Scotty

I assure you that if mobs of them start attacking people on the street they'll be called out for it.

You don't think that might be because of that/those group's particular behavior patterns?

While I don't necessarily disagree, my point is that even with underage people I'd prefer the court be able to have some leeway in deciding how serious the situation was rather than automatically relegating the older partner to a minimum of 5 years in prison.

Completely and utterly different, but sure, the stories both had vowels and consonents and so, I guess, baiscally the same thing.

That wasn't me. It didn't identify the woman nor feature her picture. It was a complaint about the police not acting properly against radical elements. Not the same thing by a long shot.

Are you saying religions aren't the cause of certain problems? Are you saying that anyone complaining about any group of people is 'trying to demonize them'?

I think you need to look at the picture of the 16 year old and then look up the definition of pedophile. The word for a man who is attracted to a girl like that is 'normal' not pedophile. Pedophiles are people interested in pre-pubescent children. I agree it's no longer considered normal. That does not mean that a relationship between people of differing ages can't be mutually beneficial and non-exploitative. Not all 15 year olds are naive children and not all 24 year olds are brilliant and conniving cads. As to the actor, I think both are exploiting each other. He is exploiting her for sex while she is exploiting him for money and help in kick starting her career. I think it's is a mutually consensual type of exploitation, and if her parents are okay with it I'm not about to put him in prison for 5 years.

Well, you didn't really break it given your link does nothing for your argument. Let me say from the start that I'm sure there are all sorts of things said in the Jewish texts about women that would be controversial, as there are in the bible. What I want is some sort of continuing public, institutional discrimination based on menstruation which shows women have to be ostracized once a month. There is, to my knowledge, no prohibition on Jewish women praying or attending temple. Do you have anything which says there is?

People seem to forget that throughout most of our history young women were married off at 14, 15, and 16, often to men in their thirties and forties. This was considered quite normal as parents of these girls wanted men who were successful, had property, and could support and sustain a family. Men, on the other hand, wanted young, healthy women who could bear many children. I would be suspicious of a relationship between, say, a 23 year old and a 15 year old. However, there have been many such relationships which have been quite healthy and long-lasting, and are no more exploitative than any other kind. I think the point is that such a thing needs to be assessed as to whether it is or is not exploitative and harmful before a punishment can be properly decided. Forcing a mandatory jail term on the older partner serves no useful purpose and can be extremely harmful to an otherwise perfectly normal and harmless person. Who is exploiting who in this relationship? 51 year old actor marries 16 year old aspiring singer

You simply don't know much about me and my views on justice because your view of me is shaped by my demand for stiffer penalties. However, if the penalties were too stiff, in my opinion, I'd be leaning in the other direction. There are a lot of pretty harsh, draconian sentences for non violent offenses in the US which appall me, for example. And I would not want to go that way.

What do you mean you already pointed it out? You said it. That's not the same thing as actually supplying the slightest backup. We know that officially, these girls were not permitted to take part in the prayer because that is the rule for Muslims, and so widespread it's accepted without controversy -- by Muslims, at least. Doing a web search seems to show this is pretty much standard fare. I also did a web search looking for similar Jewish rules and found nothing.

Bill C54 I had a look at the proposed bill. I find it somewhat disturbing, to be honest. I generally support minimum sentences mainly in the case of violent crime. The wide array of sex crimes against underage persons, though, has me doubtful about the wisdom of minimum sentences because so much of it is open to interpretation as to the motivation of the perpetrator and the consent of the victim. At the same time as our culture massively sexualizes teenagers, in popular culture, in fashion, in music, the politicians continue to make it more and more illegal to so much as glance in the direction of a teenager! I note in the bill that the minimum sentence for 'accessing child pornography' is to be six months in prison. Do we really want to take an otherwise law-abiding person and put them in prison for six months because they went to a web site and saw a picture of a naked sixteen year old? I mean, given it's perfectly legal to actually have sex with that sixteen year old, does this make sense?? I note a minimum sentence for incest with a person 16 or under is to be 5 years in prison. Now at first glance you'd say a father who abuses his underage child OUGHT to go away for a long period of time. But let's remember that the greatest amount of incest which is committed is between siblings and is often consensual. Under Canadian law, incest is defined as having a sexual relationship with a sibling (including half-sibling), child/parent or grandchild/grandparent. So if an 18 year old has consensual sex with his 16 year old half sister, that is incest under the law. Do we really want to lock him up for 5 years? Another law is sexual assault against a person under 16. I'm certainly in favour of heavy, heavy penalties for rape, but let's remember that sexual assault can be everything from rape to grabbing a girl's butt. Now while I'd say it's wrong to grab a 15 year old's ass, regardless of what bikini she's wearing, I don't think a minimum 1 year sentence should be imposed for those doing it. I don't think some drunk who grabs an ass needs to be locked up for a year because the ass in question was under 16. These minimums, given the nature of the crimes strike me as an invitation to horrible injustices in some cases. Especially given that none of our laws regard it as a defense that they thought the person was of age, or that the person looked of age, or that the person claimed they were of age.

