Scotty

Well, I can't say I'm all that impressed by their work performance as taxi drivers or cleaners - the only two groups of Muslim workers I'm personally familiar with.

We had a Jehovah's Witness in our group once. We continued to have birthday celebrations. We just didn't invite her, or pass the birthday card to her to sign. If her goofy religion says it's a sin to celebrate a birthday or whatever, well, no one suggested she go against it. But we sure weren't going to all stop celebrating birthdays, one of the things which produced a great family type atmosphere among the group, because of her. We also continued to have Christmas lunches, etc. Was she excluded? Sure, but it was a self-exclusion. Sensitivity is nice, but stopping a whole group from taking part in a pleasant and enjoyable activity because of one religious nut is idiotic. And I don't care what the religion is.

What personal traits immigrants bring depends on the immigrants. For every good trait there's probably two or three I don't like. Neat. First you diminish the concerns of everyone as unimportant, then you tell them to shut up and go complain to 'your Conservative Party' about it. And here I thought this was a discussion forum.

But that isn't the case here. Europe, and France and England in particular, have actually gone far further towards accommodations and compromises for Muslims and minorities than Canada has. There laws against discrimination or offensive behavior based on race or religion are FAR more stringent than ours, as are their efforts at adjusting their institutions and behaviour so as to not offend. The results speak for themselves. Complete failure. So when I see people moving in that direction, however well-intentioned, I look at Europe and wonder why, given those methods failed there, people think they will have a better effect here. No one ever really answers that.

I think it was mentioned that one of the means of accommodation was to avoid serving refreshments, or avoid having meetings in areas where there was food during Ramadan... I'm not saying this wouldn't be a sensitive thing to do, but imho that would be over the line. I would feel equally unhappy about a suggestion we can't serve refreshments unless there are kosher foods available in order to accommodate Jewish dietary rules. I'm not particularly religious. Do whatever you want on your own time but don't let it interfere with my time.

These are, for the most part, cultural holidays, which have religious origins. I don't know about you, but I don't think chocolate Easter bunnies and fat men in red suits riding sleighs are particularly religious.

I think there's a substantial moral difference between executing a murderer and executing a woman for adultery, or a Tibetan for protesting against Chinese government rule.

I don't think they're scared of it. They just don't pay any attention to it. Most of them are simply responding, in knee-jerk fashion, to whatever they see on their TVs. Since Chinese human rights violations aren't shown on their TVs, it doesn't exist and doesn't really bother them. Same goes for Iran or North Korea or whatever. But they get live pictures of Israel and the territories all the time.

English is difficult for you?

Their ad campaign is clearly in support of the McGuinty Liberals. It's a quid pro quo which the Liberals get in return for all the favours and money they've directed to the teachers unions over the years. I wonder how many on the Left would shrug about it if instead of unions some big, right wing corporation was funding millions in advertising to help the Conservatives. They'd be screaming bloody murder, and everyone knows it.

Personally, if my group meeting regularly had (as some do) muffins, or timbits and juice, and these were cancelled for a month because one of the members was a Muslim, I think that would tend to actually produce hostility and negative thoughts and behavior towards that Muslim member. I'm not against being sensitive, but in no way do I think my behaviour ought to be forced to alter because of the religious sensitivities of someone else.

Would you care to enlighten us about how Bob's comments are against the rules? I just checked the rules, you see, and there's nothing in them about objecting, in an admittedly politically incorrect fashion, to things like the body odor of Muslim women in burquas or or men washing their feet or whatnot. Just because you find the comment objectionable that does not make it against forum rules. In fact, I see nothing in the rules about making racist statements. So even if one can interpret Bob's words as being racist or bigoted that is not, as far as I can see, against the rules either. If I'm wrong, please show me the particular clause. Furthermore, you've completely ignored a number of insults directed at Bob, notably by BD and Rick. Why is that? These are fairly clear violations of forum rules.

Oh suddenly you're worried about forum rules. Funny how you've not noticed the number of open and clear insults on this topic. Perhaps because they're coming from your side of the fence... Do forum rules only count when you don't like the political stance or ideological views of the person in question?

They are? On what basis are they given extra time off? Do they have to make it up on other days? Otherwise, I'm going to join whatever religion has the most holidays so I can get more time off work...

I'm sure that makes him reeeal proud.

Really? Where? When? How?

And yet, if someone complains about accommodating Muslim beliefs, even silly ones, both of you turn into knee-jerk politically correct stormtrooper outrage mode. I don't even have to wonder what either of you PC zealots would say if someone said "Well, if those Muslims don't like it they can just fuck off to their other country".

Would you like to enlighten us about what this 'pandering to Joooos' consists of?

I should start collecting some of your quotes. It's like, every week they get dumber and dumber. I'm wondering if there is some level or if they're in competition with someone or what...

What I find amusing is you're responding to yourself -- and you're right, you've introduced no facts and no debate.

I think he was talking about laws which banned Black people from not being able to vote, not laws that banned potheads from puffing away at their favorite entertainment device.

Nonsense. I realize to the far Left, any money the government doesn't take is somehow lost, but the fact was that the government was taking too much in taxes. All the Conservatives did was cut taxes somewhat so the government took less. There has been a suggestion by some that the government would have been in a recession that final year even if not for the recession and big incentive spending, but that was never born out. Perhaps. If they had been, they'd have been in big trouble with conservative supporters and would have had to act quickly to reverse it.

Not sure if I used tomatoes or not. But whatever. The point I was making was that pot is either an addiction (you claim otherwise) or a hobby. If you choose to ignore the law because you're so desperate to get at your 'hobby' you shouldn't bitch and whine if the law catches you up for it. Sure, you can complain about the law existing, but to go do it anyway, even though you risk jail, well, that's just flat out hillbilly dumb. You're, as usual, putting things upside down and ass backwards. Conservatives aren't kowtowing to what the government wants on crime. The government is responding to what conservatives want on crime. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious by now. Conservatives, either small c or not, don't like criminals, especially the kind who are a threat to us and our homes and families.

While I agree that some of the contents of the omnibus bill are political, I don't think all of it is, and I think some of it holds great value.

While I haven't made a study of it or anything, I've heard an awful lot of negatives about domestic abuse laws, as well, along the lines of they treat everyone like children, ignore what both sides say and what both sides want, and substitute society's judgement on what is best for society rather than what is best for the family concerned. I'm talking about such things as automatic arrests with any sign of violence, however slight, regardless of what the 'victim' says, and making it very easy to remove an alleged abusing spouse from a house without any trial or even substantive evidence. Basically, if a woman says her male partner abused her he's arrested and banned from the house, and it really doesn't matter what he says or wants. From what I've heard, most of this category of law is ideologically based and starts from the presumption the male partner must be guilty because he's male. That's what I've picked up from a variety of media reports anyway.