Melanie_

Jefferiah, you make some interesting points, and state your case well. I appreciate your willingness to engage in reasoned and intelligent debate. But you need to realize that the statements you quoted at the beginning of this thread are not representative of feminism today, and don't define what the feminist perspective is. Feminism is simply about women and men having the same opportunities, with no gender barriers. I've seen so many advances in this respect in my life, and I think that today's young women don't really understand what it took to get them to the point they are at - they are free to reject their understanding of "feminism" because feminism has come so far. And I celebrate that. Your concern seems to be about abortion; why should your tax dollars go to fund something you disagree with? Catch Me is right on this, though. Abortion might not be something you agree with, but once we start limiting medical procedures based on individual's beliefs in their merit, rather than on medical determination, we open the debate on many different procedures that could also be argued against. Its the slippery slope arguement.

I thought it was mildly funny, some of the jokes made me laugh. The characters were safe, archetypal, exactly what you expected from a show like this. The show will eventually simply revolve around the relationship between the young hot Imam and the smart Canadian born daughter, if it lasts beyond the first few episodes.

I don't. They had to boost the middle income tax rate by (if I remember correctly) .5% to do it. And the GST is a good tax because it, for the most part, taxes luxuries. People with little money pay little GST because it doesn't apply to their mortgage, their groceries, or their insurance. Once those things are paid, there isn't much left. Besides, changing sales taxes willy-nilly plays havoc with cash register systems and throws a wrench in retail efficiency. Better to leave it alone and lower the income tax rate. That way everybody is sure to benefit. And Streisand was very hot back in her Funny Girl days. And Evergreen is a very underrated song. It was the lowest income tax rate that they increased, making the poorest people pay more in their income tax; these are also the people who benefit the least from a cut to the GST because they spend the bulk of their money on necessities not taxed by the GST. Harper's policies tend to favour the rich rather than the poor, as we discussed back in the Klein thread way back in November.

Men don't babysit their own kids - they parent them. Career interruptions happen, and will certainly have an impact on future earnings. But employers who factor in the possibility of pregnancy occuring sometime in the future, and base their hiring decisions on this, are discriminating on the basis of gender. Whatever may or may not occur in the future, you have to hire the candidate who presents the best combination of education and experience for the job. I ran a business for a couple of years, varying between 10 - 14 employees; as a woman, I could never justify basing my hiring decisions on an assumption of what they might do sometime down the road. Maybe if more women were in the position of making the hiring decisions, we wouldn't see as much gender discrimination based solely on speculation. (Hypocritical, perhaps, but we could give it a shot and see how it works.)

Sexuality shouldn't be an issue in a workplace; what business is it of anyone's coworkers what their sexual orientation is? Your view of homosexuality is irrelevent in this environment. If you made an issue of it (and I suspect you might), you should be concerned about your job security.

Ding ding ding! You guessed it, the bible was written by men. Very swarthy arabic men. At least the majority of it. Ah, but what did they do with each other? Yet patriarchy hasn't worked out so well - another argument against intelligent design.

I'm going to suspend my disbelief for just a moment, and pretend that there is a supreme being who created humanity. Isn't the primary view that God created man in his image?* Is sexuality not included? Sexuality is a defining characteristic of each of us - would God not embrace each variation that is found in his creations? *Note: I'm also suspending my compulsion to point out patriarchical stereotypes. Or maybe not.

Does this make you our new leader?

Army Guy, I'm glad to see that you are enjoying the holidays with your family. Thanks also for taking the time to post a message here - its good to know you are safe. (The anonymity of the Internet means that you find yourself worrying about people without any way of knowing whether you should in fact be worrying.)

When I broke my ankle three years ago, I got to the hospital at around 7:30 am on a Monday. They gave me a room fairly quickly, and told me they would be taking me up for surgery for the pins and plates. That surgery didn't happen until Wednesday around noon. Now, I did receive medical care in the meantime, and maybe my surgery wasn't the most pressing need the hospital faced, but I wonder how much it cost to keep me there for the extra 2 days, rather than just getting the surgery done and getting me out of there. They weren't keeping me there for my winning personality, that's for sure!

Kennedy's time is yet to come.

I wasn't implying you were, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was - I had no intent to offend you. I actually meant to agree with you that religion can be a force for good, with an example of the person whose personal faith I most respect. If more people just lived their faith honestly, without trying to convince others that their version is the correct one, religion could be an even greater force for good.

