Argus Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 You've got to admire the timing. Trudeau waits until the NDP has absorbed the niqab body blow, and then he turns on the whole "Prime Ministerial material" line. I'm not disagreeing with Trudeau, but I find this an absolute masterstroke. You'll notice he said it in English, and didn't utter a word about Quebec's law. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) I never said they were accepting of Canadian values. What I was taking issue with was the idea was that their choice of dress was an intentional poke in the eye of those values, as Argus implied. I didn't implied it, I said it. It's an absolute rejection of our values. Just for a start, anyone who is religious enough to insist on wearing this thing on their own, without external pressure, most certainly believes in Sharia law, which means they most certainly reject the whole notion of democracy. That doesn't mean they won't vote, mind you. But given a choice they would do away with democracies and have a theocratic state in a heartbeat. Edited October 7, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ironstone Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 Hyperbole in the extreme. We had the option of adding Muslim clerics to an existing arrangement whereby other religions were having disputes mediated by clerics, ie. Jews, Christians. Not 'we came close to Sharia law in Ontario'. Perhaps not,but can you honestly say that under Sharia law,disputes would have been settled as fairly as disputes settled by any other kind of religious arbitration? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
Charles Anthony Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 Guys, Please avoid making the discussions personal. It is thread drift which is trolling. If your post was deleted, the reason is because you were either trolling or responding to trolling which is a subset of trolling anyway. Mark that down on your list. None of you are all that exciting either so, it is boring and distracting to have to scroll through your shenanigans. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Argus Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) On the surface of it, the question of whether a few religious zealots cover their faces is of very little importance in Canada. I've already posted as much, and that I don't think there should be a law against it. I've also freely acknowledged that Harper was clearly playing to a base when he appealed the decision. But that's not why this issue has become so important. This issue has exploded in importance not because of Harper saying anything bad about Muslims. He's been extremely mild, in fact, and specific about a particular kind of Muslim.This issue has exploded because of the incredible level of intolerance of empty headed progressives. To these people, the very notion that a white English guy (French guys are allowed) would dare to criticize any aspect of any foreign culture or religion is appalling and has them sputtering with outrage and indignation. The actual cultural divide they've seized on (without being intelligent enough to even understand it) is the one between them and the rest of the country. So the progressives keep raising this again and again and again so they can excite and outrage each other on the airwaves and in print.Most people in Canada look upon the niqab and all it represents with distaste. They don't like it, and don't understand why such people have even been allowed to come here. The progressives, of course, don't even acknowledge ordinary Canadians exist, much less that they have opinions which differ from their own. To a progressive, the only acceptable opinion is theirs. All other opinions are illegitimate, and anyone who expresses them is a horrible person.Because they believe in their hearts that 'brown people' are deeply inferior, less than human, in fact, the very notion that they should be held to the same standards of behavior as white people is anathema to progressives. And in their self-appointed, righteous duty of defending these 'inferiors' from the evil white people (who of course, are all bigots) progressives attack anyone who points out failings of these foreign cultures and religions, in effect, defending the most egregious of backward and often violently misogynistic social practicesIt makes progressives feel superior and noble to refuse to judge other races, cultures or religions, though of course, they are extraordinarily judgmental of everyone else, and highly intolerant of any violation of the group-think they try to enforce. Edited October 7, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 It makes progressives feel superior and noble to refuse to judge other races, cultures or religions, though of course, they are extraordinarily judgmental of everyone else, and highly intolerant of any violation of the group-think they try to enforce. It's not about whether we judge any group or another (and now, why would we go around judging races, Argus???) It's about what you wish to do about your subjective judgment. Canada is a liberal democracy, with constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties. You're talking about crushing those liberties based purely on your own biases. Quote
GostHacked Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 Winter is coming, I'll be covering my face up quite a bit. Quote
Argus Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 It's not about whether we judge any group or another (and now, why would we go around judging races, Argus???) It's about what you wish to do about your subjective judgment. Canada is a liberal democracy, with constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties. You're talking about crushing those liberties based purely on your own biases. Really? How am I talking about doing that? Specifics, please. Remember that in the post to which you are replying I freely admitted that I was not in favour of a law banning the niqab. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 Really? How am I talking about doing that? Specifics, please. Remember that in the post to which you are replying I freely admitted that I was not in favour of a law banning the niqab. You certainly want where they can be worn heavily limited, and it sure sounds to me like anyone applying for citizenship in Canada better take it off. Does that sum up your view or not? Quote
