim of the story, wasn't going to sit around and take it any more. Good for him. And take note...no violence was involved! He followed the path of the prison greivance process then appealed that to the federal court of Canada. No thuggery here.

...except you prefer whining and bleating about how you're victimized by the brown folks.

They did. Thus Israel.

If we can't prosecute Khadr and place him in prison then there is no need to rehabilitate him.

Cathlocism in Quebec has been dead since the 70's. It is no longer a force in Quebec politics.

cause were not Americans. Ergo we don't have American pride in our country...I guess since the article you linked talks about the joy of free speech and nothing else. Personally I'm not particularly proud about free speech. Just like I'm not particularly proud of the air I breath or water I drink or pot I piss in. Its a weird concept you speak of; Pride in your ability to speak. What is so outstanding about Americans speaking freely as opposed to anyone else? And what is this American pride you speak of? How is it different from Canadian pride or Ugandan pride or Pakistani pride?

When I was in the navy I had many cavities filled. Why didn't they just pull them? No extra expense and never need worry about them again. Why should the taxpayer support the sailor's vanity of maintaining a full set of teeth?

No. I believe the parent or one who is in a parental position should automatically be 'forced', as you say, to support that child. Someone's gotta support the child... In some cases, I suppose, that will be a brother or a sister or a 'friend' or a nannie or possibly even a room-mate. It would be so if they have taken on the role of parent. Perhaps you should read the decision. The court doesn't say (as you apparently think it does) that anyone living in the same house is a parent. Since I disagree with you extreme libertarian position on this matter, you ask me to explain why having sex with the mother confers parental responsibility on an individual: It doesn't. So nothing need be explained.

Here's the link for the Alberta Court Decision: JaneDoe vs. Alberta I quote 3 para's of the judges reasons for deciding that the contract entered into does not over-ride the Family Law Act of Alberta... [ an eminantly sensible decision.

Stop who from being born?