Icebound

Well, the only jurisdiction in Canada today that can be remotely considered "conservative" is Sask, and even THAT has Liberal roots

Well, first of all, because he is eligible for parole, does that mean he will get it? And even if he does, there are thousands of people on parole at any one instant in time. Yet the country does not descend into an unlivable hell-hole of crime. Why would THIS individual pose any greater risk than any other parolee?

Y In Canada, you are running out of Conservative options. ...

I do: http://www.itworld.com/article/2943112/security/report-every-company-is-compromised-but-most-infections-not-yet-at-critical-stage.html

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there were a few posters on MLW that are paid by the parties. The number of posts per day for some would have had to be practically a full-time job .... ...

Internet security being non-existent, is this a "good" idea? ...

Yes, I am sure that the patrons think exactly that. ....but, apparently, no one has forced Zurena Ishaq to wear a niqab, either. I believe that she feel that it empowers her. In her own words: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=2676785010 about 20 minutes of interview. ...

"Debate" is where you produce convincing evidence that your proposal is useful for the country. .... or opponents to your proposal produce convincing evidence that is is NOT. Then 308 people vote as to which side of the debate is the more convincing. We do not have enough "debate".... we simply have entrenched positions that have no basis in reality. And when the evidence cannot be refuted, it is ignored. Sure, you might get "more done" with a majority in that case, but is what you "get done" good for the country??? "Debate" forces reasoned argument instead of mindless talking points.

Right. That why Hooters and those other Breastaurants are so popular.....

Then I guess you don't want a parliament at all. The whole PURPOSE of parliament is debate. That has been largely circumvented in recent years, but that IS the real purpose..... ....debate the issues, then settle on a course of action with a votel. ....

Thank you so much for bringing this up. I would never have heard this blatant invocation of the spirit of Laurier,and the vision of an inclusive and peaceful society. Shameful! The complete 13 minute speech to RIS is on YouTube https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cMRj0JfhDnA

These "assisting democracy" organization might be "assisting democracy", but they are really in the business of supporting western-leaning conservatism in these evolving democracies. In Ukraine especially, there is concern that part of this money was used to fund ultra-right (fascist?) groups such as the "Ukrainian Taliban" ( https://theintercept.com/2015/03/18/ukraine-part-3/)... ... and the "AZOV" Battalion ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion The goals may be noble, but the problems in Ukraine are not that much different than Iraq, when you factor in all of the various factions and their centuries of old infighting. It is another attempt to impose a Conservative agenda using a rich minority, onto the rest of the unwilling people. Where have we seen that before? ... ....

I don't know if it applies to Canada, but you should be aware that in the that past 100 years in the USA, the stock-market under DEMOCRATIC presidents has outperformed the market under Republican presidents. http://blog.cmcmarkets.com.au/asset-class/companies/what-does-the-us-presidential-election-mean-for-markets/ ...

Well, he proved that he could survive an extra-long campaign.... which was specifically designed to be so long that it would provide lots of opportunities to destroy himself with his supposed "inexperience". Instead, the extra time gave him extra opportunity to introduce himself to more Canadians, especially in the West.... and it looks now like quite a few Canadians.... while not necessarily "enamoured".... are at least "satisfied".. ...

The GST is not in isolation. A GST rebate for the poor is the usual remedy and very easy to implement at income tax time. As I said, it would be offset by reduction in income taxes, but would be offset MORE or even rebated for the poorest. ...

Lowereing the GST is not an "accomplishment".... it is a failure. The overwhelming majority of economists privately decried that as a bad move for the country, but it was politically popular. There will come a time when income taxes will be have to be reduced and offset with a GST increase, because that is the smart thing to do..... just to find the guy with the political will to do it.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Global economics trumps national interest. That will, eventually, mean global government.... at the very least, a global Federation. Free cross-border movement of all peoples? Giving up sovereignty? More power to the large multi-national corporations? That's an interesting view of the future. I wonder which political parties in Canada and the USA might be supportive of that? ... ...

Public polling was invented in an era when it might have meant something but it no longer does..... The majority of Canadians have call-display on their telephones, and they don't answer telemarketers and that includes pollsters... so how do you possibly get a proper "scientific representation"? The famous Gallup organization in the USA has given up and is not polling for the Presidential election because they recongnize now that polling is impossible. So the only "scientific" polls that can be done are if you have some captive audience that is more-or-less guaranteed to reply. Other than a list of your own supporters, that is going to be pretty hard to come by in the general public. ...

A VERY short-sighted view. Wealth comes from labour, and labour is done by people. If you want this country to produce wealth, it has to have the people to create it, and today's children become tomorrow's citizens and wealth-creators. I MIGHT tend to agree that there is no "right" to children, but it is short-sighted not to support their conception and upbringing, including adoption and IVF. True, since it is a public expense, it is reasonable to adopt limits to access of non-natural procedures. However, it is perfectly reasonable to provide some public support .... YOUR support.... because children are an absolutely necessary resource for the country to flourish in the future. ...

YES, BUT.... LOWERING the CIT.... DOES NOT .... increase employment. What happens in real life is that it increases corporate profits, which they keep or divvy out to shareholders, but they WILL NOT automatically expand just because they have more money.. Corporations want stability.... they don't really care what the corporate tax is...they adapt. CHANGES in CIT causes them to react as above, but if the CIT stays stable, they will operate within the parameters and will grow with a higher rate, just as well as with a lower rate..... just so long as that rate stays stable.

