ReeferMadness
-
Posts
3,953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by ReeferMadness
-
I'm not defending anything. I'm saying that plenty of bad laws have been passed by well-meaning people. If a guy is oppressing his wife and she wears a niqab and it's outlawed, she takes off the niqab. Is she no longer oppressed? Of course she is. At best, you've masked the problem (sorry for the pun).
-
What about we look for evidence that someone is actually being oppressed and then deal with the oppression? Wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day could be a sign that a woman is being abused - but it would be silly to outlaw sunglasses.
-
You're making a lot of statements that aren't backed up by anything other than your own convictions. I don't doubt your sincerity but that's not a good basis for enacting legislation.
-
Thank you - I know what Stockholm syndrome is. I was looking for evidence that the niqab is a sign of Stockholm syndrome and that removing the niqab will itself do some good. The women who have gone on record defending their right to wear the niqab didn't sound oppressed to me. You can postulate that's due to Stockholm syndrome but I think a little evidence is in order. And if you prove that the niqab is evidence of Stockholm Syndrome, then what? Do you think the women will no longer be oppressed when they remove their niqabs? If the women are oppressed, help the women. If you're right, they will take off their niqabs on their own when they are no longer oppressed. I don't see how banning the niqab will help anyone.
-
Did Harper outlaw wearing colanders during the taking of oaths?
-
Hmmm.... I call for more evidence - that the niqab causes Stockholm syndrome and that banning it will help.
-
I have 2 responses to you rebuttal: Like the law against nudity, the law against public intoxication was implemented during a time more inclined to moral puritanism. It could be reasonably argued that intoxicated people could pose a danger to those around them due to tendencies of some intoxicated people to fight. Either way, I don't think it supports a the law against the niqab.
-
I wouldn't be opposed to lifting the ban on public nudity. Flashers would have to get their kicks some other way. Of course freedoms have limits and nobody would debate those limits where harm can be reasonably demonstrated. My freedom to burn tires in my backyard impinges on my neighbor's right to breathe clean air. I haven't heard anyone here provide any evidence someone wearing a niqab harms anyone else. So, the question we're left with is what is the utility of laws that only serve to punish people who offend public sentiment? And I argue there isn't any.
-
That's why my ability to reason is so stunted!
-
And because it's not OK is not a reason to make it illegal. Drinking myself into a stupor is not OK. But I wouldn't support making it illegal. The law isn't a tool to make the universe perfect - nor should it be. It's a blunt instrument to prevent us from hurting each other. And a lot of the time it doesn't even do a great job of that.
-
Sounds like a reason to make nudity legal - not to have another unnecessary restriction.
-
You seem to be debating what you'd like the law to be; only you have no rational argument for it. What is the purpose of the law (ie what good will it do us) and how will we measure its success?
-
The "soldiers in the streets" ad never aired on TV. It was on the Liberal website for a short time.
-
Muslim baiting backfires in BC; may cost star candidate her seat. Hooray for BC for not getting stampeded with the rest of the herd.
-
lol!! Bring back Joe Clark!! Luckily for them, Conservatives don't believe in evidence based policy.
-
yes. We all have fond memories of Day. Apparently, the earth just turned 6,019.
-
Just because we need another set of projections election-atlas.ca.
-
Huffpost has a timely blog on this topic.
-
If your point is that on average, women who wear niqabs have more conservative views than women who don't that's probably true. But so what? First, there's a big problem with applying legal sanctions to groups based on averages. On average, Bill Gates and I have an average net worth of $38 billion. That says nothing about either of us. The women that I heard defending the wearing of the niqab didn't sound oppressed to me. And there's a bigger problem. It sounds like your real concern is that these women have conservative views about women's rights (as do people of other religions and belief systems but I'll leave that aside for the moment). How will removing niqabs change their views? If they're oppressed, will they really be less oppressed if you take off the niqab? Do they have a say in whether they are oppressed or not? Laws should have a defined outcome and preferably a way of measuring the outcome. And laws limiting individual rights should be able to demonstrate that there is some harm that is caused by people exercising those rights. What harm is done by Muslim wearing the niqab and what outcome are you hoping to achieve by outlawing it?
-
Not according to the women that I've heard explain why they wear it. That's an outrageous assumption. Of course you have some actual information to back it up.
-
The Stephen Harper going away party on facebook has close to 300,000 committed attendees. Which is considerably more than the number of "likes" Harper has on his own FB page.
-
I didn't say he wasn't qualified - I said there was a big difference. Hey, go for it. He'll be fine.
-
So I don't think Conservatives (or conservatives) should count on him taking the country by storm.
-
Strategic Voting - It needs to be done
ReeferMadness replied to marcus's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
You mean the "perception" that was created by Harper's Conservatives blatantly lying about how our system of governance works. That perception? -
Brad Wall as the great white hope? There's a big difference between governing Saskatchewan and governing Canada - even if he could speak French.