Scotty

I picked up a package at the local Canada post outlet at the mall the other day. The clerk wanted to see photo ID. When I got a bank account they wanted to see photo ID. When I got my passport they wanted to see photo ID. I have to show my photo Id at work every morning when I go in the door. I find it ludicrous that women in bedsheets can get on buses without showing their faces. You honestly don't think they take advantage of that by passing one bus pass back and forth among them? And btw, the closest I've ever come to a bad accident was when driving down the street in the outside lane, at some speed, and a car full of these women in bedsheets pulled out from a gas station and kept right on going out into the outer lane right in front of me. I had to jam on the brakes and my squealing tires stopped about five feet from the side door of their car while these stupid masked women stared out at me.

Of course women are judged on their looks. As are men. You don't think so? Have a look at really attractive men, and you'll see that women are all over them in much the same way men lust after attractive women. You don't think such men get 'objectified'? Please!

I think society has an interest in discouraging cultural backwardness and ignorance.

It's not that I don't like the veil - although I don't - it's more that I don't like what it represents, the mindset of religious fanaticism and ignorance behind it. That's what makes my lip curl. And I would feel just as contemptuous of anyone from any other religion under the same circumstances. Those fanatical Jews in Israel, for example, the Haredim. They don't wear scarves. They wear other religious costumes. But really, what bugs me is that they're so backward and ignorant, and yet so self-righteous and smugly superior about their backwardness and ignorance.

And how does that explain the young Canadian Muslims embracing Islamist thinking, and putting on these religious costumes even though they were born in Canada and their parents aren't demanding it?

It excludes people who entirely disagree with its position on the issue at hand. You think Harper should have taken Layton and Martin along to the last G20?

Refusing to pay their way does not equal 'banning' them. Their party could have sent them. They didn't rig anything. The Tories have always been the best at raising money from their large base - in small donations. The Liberals used to get most of their money in large cheques from wealthy elites and corporations. But it was the Liberals themselves who banned large donations. Chretien screwed over his own party to get back at Martin. This is idiocy. Elections Canada decides where new seats will go based entirely on population trends.

They were brought as part of the team. The opposition is not, by definition, part of the team.

It's actually the way things work. The government of Canada consists of the bureaucracy, and the governing party, and even then mostly just the cabinet ministers, not the opposition.

They were not going to do government business but to oppose the government business. They wanted to go so they could strike a political pose which would help them win votes among the mushy brained left back at home. Why should we pay for that?

There were tons of NGOs there. Nothing was stopping them from going and taking part.

I disagree entirely. Those who say he "banned" them don't understand how government works. They were not accepted as part of the government delegation. Hardly surprising since they completely oppose the government's position. Why should the government pay their dime to go over there? What was it they wanted to accomplish as opposition MPs there? Criticize Canada? Interact with their fellow international socialists? They wanted to go for crass political reasons. They were no part of the government group. Don't the NDP get a budget as official opposition? Doesn't the party have money? If they wanted to send people over there purely for political purposes they should have paid their way.

Once again, this is once known as a logical fallacy. You presume that because the numbers of women aren't equal to their numbers in the population there isn't equality of opportunity. It apparently hasn't occurred to you that the desire to enter politics may not manifest itself equally in both men and women. For example, the police forces try mightily to recruit Asians, women, and others but the reason they have to TRY so hard, unlike with men, is that women, Asians, and a number of other groups, have very little collective desire to be police constables. Likewise, women have less willingness to enter the greasy world of politics than men.

Apparently not the one where Hillary Clinton nearly became President, and mostly lost because so much of the liberal let was enthralled with the idea of a Black candidate.

Thus demonstrating that not only do you know know anything about Nazis you don't know anything about ad hominems.

Buddy, you gave up the right to complain about personal attacks when you started screaming Nazi...

My apologies, then. In 99% of the cases I've seen where "Nazi" epithets are flung around so eagerly and easily it's coming from the far Left. Then again, maybe you just have a lot more in common with the far Left than you thought.

If you can't tell the difference between a megalomaniac mass-murderer and someone who merely expresses discomfort or even prejudice at what is, to our culture, bizarre foreign costumes then I question whether you could possibly understand the book.

I'm suggesting that comparing someone to Nazis because they don't like women to have their faces covered is stupid.

You apparently frighten very easily. Maybe you should hide yourself under a bed sheet whenever you go outside to help shut the world away...

My God, it takes little to impress you! Do you sit, awestruck, as you watch the byproducts of your last meal disappear down the toilet, at the wonder and majesty of plumbing?

Ah, quite simple. I was pointing out that you have no logic behind your statement, and so you didn't actually show him he was wrong. You assume, that simple because certain ethnic groups in the past assimilated, that this particular ethic group will assimilate as well. This seems to be based upon your belief that all groups can be assimilated with equal ease. That has not been shown to be the case. This particular group has different circumstances. It exists in a different time period, with constant communication, television, telephone, videos and travel between their homelands and Canada, for example. to help reinforce their sense of self. Modern travel also makes it quite easy for parents to send their children home to get their mates. The economic disparity between Canada and their homelands, moreover, makes it profitable to do so as parents in those third world countries will pay a premium to get their child married to someone with a Canadian passport. And, of course, the fact is these are members of very religious, non-Christian group with an entirely different language (ie, not one with any correlation with modern European languages, and even a foreign character set. How many of those have we easily assimilated in the past?

Even were your diagnosis based on anything more than a childish desire to insult me, the logical fallacy in your assumption is very clear. Not that logic plays much of a part in your postings, of course. Oooo! Ooo! It's a Nazi! It's a Nazi! It's under my bed! Help me! Help me! PHhhtttt! You clearly don't have the first clue what a Nazi is.

It offends cultural beliefs. Just like people covering their faces in scarves or sheets. People relate to each other as members of the community through common interactions and associations. Those interactions are frustrated when all you're seeing is a black ghost with a pair of eyes peering out of peep holes. Such women are, in effect, excluding themselves from being a part of society.

It's the same thing in that men are trapped in the same cultural role, regardless of their ability to fulfill it. Women are expected to be, and try their very best to be, hot and beautiful. Men are expected to be rugged, and macho -- while at the same time being sensitive and sweet. I think the women have it easier, frankly. Men aren't dismissed as whores or skanks for failing to properly fulfil their roles. They're dismissed as wimps and pussies -- by women looking for rugged 'cut' men with washboard abs and broad shoulders.