JB Globe

I love how you're pretending to not know that all newspapers outsource their polls to impartial polling companies, such as Angus Reid in this case. And I'll remind you of this next time you quote a poll done on behalf of the National Post. BTW - I thought the Star was the NDP's flagship paper, and the Libs have the Globe, or did it change again in your head? That's pure speculation on your part. However, you don't need to be a parliamentary expert to understand that shutting down parliament in an economic crisis to dodge a political scandal is not the greatest idea for the sake of the country. And as for invalidating the opinions of people because you think they're uninformed - I'll remind you of this the next time you reference a poll on a complicated subject that people might not fully understand. Yes, those two-bit lefty-rags such as The Economist and the Calgary Herald with all of their "proroguing is bad" nonsense, right? I already said that the poll said that half of conservatives are against prorouging Parliament - did you miss that or are you ignoring it because it's inconvenient to you? After all, we can't let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned gut reaction.

This Angus Reid Poll shows that a majority of Canadians disapprove of Harper proroguing Parliament again. What's good to see also, is even among conservatives, over half disagree with his decision. I was concerned this issue would become partisan quickly, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Most Canadians see this issue as a crisis of Parliamentary democracy, rather than a "lefty vs righty" issue. Frankly, it's times like this where you find out if you're more of a party-loyalist or a democratic-loyalist. Congrats to the conservatives here and across the country who are putting Canadian interests above Harper's personal political interests. Maybe our actions can insulate the beating Canada's reputation is starting to take internationally because of this move, just look at what The Economist had to say here and here.

If you say so it must be true.

I don't hate Islam, I just think it's evil.

There are simply no options the US has on the table for any sort of direct/indirect intervention in Iran that could IMPROVE the situation. The only options the US has are ones that would make the situation worse in both the short and long term for national, regional, and even international stability. Which means - this is one of those cases where doing nothing is the best option. Remember America - sometimes, not everything is about you. What do you mean by Carter's mistakes?

I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot. I am not a bigot.

Unless of course, your support gives a casus belli to a regime that is iitching to legitimize outright military force against said liberty-seeking folks. Which is why we need to be careful to not give the appearance that we're in any way physically supporting the protests.

Obama's conduct on the Iran uprisings has been fantastic. It's a great relief to have a president that fully understands the dynamics WITHIN Iran and realizes that given the history of the US interfering Iran, that the best thing they can do for the Iranian people is to stay out of the way for the most part. The hands of the US are tied because of history (see: CIA coup) and the most we can do is give moral support to those brave Iranians who are risking their lives against a corrupt and unjust regime that is on it's last legs.

I guess this is the closest thing to an explanation as I'm bound to get. Islamic influence is increasing in Switzerland in the sense that the Muslim population is increasing due to immigration. This is not inherently a bad thing - did America fall apart when it became more Catholic due to massive Irish immigration? (that btw, on a proportional basis, was much, much, greater than anything Europe is experiencing now) Even though Nativists (as they were called) claimed it would bring about the end of America, and would import the problems of Irish conflict en masse - it didn't. So having more Muslims in your country isn't necessarily a bad thing. Can we agree on that? I mean after all, you're not against Muslims in general, right? Also on that point - we clearly have no problem with Jewish groups campaigning and advocating their concerns in a democratic and civil manner - this doesn't diminish our democracy. Therefor, so long as Muslim groups do the same, and CONTINUE to not try and change laws and cultural norms (except in cases where there is an instance of discrimination as defined by the Swiss Constitution) this is not a concern either. So what would banning minarets do? For the Swiss public - it would only limit the APPEARANCE of the extent of the Muslim population. It does nothing to change actual numbers, it does nothing to curb the influence of radical elements - in fact it would probably increase their power. Many moderate Swiss who have gone to great lengths to fit in, and so far have never listened to the words of radicals, might start feeling like: "no matter what I do, I'll never be Swiss, they'll never see the difference between me and the radicals" And the radicals now have an easier example to help make their case that Switzerland is against ALL Muslims. If anything, I think this ban will make things worse, as I've stated before. But wouldn't working with women's rights activists WITHIN the Muslim community do more good? How would banning a minaret solve anything?