Again.... obviously you have not heard her tell her story. What makes you assume that she will "most likely demand"? Especially since she has explicitly said no such thing, but that she will teach them her understandings of her religion and HOPE that they accept it.... which is pretty much what every Canadian mother "hopes", and we all know what their percentage of success is. And remember, those children have aunts and grandparents ...and a FATHER...who DO NOT believe in the wearing of the niqab, so they will have varying infuences... and.... like most Canadian kids.... will make up their own minds as they approach adulthood. It blows my mind that you would assume what she would do, without knowing anything about her, obviously.

Icebound, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:30 PM, said: So Canadians don't like the niqab, and maybe many or even most Muslims don't like the niqab. Guess what? I bet the same is true of Black Leather Jackets with certain club logos.. Argus, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:59 PM, said: Do they want them banned? They want the niqabs banned. They haven’t been asked. Icebound, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:30 PM, said: This particular person happens to be very adapted to Canadian life.... nobody in her family wears the niqab... sisters, mother. Argus, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:59 PM, said: So she's a religious extremist. Before you make that assessment, you should speak to her about her beliefs Icebound, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:30 PM, said: had this issue been left alone.... then in 5 years she would have tired of it all and given it up, Argus, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:59 PM, said You act like religious belief is a fad, like wearing your hair in a certain style. Do you have any idea how absurd that is? Maybe not a fad… but religious belief can certainly be transient. The Catholic sacrament of Confession is a good example. … and religious dress is CERTAINLY transient. Catholic nuns used to wear a burka-like full-body dress, then it was reduced to a small headpiece with a waist-length cape. Today, most wear no headpiece at all except in certain circumstances. Or maybe just a headpiece without the cape. There was a time when a Catholic woman would be totally disgraced should she enter a church without a hat or a head-scarf. Today, nobody wears anything on their head. What IS absurd is your contention that a piece of cloth is going to destroy our country. THAT is TRULY absurd. Icebound, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:30 PM, said: But NOW, that we have turned it into such such a "big deal", you will see all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork using her as an "example to follow". Argus, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:59 PM, said Unlikely. Not many people want the world to treat them like an empty sack of clothe. And if they're in Quebec they soon won't be allowed to step into provincial government buildings wearing one. Well, gee, if nobody is going to use her example anyway, what purpose is achieved by a ban? Is this just to divert police from their real work to have them enforce another useless law? Icebound, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:30 PM, said: Harper's Conservatives, and the people who agree with them, .. Argus, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:59 PM, said You mean like three quarters of the population? Three quarters of the population should take a little time to analyze. instead of making a knee-jerk reaction to a non-issue. Furthermore, three-quarters of the population will not be affected whatsoever in their real lives, whether there is a niqab ban, or not, so their irrational opinion will not really matter one way or the other. Argus, on 09 Oct 2015 - 7:59 PM, said And why do all you lefties have amnesia about how this arose? It wasn't the Harper Conservatives who brought it up, it was the Quebec LIBERAL government. I don’t really care if Wilfred Laurier himself were to have started this. It is still bad policy.

The niqab is VERY different. The confederate flag is resented by a particular group of people who have been oppressed under its banner in the past.... and it is flown today by those who often agree with that historical oppression, or who even participate in the harassment, persecution, etc. of that particular group to this very day. A Canadian is not under any risk of persecution by a niqab-wearer, Even according to your own logic, it is the niqab-wearer who is oppressed, not the Canadians. (If you want to ban the ISIS flag, then maybe you have something.) Had you bothered to check the background and history of THIS PARTICULAR niqab-wearer.... who took the citizenship oath today.... you would find that she is not-at-all oppressed by anybody.... except possibly for the harassment by the Canadian government. ....

Gee... the last I read is that Egypt tried to ban the niqab but that it was overturned. True that some businesses put in their own bans, and that many (like Canada) dislike the idea of the niqab, but has the government actually really "banned" it? Or is your "non-mainstream" news source twisting the facts just a little bit? As for Turkey, they have had a head-scarve ban like FOREVER, but have, in fact, RELAXED those rules in 2013,. Furthermore, the ban in Turkey does not result in fewer people actually wearing it. Instead, it just means that women who wear it are arrested and persecuted by the government.

So Canadians don't like the niqab, and maybe many or even most Muslims don't like the niqab. Guess what? I bet the same is true of Black Leather Jackets with certain club logos.... or maybe being served by somebody with noserings and eybrow piercings.... or pink "mohawk-style" haircuts with green streaks... etc. etc. etc. There is lots of stuff about OTHER people that we "don't like", but none of them need be election issues, because in the grand scheme of things, ... THEY .... DON'T .... MATTER. This particular person happens to be very adapted to Canadian life.... nobody in her family wears the niqab... sisters, mother. Her family advises against it, including her husband. She chose it for herself at about age 15 in spite of their protestations.... hey, maybe a normal teen-age backlash against authority, eh? .... Her personal conviction is that it is a religious thing, but she fully understands that many Muslim clerics say that it is not. Having listened to her speak about her convictions and how it came to be, I am somewhat convinced that .... had this issue been left alone.... then in 5 years she would have tired of it all and given it up, nobody would have cared, and nobody would have followed her. But NOW, that we have turned it into such such a "big deal", you will see all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork using her as an "example to follow". Harper's Conservatives, and the people who agree with them, .... by going to such great lengths to ban a piece of irrelevant clothing....are actually INCREASING the probability that there will be more niqab-wearers in the future, not reducing it.