I am not a follower of any religion - I personally think it is a delusion that provides comfort to those who choose to be comforted. However, I have a colleague who is a devout Jew, and her faith and practice is a testament to the positive power religion can have in a person's life. When she spoke of the preparations for her daughter's recent Bat Mitzvah, I was genuinely moved by the attention to detail and the meaning behind each element of the ceremony and celebrations. There is nothing empty or superficial in her faith, but at the same time she recognizes that it is her faith, and doesn't try to impose it on anyone else.

An update.... 8 Marines charged in Iraqi civilian massacre

Lets not forget that the application for social assistance was in 2003; she must have really been thinking ahead when she didn't change her name in 1994. Ricki Bobbi, when you ask why she applied for social assistance, you can find your answer in MikeDavid00's signature. The family's savings were depleted after the detainment, and Arar was unable to work. MikeDavid, you may not have come right out and said she was cheating the system, but you implied it and continue to imply it without any basis but your unwavering antagonism towards this family. bk59, I appreciate your support, but I think we are wasting our time trying to discuss this with these two. This will be my last post in this thread.

But you have seen evidence about your *drive by smear* comment? Smooth attempt at changing the subject. Yes, I was wrong when I suggested she hadn't applied for social assistance. She obviously did, as has been pointed out. But I don't think it had anything to do with her last name, or with a deliberate attempt to cheat the system by not disclosing her marital status. Her situation was irrelevent to the discussion of abuses of the system.

So there is no credence to your "drive by smear" *implication* but you can neither admit your mistake nor give up the partisanship long enough to refrain from becoming shrill. tsk tsk tsk I'm completely open to admitting a mistake. But I haven't seen any evidence yet that supports this statement If she applied for social assistance while concealing her marriage in a deliberate attempt to cheat the system, I'll happily apologize to MikeDavid for doubting him.

No I don't. I find joy in proving myself right, which I have a history of doing here on this forum. Well, you certainly convince yourself that you are right, anyway.

A blushing Grandma responds (although my premarital sex days were in the early 80s) ..... I wonder at the numbers - the article is talking about the days before birth control was widely available, and the fear of having an unexpected pregnancy was presumably a big deterrent.

So she applied for social assistance after the deportation. As Saturn pointed out, she had a lot of other pressing issues at the time. However, you implied that the reason she didn't change her name when she got married was so that she could engage in welfare fraud - do you have any evidence of that? If not, I'll repeat - you are grasping at straws. *Edited to add* I have seen the signature. It is mean spirited and petty. Do you really find joy in others' tragedy?

I'm curious who else you would like to refuse medical care to. Should only the people who have paid into it have access? What about a child who has never held a job, or someone who is too physically or mentally disabled to have paid employment? Maybe your solution is to ship them off to Syria, too.

Is there any evidence that Arar's wife applied for social assistance, or is this just a drive by smear? Women who don't take their husband's name when they marry do so for many reasons. For some, its the confusion of changing everything once they are established in their careers, for others it is because the names just sound silly together, for others it is because their name is a personal identity that they choose not to give up. There are many cultures that don't follow the patriarchal practice of women taking on their husband's name, and this may in fact be why Monia Mazigh retains her given name. You are just grasping at straws now.

Get this, MikeDavid. True story, I swear to God (although I suspect you might think it is "unreal"). Today, right across Canada, thousands of immigrants went to their jobs, worked productively, paid their taxes, and made positive contributions to the economy and society in general.

You haven't provided any facts. You have provided "quotes" but with no context of where they came from or who wrote them (other than a 13 year old reference to the Toronto Star). They are obviously written with no intention of objectivity This statement alone is enough to discredit the speaker. MikeDavid, maybe this should be continued in a new thread? We don't seem to be discussing the same sex marriage defeat anymore.

Don't you live in Harper's riding? Sorry, I'd rather see Kennedy in the House of Commons than simply run to make a statement. You can come to Winnipeg to help with the campaign, though! Winnipeg South just barely went to the Conservatives last time, and Rod Broonuige isn't much of an MP so far; he ran a good campaign, but has been basically invisible ever since. I get more information from Steven Fletcher, the Conservative MP for Charleswood, than from Broonuige (not sure why Fletcher can't figure out where the boundaries of his riding are, though).