On the Washington Post article - it appears that whatever small amount of radicalism exists in Switzerland (and the article makes it clear it's small) it suggests that the threat can be dealt with using police and security powers. Which makes a minaret ban (the effectiveness of which hasn't been explained or proven by anyone yet) seemingly unnessecary. This becomes even more unessecary when you consider the amount of damage Switzerland's reputation has taken recently because of it. Nice job on poaching that one from DogonPorch, btw. On Sarkozy - why on earth would anyone want to take France's integration efforts as some sort of model to strive for? They made extremely ignorant and naive polices in the 60's-90's that helped to create the situation they're in now. And as for Sarkozy? During the riots a few years ago the man was antagonizing the rioters, completely dismissing any reasons for the violence, other than "these people are savages" Why should anyone look to him for guidance on this issue. Wow, it only took over a week for you to get around to one question. That means in a month and a half you'll get around to all of them? Maybe you could start with #1 - after all, it's the most important within the context of this discussion. As for picking and choosing what to read - I don't really see expect to hold me to a higher standard than your holding yourself. After all, you've yet to comment on on the article about the European Council of Rabbis. The kettle shouldn't be calling the pot black, as it were . . . I skimmed your links, but I'd definitely give them more time if you didn't spend the last week being evasive. I just don't see why I should afford you the same respect I afford other posters like American Woman, for example, given your ACTIONS, not your opinions. You get what you give around here - that shouldn't be a radical concept (pun intended) around here. Points that haven't been addressed by Wulf so far . . . . 1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism 2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland 3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one" 4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party. 5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies. 6 - He supports direct-democracy initiatives which revoke the constitutional rights of certain groups of people (in the Swiss case, this means Muslims) has avoided clarifying if this means he would support a Swiss referendum that revoked the right of men to vote.

Well that's kinda stupid.

I answered your request the first time you asked, I've asked you 10 times to answer some of the following: 1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism 2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland 3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one" 4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party. 5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies. 6 - He supports direct-democracy initiatives which revoke the constitutional rights of certain groups of people (in the Swiss case, this means Muslims) has avoided clarifying if this means he would support a Swiss referendum that revoked the right of men to vote. You've had over a week to answer #1 & #2, you've been given more than enough time. BTW - The Huntington Post article you posted stated that the minaret ban wouldn't do a thing to help Muslim integration in Switzerland - it was in the last paragraph. You might want to read articles all the way through before posting them next time.

As I'm sure you know already, world leaders travel in private planes for security reasons. I'd much rather they pay for off-setting the carbon costs than fly passenger aircraft and potentially fall victim to a security breach. As for the limos - any car that is driven by a chauffeur is a limo, such as Obama's Cadillac sedan or even airport "limos" - we're not talking about stretch limos here. As for the menus of the hotels - I would have hoped that they would have tried to be a little more conscious of this, but it appears they're trying to make some money off of all the hype. Keep in mind that world leaders will have the opportunity to avoid purchasing the more expensive items mentioned, and I hope they will.

I think the precedent I was looking for was if there was a case where another religious group already had a certain right established for a long period of time (decades or more) and then had it taken away (by popular vote or otherwise) while other religious groups still could exercise this same right.

So it's just because a majority supports it? Okay - would you support a resolution that revoked men's voting rights, if the majority of a population supported it? Let's see just how deep this commitment to majority-rules goes with you: do you actually support it, or do you support it only because there was a decision made against the rights of a group of people you don't like? Is it a dangerous and growing problem in Switzerland? This is the 9th time you've failed to provide any examples, which MUST mean there aren't any substantial ones, which MUST mean that your claims are uninformed and false. HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS??? HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS??? HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS??? HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS??? HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS??? HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS??? This is the 9th time you've been asked to explain yourself, I'm going to assume that you just lack the intelligence to do so at this point. I've said this several times already: Swiss Muslims aren't trying to change any laws or customs of Switzerland. If you have any examples PROVIDE THEM or we'll have to assume that you're lying through your teeth. The right to religious expression is in Switzerland's constitution - it says that Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and others are allowed to build religious structures so long as they comply with municipal guidelines, which ALL of the four minarets in the entire country did. Of course, if they want to violate their own constitution, and blatantly discriminate against people, they can go ahead, but this decision has the biggest blow to Switzerland's international reputation and "neutralism" in decades. Just because you CAN do something, does mean it's a good idea to do so. ie - Canada could try and invade the US, but it would be stupid to do so. Either you're lying or you haven't been reading my posts - either wouldn't surprise me. Want to know how to combat radicalism within any religious or ethnic minority group? Listen to what the European Council of Rabbis said: work with moderates and reformers within communities to strengthen ties and gain the trust of people. Demonstrate you're committed to them becoming equal citizens of your country by removing discriminatory barriers and working to educate the general population on their history and beliefs. Aggressively prosecuting any violent or discriminatory acts against that group. Assist that group in attaining education and job training. That's how us Jews became integrated and accepted into Canadian society. That's also how plenty of other groups integrated as well. There - I've re-stated an example and one which has been proven to work. I ANSWERED YOUR REQUEST THE FIRST TIME YOU ASKED ME, I'VE ASKED YOU ABOUT 9 TIMES NOW TO ANSWER SOME OF MY QUESTIONS, ARE YOU GOING TO DO SO??? THEY'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST We're already doing all that - but the minute you start discriminating against Muslims as a whole, you turn ALL Muslims into the enemy, meaning no one will help you catch the terrorists, meaning you just made your job of fighting terrorism harder. This is why the minaret ban is a stupid idea. Let's list the unanswered questions/unsubstantiated claims of Wulf so far in this post: 1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism 2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland 3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one" 4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party. 5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies.

