Peter F

No leafless, they lost because Montcalm gambled on a frontal assault against well trained and led troops in an undamaged line that had no threats to the flanks or rear. Blame? Blame? Who seeks blame? not me. A battle was fought, or more accurately as Wilbur points out, many battles were fought. Both sides at Quebec that moring were seeking decision and a decision was reached. The wheels in France were happy to keep Guadeloupe wich the English were happy to trade off for peace in NA. Whats this 'Blame' shit about? Yes, Leafless. Its cause of the snowdrifts that the English were unaccustomed to. After all the English had just spent all winter in Quebec and snowdrifts are rare at that time of year...and oh so difficult to traverse. Frenchmen having been bred with bunny's don't seem to find snowdrifts a problem. Or, howsabout the French were better trained and officered and thier morale hadn't sunk through 3 months of near starvation and thier numbers weren't thinned by disease? Hows that sound? Impossible! No Frenchy can defeat the English without some sly and underhanded trick up thier sleeve - like snow in April!

Lies. English speakers do have such protection. The battlefield is no more than a battlefield. Two armies clashed and (as usually occurs in battles) one army was defeated and fled the field. No, the plains of Abraham itself is not an insult but has been used - to quote myself - ".. for by English bigots for many many years now. You see, the French lost because they are inherently lesser people (with, as Mark Steyn would say, obligatory exceptions). The English won because they are inherently more couragous, tougher, manlier, smarter etc etc. The Plains of Abraham has been used for hundreds of years to insult Quebecers" The battle result has been used over and over again to insult, put down and belittle Quebecers. Take note that English bigots never use the battle of Ste.Foy for the same purpose. I'll let you figure out why that is. Ad Hominum? My arse. Statements about "failed cultures" coupled with your signature = Bigot. It is not directed at you personally but is a response to your bigoted statements. Ha! This from the guy who thinks more violence is better! Yes, a bigot you most definately are.

Another example of jbg's bigotry. They complain because they're an unsuccessful culture and they're unsuccessful because they don't speak english and lose battles. And that is what the Plains of Abraham have been used for by English bigots for many many years now. You see, the French lost because they are inherently lesser people (with, as Mark Steyn would say, obligatory exceptions). The English won because they are inherently more couragous, tougher, manlier, smarter etc etc. The Plains of Abraham has been used for hundreds of years to insult Quebecers - and then the bigots express surprise that Quebecers are insulted!

If I spend your money on your behalf is that any different than spending my money on my behalf? Would you have any cause for concern with how and for what I am spending your money? How about if I am spending my own money? Are you seriously suggesting that both cases are the same? That since you have little or no concern about how I spend my money you should show the same concern with how I spend your money?

Ah, we agree! Isn't that nice? I think its nice. As for high priced union crackpots - management never tells them to piss up a rope. They dare not. Management co-opts them instead. and countries that don't cowtow to the superpower next-door tend to have big problems too. Oh yes, Unions should volountarily disband. But I'll vote against it.

This reminds me of the Krushchev line: We will bury you! Many things get lost in translation - or found. I think both Ahmadinejad and Krushchev meant that their regimes would outlast Zionism and Capitalism. ...but then I have a bad habit of thinking well of folks...

A government puchase isnt 'private' but a citizens purchase is. How I spend my money and on what is nobody's business. How the government spends and on what is most certainly everybody's business. Yeah, right. Government spending and private spending are exactly the same thing. Ha! As Mulroney said: Jobs Jobs Jobs! You bet your sweet-libertarian arse they didn't! Finland knows how to survive with a world-power as a neighbour. They know better than to tell commies to kiss they White behinds. The commies said trade and Finland traded. Finnish companies do not buy ships from non-Finnish ship yards by the way. They understand the benefits of employment.

I think murder motivated by honour should be equivalent to murder for jealousy, and that should be equivalent to murder for money. This free pass for honour killings just has to stop!

Wrong again. It will matter that the original judgment was based on "unconstitutional law'. The judgment will be rendered null and void. The sharia arbitrators do not get to change or ignore the constitution to fit their needs. Perhaps they'd like to but too bad for them.