Argus Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 You certainly want where they can be worn heavily limited, and it sure sounds to me like anyone applying for citizenship in Canada better take it off. Does that sum up your view or not? Nope. Let me quote from myself. This topic is 24 pages long now and nowhere on it, despite all the screaming and insults directed at me from politically correct fascist assholes will you find me criticizing the court's decision. That might have given you pause to consider if you ever paused to consider. It's not like I've ever been reluctant to criticize a court's decision before... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Evening Star Posted October 7, 2015 Report Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) On the surface of it, the question of whether a few religious zealots cover their faces is of very little importance in Canada. I've already posted as much, and that I don't think there should be a law against it. ---SNIP--- It makes progressives feel superior and noble to refuse to judge other races, cultures or religions, though of course, they are extraordinarily judgmental of everyone else, and highly intolerant of any violation of the group-think they try to enforce. This is an interesting viewpoint. "I think the Conservative government is in fact wrong about this issue BUT THE PROGRESSIVES (whom I happen to agree with) ARE SUCH JERKFACES ABOUT IT!" Iirc, you had a roughly similar position on the long-form census? Edited October 8, 2015 by Charles Anthony [---SNIP---] Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 Zunera Ishaq will be on CBC's The Current tomorrow morning, explaining why she chooses to wear the niqab. If Argus is correct, we should expect to hear her yelling "Allah Akbar" and "Death to Democracy". Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) She feels like a second class citizen after being in Canada for 50 years. Yet the sheer brazenness of the Conservatives leaves one speechless; a 2.0 version of Quebec’s “charter of values” is being used to win votes on the backs of a vulnerable minority. The government’s open hostility has given licence to bigots to vent xenophobia. A pregnant Muslim woman is assaulted in Montreal. A niqab-wearing woman is attacked while shopping with her daughters in Toronto. Mosques are taking precautions. It's a sad day for Canada. Edited October 8, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
angrypenguin Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 She feels like a second class citizen after being in Canada for 50 years. It's a sad day for Canada. Boo hoo. If she doesn't like it, she can gtfo. That's my view on it. Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
ReeferMadness Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 Boo hoo. If she doesn't like it, she can gtfo. That's my view on it. So you're OK with Harper stirring up anti Muslim sentiment that has resulted in women being assaulted? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
angrypenguin Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 So you're OK with Harper stirring up anti Muslim sentiment that has resulted in women being assaulted? The difference between me and you is that you think that Harper said what he did with the intention that women would be assaulted. Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2015 Author Report Posted October 8, 2015 This is an interesting viewpoint. "I think the Conservative government is in fact wrong about this issue BUT THE PROGRESSIVES (whom I happen to agree with) ARE SUCH JERKFACES ABOUT IT!" Iirc, you had a roughly similar position on the long-form census?Argus doesn't let a point of agreement get in the way of trolling "progressives." Quote
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2015 Author Report Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) The difference between me and you is that you think that Harper said what he did with the intention that women would be assaulted.Nobody said that was his intention, but clearly that was the result and he hasn't said one damn word about it. He says he's fighting oppression of women, two get assaulted in the street and he's silent. Edited October 8, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
dialamah Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 The difference between me and you is that you think that Harper said what he did with the intention that women would be assaulted. He may not have intended it, but now that it has happened he should have the decency to dial back the rhetoric. Quote
dialamah Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 Boo hoo. If she doesn't like it, she can gtfo. That's my view on it. So... It's OK with you that women are assaulted and if they complain, they can gtfo? Weren't you one of the people arguing a few days ago that Kenney/the Conservative were just trying to protect women? Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 So... It's OK with you that women are assaulted and if they complain, they can gtfo? Weren't you one of the people arguing a few days ago that Kenney/the Conservative were just trying to protect women? Do I really need to use emoticons on this board? Le Sigh. Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
Keepitsimple Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) So you're OK with Harper stirring up anti Muslim sentiment that has resulted in women being assaulted? Opposition and media fear mongering. Don't you find it rather dubious that with all the "intolerance" that the Left is accusing Canadians of - that these were the only two occurrences ever? To demonstrate how much digging they had to do to come up with those two "assaults": 1) The one in Toronto was a recent convert (who traces her roots in Canada back to the 1600's) who married a Muslim. She alleged that she was elbowed at a shopping centre. Take it with a grain of salt. 2) In Montreal, two teens, 14 and 15 - rode by on their bikes and pulled the hijab of a woman - not a niqab. A stupid prank - that was all So....talk about fear mongering. Edited October 8, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
ReeferMadness Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 The difference between me and you is that you think that Harper said what he did with the intention that women would be assaulted. Read what I said. I said the result of Harper's mouthing off was that women were assaulted. I didn't say that was his intention. Clearly, he intended it as a cheap political tactic and clearly he knew how it would be interpreted by Islamophobes. But there is no reason to believe that he intended women to be assaulted. He still bears some responsibility for the results. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 Opposition and media fear mongering. Don't you find it rather dubious that with all the "intolerance" that the Left is accusing Canadians of - that these were the only two occurrences ever? To demonstrate how much digging they had to do to come up with those two "assaults": 1) The one in Toronto was a recent convert (who traces her roots in Canada back to the 1600's) who married a Muslim. She alleged that she was elbowed at a shopping centre. Take it with a grain of salt. 2) In Montreal, two teens, 14 and 15 - rode by on their bikes and pulled the hijab of a woman - not a niqab. A stupid prank - that was all So....talk about fear mongering. "only" 2 assaults. How many would you have preferred? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Smallc Posted October 8, 2015 Report Posted October 8, 2015 Read what I said. I said the result of Harper's mouthing off was that women were assaulted. That is a pretty big leap, especially given the nature of the "assaults". Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.