The Nazis had to start somewhere - and banning Jews from marking their religious buildings with Jewish elements of design and iconography was one of those things. It wasn't long after that Jewish places of worship were banned outright and people had to meet in secret in each other's homes. Also, there were plenty of people Justifying what the Nazis were doing to the Jews at the time - both in Nazi Germany, in Europe and here in Toronto. While Hitler was coming down on Jews in Germany before the war, the Toronto Swastik Club was busy nailing signs to beach and park entrances that said "Gentile Only" or "No Jews or Dogs Allowed" and instigating fights like the Christie Pits Riots. Than why are you supporting a law drafted by a far-right party? No really - don't dodge this question - if far-right parties are close to terrorists in your mind, why are you supporting this ban? Were you just totally unaware about who drafted this thing? Do you not care? You mean the one that has almost no connection to what we're talking about here? And is some vague diatribe against Islam in general? Yes I read it - would you like to talk about it? The specifics of it? Please go ahead . . . But first - did you read the article I reposted on The European Council of Rabbis coming down on this minaret ban hard? What do you think of that? Why do you think Jews are very much against this ban? Let's hear your thoughts . . . You constantly claim you're not against Islam in general - then you make suggestions like this. Which is it? Are you against Islamic radicalism or Islam in general?

You're creating a false argument here, as usual. Minarets have ALWAYS been legal in Switzerland. Muslims never demanded the right to build minarets, they always had it because like Jews or Hindus in Switzerland they are free to build religious structures so long as they comply with municipal building regulations and processes - which ALL of the four minarets in the country did comply with. Swiss Muslims have never demanded anything but their constitutional rights be upheld, that isn't a radical position, that's a DEMOCRATIC POSITION. There is no slippery slope argument here. Minarets are in no way connected to radical Islam - they're just connected to Islam IN GENERAL because they're a feature of Islamic places of worship. You might as well argue that church bells and steeples are symbols of child molestation, because all of the Catholic priests who have molested children did their ministry at a church with those features . . . . "First church steeples, then little Billy goes into the rectory with father John for a special session!" Hell, forget religion - let's argue that all Italian restaurants are symbols of the Mafia - after all, when Mafia bosses go out to dinner, they generally go to Italian restaurants. Let's ban Italian restaurants. It's just a incredibly stupid argument. And you've yet to provide a single example of it working, ANYWHERE, and demonstrate HOW it works . . . Again . . . For the - what is it now? 8th time or so I've asked you directly to explain yourself and you don't? What examples do you have in Switzerland that would suggest the Swiss Muslim community is plotting to kick non-Muslim Swiss out of their country? I mean - you keep tossing around these scenarios, but you never provide any examples. Do they exist someplace else than your head? There was never a dispute about this - I agree with you. And guess what? So do the vast majority of Swiss Muslims - they're happy living in a secular country. The thing is - you refuse to accept that Swiss Muslims weren't trying to change ANY Swiss laws or customs - they were acting within their constitutional rights that guarantee them the freedom of religious expression. It was this minaret ban campaign which is unconstitutional.

I obviously consider your position much, much different than wulf's. You're not in the same category, you're explaining yourself in a rational manner, he isn't. I'm hoping this issue will be settled by the Swiss themselves - after all, I believe it was the Justice Minister, or a judge who said that the ban is unconstitutional. The only debate I'd have with your position is that is it still considered democracy when rights can be stripped away from a specific group by popular vote? Are there some things which should not be voted on? Swiss lawmakers are now questioning their system, wondering if there's some things which should be out of the hands of a public that has been shown to be easily manipulated by ignorant and alarmist campaigning.