Yeah. Why not? Its a legitimate question. I suspect its because us non-muslims (and I suspect many muslims) consider Sharia law to be far too extreme in what is considered a punishable offence and far too extreme in what the punishment for those offences are. I think thats it in a nutshell. 'Sentencing Circles' are a different matter entirely. Sentencing Circles do not try the case or determine guilt. There are no native courts using any native justice system. The secular courts have already determined guilt but are allowing the prisoners community to determine sentence. To say that 'sentencing circles' are the same as 'Sharia Law' is very wrong. They aren't the same thing at all - not even close. You are comparing apples to mosquitoes. No, actually anything she is pressured to do could be enforceable by the authorities. Its just that the authorities would have to go through the usuall courts to try to figure out what sort of contract was in effect - if there was one - and wether such a contract (written or implied) was legal or not. An out of court settlement could very well be enforceable.

But, I agree with your ultimate aim. We should not have two seperate justice systems that would result in penalties for crimes that would vary depending upon a persons religion. A christian theif goes to jail or does community service or maybe both or maybe pays restitution; A muslim thief maybe does those things too or maybe has his hands cut off. A christian adulteress gets ...well...gets to carry on living her life; A muslim adultress gets buried up to her neck in sand and stoned to death - maybe, maybe not, depending. I am against that sort of thing. So yes, I am against the introduction of Sharia Law or any other system of law. Our criminal laws are the same across the land and so it should remain. But we must recognize that we already have two systems of civil law in this land - Quebec civil code and Canadian common law. And thats ok because neither are Criminal Law. So mutually agreeable arbitrations are ok with me.

Nope. I am saying that I see no reason to deny two individuals mutually agreeing to have their civil dispute resolved according to their own religious principles. Thats what I'm saying. You seem to be saying that to allow such is a slippery slope to theocracy. I disagree. What do you care about my moral judgements? What do I care that you know about them? My moral judgements are made to soothe my own mind not yours or anybody elses. Get your own moral judgements. Core principles? Sure I have core principles that I beleive everybody else should adhere to: Don't Kill other people. Be friendly to your neighbour. Tell the truth. etc etc and blah and blah. Its an extremely long list, probably repetitive, and not very successfull since so many people don't seem to give a hoot that I have deemed that everyone must adhere to these principles.

Marvelous! I'm happy for you. Keep up the good work. Sorry to disappoint. But cultures are cultures. Praise or criticism means nothing. I may as well criticise the rain.

Oh yes. Quite true. But the difficulty here is that the adherents think their souls are actual real things and not imaginary. Since they believe their souls to be actual real things they are behaving entirely rationaly to fear for their souls. Yet, strangly enough, in this real world there are actual muslims who have been subjected to a lifetime of religious brainwashing and pressure etc etc, who nevertheless reject the very same Sharia courts when given the choice between that or secular courts. Whats up with that? This seems to contradict you concept of imams having some sort of monolithic power over the sheeps. Perhaps the lifetime of religious brainwashing pressure isnt all that cracked up to what you think it is. A bunch of Muslim women, also raised in a lifetime of religious brainwashing-etc, and also beleiving in the fallacy of a 'soul' , actually lobbied against the establishment of Sharia arbitration in Ontario. It seems that these mindless sheeples may not be so mindless after all. Despite the insanity of believing in a farcical God and fearing for thier nonexisting souls, they somehow or other manage to actually take care of themselves. I really don't think there is much call for you to be babysitting these crazy fools. Yes, backbones are required... to accept that some folks might actually have a concept of living that is disagreeable to you actually does require some backbone. Perhaps you should grow one instead of demanding we impose our beleifs upon others. Nice try...but again, here's the goon: They don't agree that it is, as you say, 'unequal justice'. As for refusing to make moral judgements: Poppycock. I make moral judgements all the time. I've got one for almost everybody on this board. Ive got one for my neighbours, my co-workers, my drinkin buddies, the strippers down the way, my MP, my MLA, the Catholic Church, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper and yes, even you. Fear not; the fundies will never be alone making morale judgments.

Hey I got an idea. Why don't you ask me if I support (insert crime against humanity here); Then when I ignore you you can claim proof that secular-antiachristian enemies-jack layton supporting-Sid Ryan loving-socialists support (insert crime against humanity here). Ready? GO!

