DogOnPorch Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Yes, but our demographics have always changed. Canada hasn't changed much otherwise. Actually, our demographics were also remarkably stable. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 We've always had a large influx of immigrants though. I don't think that we're going to lose who we are. There will be those who will never forget. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 We've always had a large influx of immigrants though. I agree. I don't think that we're going to lose who we are. Here I think you're wrong. Islam and Red Chinese cultures (in particular) seek to dominate. Individual Muslims and Communist Chinese may be very nice folks...but their cultures seek to overstamp our own. These two cultures are not so much into multiculturalism per se...just how it can be used to achieve their own ends. There will be those who will never forget. Remember that if we ever accept Sharia Law into Canada. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Remember that if we ever accept Sharia Law into Canada. That won't happen in any more of a meaningful way than what is done with aboriginal law. It will be taken under advisement by a judge at some time in the future possibly, but that doesn't mean it will hold much if any actual weight. Sharia law goes against fundamental principles of justice in many ways. This country's identity isn't going to disappear as easy as you think. Quote
CANADIEN Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Like...so what? Tamils seemed to have wanted to achieve their form of diplomacy 'by other means'. The Sikhs, as well. Tip of the iceburg. Call the tactics of the Tamil protesters anything you want. including illegal. Which they were at times, indeed. You are of course welcome to show images of their RIOTS on the streets of ottawa and Toronto. Further, last time I checked, neither Tamils nor Sikhs belonged to the Islamic faith. Does putting the word honour in quotation marks mean you don't agree it exists? I say that "honour" killings exist in some Muslim society but not in others, and you ask a stupid question like that? There is no honour in those murders. Hence my use of brackets. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 That won't happen in any more of a meaningful way than what is done with aboriginal law. It will be taken under advisement by a judge at some time in the future possibly, but that doesn't mean it will hold much if any actual weight. Sharia law goes against fundamental principles of justice in many ways. This country's identity isn't going to disappear as easy as you think. Aboriginal culture...no matter how much noise it makes...doesn't seek to dominate. Re: easy as I think: easier than we both think. Canada changed forever with a stroke of a pen or two in '82...no reason to think it couldn't have another radical change of direction. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Smallc Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 A couple of strokes of a pen in 1982 made it nearly impossible to ever again change the country in the same way. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Call the tactics of the Tamil protesters anything you want. including illegal. Which they were at times, indeed. You are of course welcome to show images of their RIOTS on the streets of ottawa and Toronto. Logical fallacy called appeal to ignorance. Because it hasn't happened it will never happen. I recall Montreal has had a few riots lately...maybe T. is just a lucky city...so far. Further, last time I checked, neither Tamils nor Sikhs belonged to the Islamic faith. That really doesn't matter. All three groups have been known to use violence to get their way. I say that "honour" killings exist in some Muslim society but not in others, and you ask a stupid question like that?There is no honour in those murders. Hence my use of brackets. There's no honour in these killings? Then why are they happening? Face it, you're saying they don't exist and that it's just another case of common domestic violence that ended in murder. In my view, you're literally an apologist. Edited July 28, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 A couple of strokes of a pen in 1982 made it nearly impossible to ever again change the country in the same way. No law is unbreakable...either legally or illegally. Ask a certain Austrian. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
CANADIEN Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Logical fallacy called appeal to ignorance. An apt description for your drivel. Because it hasn't happened it will never happen. who is saying that? Nobody. But, unlike you, I don't feel the need to be paranoid. There's no honour in these killings?That a person, a family, a large section of family even thinks that honour justifies murder does not make it honourable. And it is EXACTLY because there is no honour in it that those who would condone it must be told "you are wrong". Are you saying that there's honour in it? That's what an apologist would say. Or, in your case, someone who has given up his capacity to think because it clashes with his hatred. Face it, you're saying they don't exist I am saying there is nothing honourable in them. and that it's just another case of common domestic violence that ended in murder. In the end, it is murder indeed. That a significant proportion of people in some Muslim societies think otherwise makes that crime even more heinous, no doubt about. Murder is still murder. Those who commit it are to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Those who condone it are to be told they are wrong, And so do those who put number out of proportion, would have us treat each and every Muslim on this planet as "guilty until proven innocent", and who feed the flames of hatred and prejudice. In my view, you're literally an apologist. To use your "logic", those who would say "acts of domestic violence in Western societies are just irrational", thus ignoring that archaic views on women are still held by some in our societies, are apologists for batterers and abusers. Obviously, they're not. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 We are forgetting that this is just a crime. It has nothing to do with anything else. In this nation it is a crime. In this nation our heritage and our laws says that such acts are criminal, and they need to be punished. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 It is not very hard to understand that someone whose self-respect is shattered may kill (himself and/or others). Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 It is not very hard to understand that someone whose self-respect is shattered may kill (himself and/or others). Really? It is hard for me to understand! Such an action as murder cannot be understood to justify any action short of the preservation of life. That is a given in this nation. Feelings of despair or depression, lack of confidence, low self esteem or any other negative emotion should not be considered as justified cause for murder. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Really? It is hard for me to understand! Such an action as murder cannot be understood to justify any action short of the preservation of life. That is a given in this nation. Feelings of despair or depression, lack of confidence, low self esteem or any other negative emotion should not be considered as justified cause for murder. Just like your reply, these murders are not actions, they are reactions. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Just like your reply, these murders are not actions, they are reactions. Yet my reply was not against the law, the murder was. Actions and reactions must always be taken into context and judged according to the rule of law. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Yet my reply was not against the law, the murder was. Actions and reactions must always be taken into context and judged according to the rule of law. Get a basic understanding of legal principles here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14590 Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Get a basic understanding of legal principles here:http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14590 Your post does not constitute basic understanding of legal principles in my view. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Your post does not constitute basic understanding of legal principles in my view. What can be more basic than a violent subjection? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 What can be more basic than a violent subjection? The rule of law is pretty damned basic as a concept. Unfortunately special interests like to have changes made to suit them, and the law becomes more complicated with each instance. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 The rule of law is pretty damned basic as a concept. Unfortunately special interests like to have changes made to suit them, and the law becomes more complicated with each instance. Amendment procedures are integral to the rule of law. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Amendment procedures are integral to the rule of law. They certainly are. Just as the practical application of law through a fair justice system is. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 They certainly are. Just as the practical application of law through a fair justice system is. Why do you feel the need to use a tautology ("fair justice system")!? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Why do you feel the need to use a tautology ("fair justice system")!? Because not systems of justice are fair and impartial. Take for instance that of a totalitarian government, verses a democratic one. Please keep in mind we are dealing with an issue that stems from a culture not like our own. Their is a lack of understanding involved and a complete lack of respect. I would sentence the guilty party, then deport them to where they came from after striping their citizenship. They don't want to be part of our society, because they choose not to follow our laws. Quote
benny Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Because not systems of justice are fair and impartial. So justice is never just!? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 So justice is never just!? My mistake, what I should have said was that not all justice systems were fair and impartial. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.