Melanie_

I've never been to Brazil, but it sounds like a truly multicultural country to me! Open to many cultures, and accepting of the new cultural milieu created. Immigration to Brazil

I agree! Where do I go to vote?

But I could collect voter cards too, from disinterested white women, and go and vote multiple times at multiple polling stations. If it is against my rights to be asked for photo ID if I have a voter's card, why wouldn't it also be against theirs?

How hard can it be to have a female polling officer at each polling station? Is that really a stretch?

You're right, Betsy, respecting others isn't something that anyone can be forced to do. Carry on.

No one is asking to be above the law. They would still have to show their faces in order to vote. They just don't have to show it to everyone, just a female polling officer.

That shows the level of respect a Muslim woman can expect from you, Betsy. On another note... Hijab Burqa Niqab

When I vote, I present ID, show my voter's registration card, and have my name and address stroked off a list. This prevents me from voting more than once. I doubt very much that the polling officer would recognize me if I came back again later, even if it were the same polling officer, but s/he could easily determine I had already voted by checking my name on the list. Someone who wants to bring fake ID and someone else's voting card probably could do so without having to cover their faces. I agree with Drea; let Muslim women who wear the niqab show their faces to a female polling officer. If there isn't one present, they can wait until there is. All it takes is for one polling officer to verify their identity before they vote.

The expenses of the Governor General and Liuetenants General are covered by Canada, and abolishing the monarchy in Canada would end those offices, saving Canadians the huge sums of money I am talking about. A good enough reason to get rid of it.

The PM's power is not associated with the monarchy - the GG is the representative of the Queen in Canada. My point is that, as Canadians, we should support the freedom of religion of our head of state. I don't really care if it is a ceremonial position or a true position of power - the position itself is still the highest position in Canada, and sets a standard for the rest of us. Either extend all the rights the rest of Canadians enjoy, including freedom of religion, or get rid of it entirely. Or are you saying that figureheads don't have the same rights as the rest of us? But I do agree with you, the role of the monarchy is really nothing more than ceremonial, and serves no true purpose other than wasting huge sums of money.

Leafless, I don't think you really understand. This has nothing to do with Britain. The Queen, and her successors, are the head of state of Canada (represented by the Governor General and the various Lieutenant Generals), which means Britain's Royal Family is also Canada's Royal Family. We need Royal Assent to every bill passed by our House of Commons. Peter Phillips is 10th in line to the throne of Canada - England notwithstanding. If we truly support freedom of religion in this country we will support Peter Phillips marriage to a Roman Catholic (or any other denomination or religion) without penalizing him by denying him his standing in succession to the throne. OR (my preference), we will say that the monarchy is outdated and not relevent to Canada, and ditch the entire institution.

Are you condoning the "violent scuffle"? Excusing it because it was "youth"? I wonder if you would excuse someone else contravening the Young Offenders Act so easily (yes, I know the original post dealt with an incident in Sweden, but the spirit of condemnation or acceptance can be extended to Canada). The actions of sports hooligans doesn't mean that religious hooligans are exempt from criticism. I don't see the support of gay rights in this context to be extreme. Freedom of expression is an inherent right in our society. It is the actions of the gay bashers that are in question here.

Clearly, you weren’t clear at all, but that is nothing new. On another note, the Queen of Canada doesn’t follow the advice of her British ministers with regards to Canada. And this is the salient point. Restricting the head of state of Canada on the basis of religion is counter to the values we hold as a nation. The pecking order is irrelevant – if William tomorrow were to want to marry a Catholic, or a Muslim, or an athiest for that matter, and were restricted from doing so because it would interfere with the succession, that is a violation of his (and his potential spouse's) freedom of religion, and that is something most Canadians would be vehemently opposed to. Is this the standard we want our head of state held to? As an independent nation, if we aren’t prepared to say that we reject the monarchy outright, we should be prepared to say that we don’t require Peter Phillips to renounce his claim to the throne of Canada. If he should eventually make his way to the top of the succession line, Canada will embrace him as our head of state, even if Britain will not. Let them sort out the details of their religious intolerance. {edited for spelling - a glass of wine will do that to me!)

Are you saying that we have to go to war once in a while just for the practice?

Sure you were. Any comment on seperating church and state, or does popularity trump that value?

Hahahahaha - I love the politically ignorant comment, particularly because it follows this statement: Queen Elizabeth II is the successor of her father, King George VI. The Queen Mother was his consort, but never the monarch in her own right. Did you read your own link? I believe in freedom of (and from) religion, so in my view the head of state of Canada should be able to hold any personal religion they choose without having to give up their claim to the throne. Alternatively, lets get rid of the monarchy altogether in Canada.

Isn't the Queen Mother dead? Anyway... To truly seperate church and state, Canada's head of state can't have a religious prerequisite. I think this is a perfect oppportunity to really examine why we still hold on to the monarchy in this country, and perhaps finally get rid of it.

The police and the Event Manager of the fair both have said they are unaware of any incident taking place. The gay group that was there has said they weren't involved (not quoted in my post, but if you follow the link you will see that they have denied any interaction with the other group). We have had many discussions about gay rights and tolerance on this board, and will likely have many more. I have no issue with beginning another discussion, and I would certainly not condone the actions being alleged, if they can be substantiated. But if this is just a case of making up a story to stir anger on a Christian website, with no factual basis, then there is a bigger issue about tolerance to discuss.

There was nothing abstract about your opening post. It recounted events as fact, and I looked, unsuccessfully, for another perspective on this story. Was your opening post meant to be fiction, simply to provoke discussion? If so, then I am quite happy to discuss, in theory, the potential for conflict between gays and non gays, and the varying levels of tolerance that can be expected from "normal" people.

And I just want to be sure we are discussing actual events.

Who are you referring to as "normal"? People who don't support gay rights? Obviously your own view is less than "two way" or tolerant. EDIT I did some looking around on the net, including the Arlington County newspaper, and this is the only mention I could find of this incident. Box Turtle I have no previous experience with this site, so it could be just as disreputable as LifeSiteNews, but here's what they had to say. One of the links you can follow from the site, though, has this to say Ex Gay Watch Can you verify with an independent source that this even happened , fcgv?

Your use of the word "choice" is incorrect. and I'm wondering what rights you see gays asking for that are not also granted to heterosexuals? American Psychological Association

MikeDavid, that was easily the most insensitive and disgusting post you have made on this forum. We all know how anti-immigrant you are, but using this tragedy to push your racist agenda is beyond belief. Grow up.

Good for Amnesty International for supporting women in trauma rather than pandering to an out dated and repressive religion.

Susie was the kid in this analogy, but anyway.... You've made quite a leap in logic there, Moxie! I didn't see any mention of social programs for polygamists, other than your assumption that they will go on social assistance. How is that different from a monogomous family on social assistance, by the way? And can you explain what you mean by "Contrary to their lack of beliefs Canadians are sick of the weak, lame and perverted in the name of tolerance." Whose lack of beliefs are you talking about? And what have you got against the weak and lame?