Muslims are obligated to accept? They are not obligated to accept. If a muslim doesnt want to have the dispute resolved based on Islamic principles then he or she can file the case in a civil court. If, however, they beleive it would be proper and right for them to have the dispute resolved according to Islamic so-called law then they have every right to do so (assuming they can get the other party to agree). It matters not one whit that you consider it barbaric and fuedal. What doe's matter is that the parties involved believe it will resolve thier dispute in a proper and morally acceptable manner. That you don't like it doesn't mean squat.

Wait a minute...this is not about resolving private disputes but is about systems of arbitration? Arbitration is all about resolving private disputes. Thats the sole purpose of arbitration: To resolve private disputes. Without arbitration and even with arbitration one could very well go to court to resolve a private dispute, yes even about my neighbours fence. The courtrooms of the land are full of cases regarding private disputes, thus Arbitration acts to try to move those disputes out of courtrooms and yet be resolved in a legally enforceable manner to (hopefully) the satisfaction of the parties involved. Kimmy succinctly made that point in her post earlier. And a valid point it is, too. However you are mixing up what would be arbitrated with things that are not subject to arbitration. Domestic violence is Assault, at the very least, and not a private dispute. It will fall within the realm of criminal law and not be subject to the hypothetical Sharia Arbitration as constituted under the Arbitration Act. Arbitrations cannot change a persons legal status. Arbitration cannot grant divorce or declare parenthood etc. Certainly these arbitrations would deal with matters of inheritance, division of assets etc. Now it may be that Islamic law does not treat the woman fairly in these matters - and yes, I can imagine, as Kimmy pointed out, that unscrupulous men would railroad the woman into going to the Islamic Arbitration rather than a secular court. Because these Islamic arbitrations, so I am told, would favour the male. On the other hand - we have no such Islamic tribunals now so what do these unscrupulous men do? They certainly don't railroad the woman into going to court to resolve the dispute. Instead they would probably railroad her into settling out of court. or actually more likely remaining where she is and putting up with the bullshit. Of the two choices presently available the secular courts are out. The woman is assumed to be railroadable and the men in her life would certainly railroad her to stay the hell away of a fair and just system to their advantage. So her last option is settlement out of court wich she would be also railroaded into as advised by the men in her life and again certainly to their advantage. Considering the conundrum this poor woman is in, an Islamic arbitration, assuming it was organized and administered as recommended by that crazy lefty Marion Boyd, could actually do the poor ignorant woman a service! She would be made aware of what her rights are under Canadian Law. She would be provided a lawyer to consult and advise her about what her options are. And even if she did submit to the Islamic Arbitration (that for some reason is assumed to be out to screw her over big time) and she doe's get royally shafted - the results of that arbitration are appealable to those fine secular courts that we all know and love. So I think that despite the well known limitations of Islamic justice, this ignorant immigrant woman with no concept of the rights she enjoys in this country and subject to the whims of the menfolk around her, would be better off with the Marion Boyd religious based arbitration than without. What the hell is that? You know very well what the Lord Justice said. He said that if anybody thought that the British Sharia courts were going to operate outside British Law and prescribe good ol sharia punishments like stoneing or the chopping off hands then they were dreaming in technicolour! Thats a good thing actually. Yet you know this because you actually read the article. So I have to wonder why the hell are you carrying on as if there is some full fledged Sharia Courts being allowed? You know thats not true yet you keep coming up with this bullshit. Independant Legal Body? You are jumping to conclusions. Sharia Tribunals would not have been independant legal body's. They would have been arbfitrators under the arbitration act. Are arbitrators independant legal bodies operating outside the law? Nope. You know that. So what kind of propaganda are you trying to pass off here as debate? Again, you assume every decision would be thrown out. I assume that is because you don't consider muslim jurists to be capable of understanding the concept of Justice. If we were in Somalia or Nigeria or Afghanistan or numerous other places that the wold has forgotten I would be able to see your point. But we arn't in those places. We are in Canada. And finally, regarding your "spineless appeaser" remark. Good for appeasment. I love appeasement. Appeasment can be a good thing.

