Scotty

But... but... what about her humiliation!?

Got a reliable cite for that?

So if she wants to wear a thong bikini everywhere, that's okay, right?

Do you suppose a lot of slaves felt distressed when they were suddenly set free? Nobody's there to look after them any more, to feed them, to provide them with shelter. That's all on them now. Cause for a lot of distress, I would think. No doubt there will be some distress at unveiling. But it will pass quickly, and then freedom will reign.

The difference being that you can go to large cities in Muslim countries and you won't find their police departments have any groups dedicated to spousal violence, or that there are any laws about it, because spousal violence in the Muslim world is accepted as the norm and isn't punished by society.

I don't know. I'd suggest that a woman who wears them in Canada has no real future other than as an obedient housewife. In addition, you can't drive very well with them, they're heavy, stifling, and rob you of personality, of personhood, turning you into an object. As an object, children will laugh at you, and no one will voluntarily approach you. Your only friends will be within the small extremist community you belong to - which of course will help reinforce the requirement to wear the stupid things. That isn't harmful?

Even when the top mullahs and imams say it has nothing to do with religion?

But it's not religious, it's cultural and political.

You mean like how police will lay assault charges against a husband even if the wife says no, that she doesn't want that? You mean how like the state does this, and all concerned agree, because it's in her best interests, and she can't be relied on to make the proper decision due to intimidation from her husband and family? You mean like that?

The state dictates you have to wear clothes, and no one has yet come up with an adequate reply to why they shouldn't. We have to wear clothes because it offends people to not wear them. So who is to say banning the burqua because it offends is that much different?

Why don't we just accept that 'worry' is a few steps down from fear and leave it at that? People worry about their children. That doesn't mean they're in constant fear.

His argument consists of "It's not fair for Catholics to get funded". That's not a good argument. That's just an expression of unhappiness. The world is not fair. So? And you are hardly one to lecture others on proper behaviour.

No, I'm not, and logic works on anything. The logic in this case is identical, regardless of your attempts to dismiss it. Groups are judged on the overall average performance or behaviour of those groups. And that includes groups of people and groups of cars, or groups of nations. You can certainly judge a car or model of a certain year, regardless of the fact many of those cars turned out to be flawless. Likewise, you can suggest that a certain group shares similar traits, notwithstanding the certainty that this is not a universal thing.

You don't disapprove of them, then? If a guy introduced himself to you as a member of the KKK that wouldn't influence your opinion of that person?

I'm sure we would have little difficulty finding current Muslim leaders who do that. Can you describe the last Christian leader who used the bible to justify war or persecution? The interpretation of the bible has shifted drastically over the centuries and decades as western society has shifted. I don't see any mainstream Christian churches preaching hate and violence these days. The same can certainly not be said of the mosque.

I don't see how given the bill merely strengthens sentences for certain crimes. They were already crimes, and anyone breaks them is already an offender. That they aren't caught, or that they aren't punished doesn't change that.

Funny, I was just listening to the radio and the guy was going on about how the baby boomer generation doesn't plan on leaving any money to their kids. Most of them plan to use up their money traveling, enjoying life, and then, wait for it... they plan to move in with their kids. And they'll have to, because the boomer generation hasn't really put a lot of effort into saving money, and with current life expectancies they're not going to have enough to support themselves in their old age. Especially after they finish partying.

Nice contribution to the debate, guy. It's clear you put a lot of thought, effort and research into it.

And I have previously posted cites which show that the stimated cost of crime in Canada is between $50 billion and $100 billion. And that this estimate is conservative. Much of this cost is from repeat offenders. In fact, the bulk of crime as well as the bulk of prison and court costs are from repeat offenders. It seems logical that locking them up longer would actually save quite a bit of money. It might not save tax dollars, but it wills ave Canadians money, and all our money comes from the same source - us. This is a university of Ottawa study. Cost of crime to Canadians $47 billion This does not include the costs of courts or police or prisons. It also doesn't include the $11,000,000,000 spent each year in Canada on security - which is of course, because of criminals.

The Conservatives have been calling for stiffer sentences for decades. That is bedrock conservatism, and doesn't have to be invented for political strategizing.

I have seen no posts of yours which resemble those described above. Most seem to consist almost entirely of sneering attacks on the posters themselves - regardless of subject.

Commentators have been talking about the unsustainable high annual increases in health care funding for many years now. Where have you been? Health care funding has risen to the point it dwarfs all other provincial spending, rising to close to half of provincial budgets and forecast to consume two thirds of provincial budgets in coming years.

It's not politically risky, it's politically suicidal. Remember that only half the population is inspired to vote in the first place. You want to start out by attacking the school system of 30% of the electorate? That's 30% trooping out to the polls to vote against you. And what do you get on the plus side? Not a lot. There isn't an awful lot of sentiment out there among non-Catholics to ban Catholic schools. And what there is of it isn't strongly held.

No, most parents send their kids to Catholic schools because, aside from the religious curriculum, which is not mandatory, the schools are considered to teach values and instill a sense of discipline which is often absent in the public system.

It doesn't target gays, but I think the argument is that for all the 'gay friendly' agenda of the public schools it hasn't seemed to have made a damned bit of difference to the attitudes youths have about gays.