Scotty

The point is that across Canada the 'victim' has little say in whether charges are laid. That decision is up to the police and/or the Crown. And they don't care if the 'victim' says they don't want to lay charges.

I judge people entirely on their behavior, which is why I consider anyone who wants to wear a sheet over their heads a backward fool, along with anyone else who wants them to. Not too impressed with those desperate to support them in their determination to remain backward and ignorant either.

If I want to consider someone a backward foreigner the Charter has screw all to say on the matter. If I want to consider someone a hand-wringing, wishy-washy, spineless liberal twit, it likewise would not care.

Tax every EU based airline that flies over Canada - and that's almost all of them taking the Newfoundland route. Make sure we make more than they make from us. Enough to reimburse our airlines and pay for the administration of the new tariff.

As far as I'm concerned, If they cling to a foreign culture and foreign values then they're foreigners. I don't care what the papers they bought say.

I personally find it funny how some posters say things in all seriousness even though they don't believe them for a second. Small c conservatives always adopting modern perspectives? Huh? You don't believe that for a second. But I suppose it's a necessary prelude for the rest of your silly argument. ). Conservatives are, in fact, not particularly known for holding ideas that promote the 'advancement of other people and cultures". That's a liberal thing, you know, the noble white man's burden of those oh-so-precious progressives determined to lift the little people up out of their benighted state. Again, thank you for amusing me by your "more articulate debaters' sputter regarding 'underdeveloped' vs 'backward'. The term underdeveloped does not bespeak any particular degree of literacy, but rather more of that precious liberal determination to never be offense - EVER - except, of course, towards those evil conservatives they hold in such utter contempt. Backward is backward. Calling it something pretty doesn't make it any nicer to look at, however much you try. But it is true, conservatives generally aren't as frantic as you to not hurt anyone's feelings. But various perspectives don't necessarily have equal value, any more than various cultures, religions, values, or people. Some ARE better than others.

I guess I'm just not that interested in accommodating foreigners and their backward cultures and values any more.

Kinda sounds like how bullies talk.

Having one language would be infinitely more efficient.

So if someone says it's part of their religion, even if the leading scholars and leaders of that religion say it isn't, then we still have to respect that? So if a guy says it's part of his religion to take Viagra, open his fly, and stick his erection out all day, maybe with a little wrapping of mistletoe, we have to respect that too and can't demand he cover up?

If you work for a school board you are paid from the tax base. If you work for a university you are paid from the tax base. If you work for a hospital you are paid from the tax base. If you work for a crown corporation, ie, the CBC, you are paid from the tax base.

People who opposed gay marriage in Canada have been called bigots and homophobes. And yet voting for a party which says homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed isn't considered necessarily extremist? Let's take the recent elections in Egypt. There were a number of moderate parties running, but the party which got the most support was the Muslim Brotherhood, whose views on women, gays and minorities make Texas Baptist Republicans seem like flaming Liberals. They got 37% of the vote. The number two party, the Salafist al-Nour party, make the Muslim Brotherhood seem like Liberals in comparison to THEM. Egypt Faces Hard Line Islamic Future So what does this say about the thinking of the Egyptian electorate?

Nobody has suggested extreme Christians aren't extremists. But what are the odds American would vote in a party led by the Phelps? Every Muslim country which has had anything approaching free elections has voted in Muslim parties which promise to rule according to the Koran. But you don't consider them or the people who voted for them to be extreme, do you? Every poll taken of sentiments in Muslim countries shows a majority have extreme antipathy towards Jews and homosexuals. But do you believe that makes the populations of those countries extreme?

Is the human body, in and of itself, obscene?

Not even to those who vote for them?

It wasn't a counter-argument. I don't disagree that the system is unfair (at least, to other religions which want state-sponsored schools), or that it's silly, or inefficient. I don't even deny it would make more sense to have a single system. So there. What I am pointing out is that you can't get rid of it. It's here to stay, and that's all there is to it. The constitutional guarantees given on confederation require a Catholic school system. That's the legalistic side of it. On the other side, you've got 30% of the population whose kids attend these schools by choice. Parents, you may have noticed, tend to get fiercely aroused when anyone threatens their kids schools. No politician in Ontario is going to anger 30% of the electorate to the point ALL of them will vote against them next election. Not without a balancing "anti" group pushing them to do it.

Indeed. But I think reality trumps wishes for fairness.

You are saying that if you walk down the street naked you won't be arrested?

People worry about their kids constantly, worry about their jobs, worry about paying the bills, worry about this or that problem the house has, worry about their health, worry about taxes, worry about the way society is going. Everyone on this site is worried about this or that direction they see the country or society following.

Human nature. I don't think the hubbie is going to want to do all the shopping, or take the kids to the doctors, or do any of the other chores their wives do.

I think you have two different standards at play. I bet you would consider a Christian who wanted this country to be run according to the tenets of the bible, and who voted for the "christian" party which would bring this about, as being an extremist. Yet, in all the recent elections in Muslim countries, the religious party won, the religious party which vows to rule according to Islam. I'm thinking you don't consider all the voters there to be extremists though, do you?

Would you not think being a part of society, would be better? Not having to sweat like a pig every time you go out in the summer wouldn't be better? Being able to meet and interact with people as a person wouldn't be better than isolation?

The authorities agree. Womens groups agree. . What exactly is my 'ilk'? And btw, I don't agree. I'm stating, however, that it is the common practice and law. And you completely ignored the point. Since the state feels it should overrule a woman's judgement "for her own good' because of the possibility that intimidation and fear will interfere with her own free choice, why would we not ban the burqua for the same reason?

They're free to do so. They have the choice. Few make use of it. But they do have the choice.

Well, by that standard, all of us live in constant fear.