Thanks for lecturing me on what I already knew. Sharia law sucks. You know why I say that? Because I'm no Muslim. In fact why restrict that to sharia law? All theocratic religious based law sucks. I say that because I think Religion sucks - any religion. Therefore, you see, I think all religious based law sucks. So your efforts to convince me that Sharia Law sucks, while impressive, nevertheless hit empty air because, you see, I had come to the conclusion many moons ago, that Sharia Law sucks. But here's the point you dont seem to comprehend: Others think different. Where do you or the state get off telling folks attempting to resolve a private dispute that they cant have that dispute decided by folks they have great respect for? Who died and made you kingshit of turd island? I understand the concept that in family disputes a woman will be holding the short end of the preverbial stinky-stick should she be foolish and/or devout enough to agree to a Sharia tribunal. But what about a business dispute between to men? What would be wrong with them seeking resolution with Sharia arbitration? Abhorrent to you because its Sharia based? Who effing cares? Its not your dispute. In fact if the dispute was resolved with the flip of a coin you'd probably fine that completely crazy - but hey! - its their life. Would you be lobbying the government to stop such wackiness? Would you be railing against the spread of coinflipping to resolve disputes? or writing endless blogs about people referring disputes to the Three Amigo's because you don't like them f*ckers? Any - Any dispute resolution procedure willingly and openly entered into by informed adults is acceptable as long as the result is not abhorrent to the secular Laws of our land. Sharia law would be severly hobbled by that very fact. So your fear of Imams taking over the courts of the land is groundless. Completely groundless. Yes, Now, since me and you dont accept the validity of appeals to religious texts to determine what laws are and how they should be applied, Me and you won't be entering into any such arbitration agreement, will we? No. Of course not. But that doesnt account for folks who think different. There are catholicsin this world, fewer now that previously to be sure, who's marriages are meaningless farces, but who remain married because an archbishop somewhere refused to grant an annulment. They remain married because, for some bizarro reason, its important to them and their seriously held religious beleifs. They can go to court tomorrow to have thier marriage ended - but they dont. They don't because such a decision would be bogus and without value to them. Go figure. You see, its not all about me me me or you you you.

It would have been a volountary process. It could not have contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It could never have been pure unadulterated Sharia Law because of that, and it would have to conform to the rules of evidence as per the Arbitration Act, and its decisions could be appealed to regular law courts - just like every other arbitration in the land. I was fine with it. Others weren't and successfully lobbied against it - I was fine with that too. What in particular about my posts have led you to believe I favour allowing Muslim fundamentalists to walk all over my Left-leaning-secular-socialist-political beliefs? Was it my belief that fruitcake Imams do not speak for all Muslims? My belief that the vast majority of Muslims do not beat and rape thier wives? I see. Its your disapproval thats holding back the deluge. I too remember the good ol days of domestic violence in the 60's and 70's, where women regularly walked into doors and fell down alot and where courts held the view that wives were chattel of husbands. Hate to rain on the parade but what is holding back the deluge is the Law of the land and the long arduous and ongoing struggle of sufferagettes and feminists to have the law be applied equally to men and women.

From C's original post: And I have no problem with folks being all over this guy. But MrC isnt = he's all over everyday muslims. Not freak exceptions - but all muslims. So I stand by the term 'Bigot' to describe MrC.

I understand and agree. Apparently such behaviour doe's not occur outside of Islam. So remember, everyone, next time you see a Muslim, know that they beat and rape thier wives. None of that PC crap here. Muslims should be treated like the rapists they are. That is MrC's claim. Based entirely on what he read in a Yahoo article and without any reference whatsoever to what Muslim men actually do. Its a given; Their rapists and wifebeaters. And that is pure bigotry.

Bullshit. I know what the Imam says for, as you say, there it is right in the Yahoo article (of the OP). But you have claimed the following: So, according to you, Muslims - all muslims according to you, believe that "that women should be raped and beaten". And you sir are full of sh%t.

I don't miss the point at all. What do you or MrC know about what is done behind closed doors? Nothing! I understand that Sharia Law allows the smacking of women to encourage them to do what the husband wants. Which is one of the reasons I am not planning conversion anytime soon. That is not to say that Muslim husbands regularly beat and rape thier wives, is it? Yet that is exactly what MrC claims. And I say that is the usual bigot-bullshit. There is no muslim cleric that I know of who claims its perfectly fine for mulsim men to beat and rape thier wives.

And from the link presented, how do we see this? It is outrageous. But, despite what the Imam says, it is still illegal to rape people in Australia. I don't think Australian law makes an exception for religious belief. So even in your cockamamy world where muslims regularly beat and rape thier wives it is illegal to do so. Despite anyones wierdo religious sanctioned behaviour. You see? Freedom of religion is being curtailed.

No.