Are you under the illusion that all new Canadians are Muslims? The Tories have made a lot of progress among some new Canadians, but principally Asians, and in particular, Indians. Muslims don't trust or like the Tories because of their support for Israel and for anti-terrorism legislation and cooperation with the US.

They are not prohibited by the rule of the temple from going to temple or from praying, regardless of what some individuals might think. If there are any institutional sanctions I am unaware of them.

Do Jews ostracize women when they have their period? If not, why would you think they ought to be 'called out' on this subject?

I came across this extraordinary picture on the main page of the National Post the other day. It's still there, and I still find it odd, and query what the thinking is behind it. It's a not very flattering picture of a white supremacist, and the headline is "A Hater Among Us". It is basically a pretty shallow portrait of a white supremacist of no particular importance who has a blog - which is followed by all of 8 people. He makes no particularly shocking statements (given he's a white supremacist) and no threats. In fact, he states he's completely against the kind of stuff the wack job in Norway did. He has a record of some kind, but we're not told what it is, or anything else about him. As I said, as a piece of journalism it's pretty shallow. And so I'm thinking -- what the hell is this story doing in a major newspaper anyway? What purpose does it serve? Well, to begin with, it makes this nobody a somebody. A guy with a blog followed by 8 people is now elevated to someone of national interest. I wonder how many will be following his blog after this. I'm guessing more than 8. Is the Post trying to bring together white supremacists so they can form a larger group or something? On the other side of the ledger, is the Post trying to get this guy killed? One presumes that his particular political views are largely unknown and that, presuming he wears a shirt, he can walk about like any normal person. Does he now have to fear being recognized and attacked on the street for his views? Is the Post trying to, by raising the specter of the white supremacists, scare Canadians into embracing multiculturalism? What? I just don't get the thinking behind this story. A Hater Among Us

You said that treating young girls like that was extremist and akin to the Taliban. I pointed out that this is the way the whole Muslim world treats young girls and now you're frantically back-pedaling. Your words are pretty clear. 2.I don't think Muslims who believe women who are mentruating are unclean can be described as hillbilly yokels...That's an insult to hillbilly yokels!!! I think "The Taliban" is a better term...Bloodthirsty Islamofascists might be a better one.. So since the entire Muslim world thinks menstruating women are unclean then the entire Muslim world is made up of Islamofascists. Your words.

Muslims don't vote for the Conservative Party. They vote Liberal and NDP. What we want is justice. That means we don't want a slap on the wrist for criminals, but nor does it mean we'd tolerate having the wrist cut off either. Is the idea people would support fundamental justice so odd to your black and white view of the world?

You keep changing the goal posts. Now I need to show that Muslims are a 'net minus' to Canada, an ill-defined term, at best. Are you talking about economics, social unrest, crime, or what? For my part, all I'm saying is the people described in the article are not Canadians, as far as I'm concerned, and such people should never have been allowed into Canada to begin with. And I rather doubt many people I know (you apparently live in a different strata) would disagree with that.

How few is few? You're falling into the same old gambit of narrowing the problem to just terrorists, and absolving everyone else of blame, even if they support virtually everything the terrorists believe in, including Sharia law -- and that females menstruating are unclean and are forbidden to be in holy places or pray. Is it only a few who believe women should be hidden under bedsheets, or at the very least must hide their hair, lest its magic rays drive men insane with lust (Former Iranian President explaining why women must cover up their hair). Seems to me, this is more than a 'few'. Didn't a poll a few years back state that something like 40% of Canadian Muslims basically had the same religious and social based beliefs as terrorists, other than the violence to bring them about? Ok. But you don't have anything to offer other than you own basic tastes in people. I actually meet very few Canadians who don't share my tastes. In fact, in my neighbourhood -- I'm a liberal. Even the people I know who are very much on the Left of the political persuasion seem to have to bite their tongues when the talk is about Muslims and their social beliefs. The Reform Party was in favour of deep cuts to immigration because it was a grass roots party which cared about what people thought. Harper is a pragmatist who cares about power, and since he can't get Quebecers to vote for an Anglo that means courting the immigrant vote.

I would say that the people lead a better lifestyle in most Western European countries than Americans do (or Canadians) due to their more cohesive, cooperative societies. The rat race is far slower there, and people have more time for their families and to enjoy life.

By 'historical data' you mean, of course, the period since reunification. I wonder what would have happened to the U.S. economy in 1990 if it had absorbed a country with a population of fifty million people whose industries and infrastructure were two generations behind the rest of the country, and whose people were not trained in modern, technical employment skills. Prior to that the Germans had to institute a guest worker program because they had such high employment they didn't have enough people to supply their voracious industrial machine.

who ordered the arrest after Gibbons did not respond to their requests to obey the injunction and leave the area. I rarely feel sympathy for grossly stupid people.

And yet Americans will tell you, in all seriousness, that their taxes are way too high now, and that increasing taxes would simply destroy the economy. When you suggest to them that Germans pay far more in taxes, get far better 'entitlement's and yet have a booming economy with low unemployment and high manufacturing, they'll just shut it out because it doesn't blend in with their weirdass mindset.

Almost anyone would have been. But then Americans went and voted in a pack of backwoods Republican 'tards who made it almost impossible to govern.