To summarize the critique of the support for the minaret ban on this board: I've given Wulf and others who support this ban about a week to explain HOW this ban works, to show me the connection between banning minarets and decreasing radicalism in the Swiss Muslim community. So far the only things said so far have been: "why do I have to explain myself? go ask the Swiss, it's their ban" (hint: because you're supporting this ban, and want to bring it to Canada - you should explain yourself) and: "it fights radicalism because it bands minarets!" "how does it do that?" "I just told you! it bans minarets, what else do I need to explain?" "How about the connection between minarets and radicalism?" . . . SILENCE . . . MOVES ONTO NEXT TALKING POINT That's about it, except for some folks degenerating into 10 year olds and name-calling. So what are we supposed to take away from all this? That the supporters of this ban, whether they be Swiss or members of this board, are not concerned with making a RATIONAL CASE for this ban, because they simply refuse or are unable to explain how it works. Personally, I believe this is only natural when you discuss a topic with people who's xenophobic instincts are greater than their rational instincts.

I'm sure you've noticed that Western nations are much more critical of nations that we don't receive a lot of oil from. This goes for all our suppliers - Muslim or non-Muslim. Even China receives a lot more criticism than Cuba because it's an economic necessity to the West, and Cuba isn't. As for Switzerland, I think why people are outraged at this is because they're waving the flag of democracy and pluralism and going out and doing something which is pretty anti-thetical to those values. And since democracy and secular pluralism are things which form a strong part of the identity of other Western nations, you can see why a lot of folks are upset that the Swiss are doing something with those labels attached.

That's false. 57% of the people who voted in the referendum agree with you that banning minarets fights Islamic radicalism. And much like you the "yes" campaign doesn't explain HOW this all works. For the record, this decision isn't "encouraging" anyone to do anything. It is unconstitutional and is revoking a minority group's freedom of religion. And how does building 4 minarets which comply with municipal building regulations go hand in hand with "forcing their religion on others" Also - please demonstrate a single example of repealing a minority religious group's freedom of religion translating into reduced radicalism. I simply won't sign onto something that has failed every time it's been done. Because I'm a Jew, and I've seen this all before. I know what's at the end of this road. Whenever you unleash ultra-right nationalism in your society, everyone always looses, just ask Martin Niemöller, In case you missed the article Naomi linked earlier: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132517.html

Do you have any examples of Switzerland "being under siege" ???? Yes or no? Why are you not explaining why the minaret ban will stop fundamentalism? So far your reasoning has been: "the minaret ban will stop fundamentalism because the minaret ban will stop fundamentalism, because the Swiss supporters said so" It's a circular argument, and you're completely avoiding answering the "how" question. If you're not going to articulate your position beyond its most basic level, than I'm going to have to start making assumptions about your motivations and reasoning, and I'd rather not have to do that - I'd rather you speak for yourself.

I wasn't talking about skeptics, I specifically said those people who claim humans aren't affecting the climate, or admit we are but to such a small degree that it's insignificant and we need do nothing - this type of thinking is what I called dishonest or ignorant, and it's these folks who think it's all a "hoax" in the same way that Obama is a "socialist Kenyan" It's not, but mosts scientists aren't part of any lobbying groups, they're part of scientific panels, and as such they simply report facts to legislative bodies and don't concern themselves with applying political pressure to persuade lawmakers to adopt their schemes - which is the role of industry lobbyists. They're only concern is to present the best data on a complex subject in the most easily-understood manner. Really? I find that hard to believe. While I'm sure there's some money being tossed at "climate alarmism" as you put it, I doubt it comes even close to the denial lobby's efforts - I mean their benefactors include some of the biggest companies in the world (ie - Exxon). Really? Most articles I've read have been critical of those individuals but have pointed out that they are several among several thousand. And folks on the right are "against climate change" irregardless of data because some of the changes being proposed are things they don't like. It cuts both ways. Frankly the "denier/believe" dichotomy just doesn't cut it, much like other simplistic labels.

How? Explain how this minaret ban does any of that? And was there even a wave of Islamification to bother stopping in Switzerland? Because no one seems to be able to find it. Please don't tell me you're blindly supporting an initiative out of an emotional xenophobic reaction, please tell me there some logic to this . . .

Yawn. Get a new act. If you were a half decent troll I'd be feeling frustration instead of pity.