.

[Black Dog]

True. But there's such a thing as enabling. And I wonder how much all the 'open minded' liberals loudly saying there's nothing wrong with wearing a shroud are helping to enable these kinds of misogynistic cultural traits in Canada.

Let's all just remind ourselves that your concern trolling over the well-being of Muslim women is just cultural NIMBYism; you don't really care that they get the shit kicked out of them, you just want it to happen over there instead of here.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Let's all just remind ourselves that your concern trolling over the well-being of Muslim women is just cultural NIMBYism; you don't really care is they get the shit kicked out of them, you just want it to happen over there instead of here.

It's so good of you to tell me what I do and don't care about.

NIMBYism? If that means I care more about what's happening in Canada than what's happening in the middle east then I'm guilty.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Argus

[Black Dog]

It's so good of you to tell me what I do and don't care about.

I'm not telling you. You make it pretty clear.

NIMBYism? If that means I care more about what's happening in Canada than what's happening in the middle east then I'm guilty.

It means what I said: you are only interested in the treatment of women in Muslim societies insofar as you can use it as an argument for keeping Muslims out of Canada in any numbers.

[On Guard for Thee]

She didn't go to court to fight a ban on wearing 'what she wants' but to fight a ban on wearing what she believes she is required to wear by her extremist view of her religion.

Well according to her, in her own words, fighting a ban on wearing what she wants is exactly what she did, and that leaves you with another of your grand assumptions. Twas ever thus.

Edited March 18, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[jacee]

Yes, and the left defends almost anything from a culture that oppresses women, gays, and well, you name it. That moral high ground you think you're standing on is a swamp and you're quickly sinking into it. How many women not of that religion choose to wear a Niqab? Right, so tell us again that it isn't a part of the religion that tells them to sit at the back of the room when menstruating, or not allow them to eat with men, etc etc etc. It's really people like you who don't know what they stand for, the left wing schism rears it's ugly head once again. But good job defending that oppression while bleieving in your heroic status as the defenders of rights and freedoms, it's always impressive.

And the right thinks it's their job to tell a woman what to wear. :/

.

[jacee]

It means what I said: you are only interested in the treatment of women in Muslim societies insofar as you can use it as an argument for keeping Muslims out of Canada in any numbers.

Frame that. ;

.

[Keepitsimple]

Funny how our resident Lefties accuse Canadians of intolerence because they refuse to defend the intolerence of a tiny fringe group of niqab-wearers. Indeed, the unending interpretations of our Charter of Rights now seems to grant the Right to be Intolerent.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Black Dog]

Funny how our resident Lefties accuse Canadians of intolerence because they refuse to defend the intolerence of a tiny fringe group of niqab-wearers.

You're lapsing into total incoherence now.

Indeed, the unending interpretations of our Charter of Rights now seems to grant the Right to be Intolerent.

Again: that would be part of the right to free expression. Why do you hate Canadian values?

Edited March 18, 2015 by Black Dog

[guyser]

She gave a reason other than being a religious extremist?

And once again.....didnt read it huh?

[guyser]

So if a woman chooses to remain with her violently abusive husband and chooses not to charge or report him then it's all good?

No.

It certainly happens, is a criminal offence, we strive to remind any and all that there are laws against physical abuse.

Domestic violence is a concern for all of us as a society.

If a woman is being held against her will, and /or made to wear a Burqa under threat of violence then that too is a horrible situation .

Thus the openess that we (society) advocate does not discern betw the various types of physical/mental abuse .

[Argus]

I'm not telling you. You make it pretty clear.

It means what I said: you are only interested in the treatment of women in Muslim societies insofar as you can use it as an argument for keeping Muslims out of Canada in any numbers.

That's bullshit. I'm interested in human rights and preventing the abuse of the innocent everywhere. However, I've pretty much given up on certain parts of the world. I haven't given up on THIS part of the world, however, which is why I would indeed like to keep people with those kinds of attitudes out of it.

What I can't figure out is why you lefties are so passionate to bring more extremists over here. Surely you realize they spit on almost every social belief you embrace.

[Argus]

And once again.....didnt read it huh?

So that's no?

[jacee]

Funny how our resident Lefties accuse Canadians of intolerence because they refuse to defend the intolerence of a tiny fringe group of niqab-wearers.

Minorities ... 'tiny fringe groups' ... are the ones whose rights are specifically protected by the Charter.

The tyranny of the majority that Harper et al attempt to impose, is a violation of the Charter.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's bullshit. I'm interested in human rights and preventing the abuse of the innocent everywhere. However, I've pretty much given up on certain parts of the world. I haven't given up on THIS part of the world, however, which is why I would indeed like to keep people with those kinds of attitudes out of it.

What I can't figure out is why you lefties are so passionate to bring more extremists over here. Surely you realize they spit on almost every social belief you embrace.

Yet another extreme assumption.

[jacee]

What I can't figure out is why you lefties are so passionate to bring more extremists over here.

By "extremists" do you mean ...

- actual terrorists?

- women who choose to wear a niqab in public?

- all Muslims?

Define please.

.

[Argus]

Well according to her, in her own words, fighting a ban on wearing what she wants is exactly what she did, and that leaves you with another of your grand assumptions. Twas ever thus.

It's like all of you have this mental block that makes you shy away from confronting your own hypocrisy.

The only people who wear this shroud are religious extremists, but you cannot confront that, you cannot condemn any kind of religious extremism unless, in your pious sense 'it violates the law'. If we were bringing in a bunch of Nazis you'd be up in arms because you'd know very well what their social beliefs are, but you can't face the inextricable link between an orthodox Muslim and the documented beliefs of orthodox Muslims.

[Argus]

By "extremists" do you mean ...

- actual terrorists?

- women who choose to wear a niqab in public?

- all Muslims?

Define please.

.

People who believe women should be beaten if they get out of line, because they must, by order of God, obey their husbands. People who believe gays should be killed. People who believe in Sharia law and all that entails, including requiring four witnesses to prove a rape.

These are absolutely typical beliefs of orthodox Muslims, and it is only orthodox Muslims who wear this garment.

[Guest]

By "extremists" do you mean ...

- actual terrorists?

- women who choose to wear a niqab in public?

- all Muslims?

Define please.

.

I guess the term means different things to different people, but, forgetting for a moment the types who cut other people's heads off, I would define anyone who wishes to impose any part of their religious beliefs on others as an extremist. (the level of extremism would depend on their methods)

I would also define anyone who believes that their religion includes hiding the faces of half of the people who follow it as an extremist. But like I said, it's up to the individual. Some might differ.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's like all of you have this mental block that makes you shy away from confronting your own hypocrisy.

The only people who wear this shroud are religious extremists, but you cannot confront that, you cannot condemn any kind of religious extremism unless, in your pious sense 'it violates the law'. If we were bringing in a bunch of Nazis you'd be up in arms because you'd know very well what their social beliefs are, but you can't face the inextricable link between an orthodox Muslim and the documented beliefs of orthodox Muslims.

I think we know who is being hypocritical here. That would be the one who in one post talks about being in support of human rights, and in the next talks about stripping them away because of their religion

[jacee]

I guess the term means different things to different people, but, forgetting for a moment the types who cut other people's heads off, I would define anyone who wishes to impose any part of their religious beliefs on others as an extremist. (the level of extremism would depend on their methods)

I would also define anyone who believes that their religion includes hiding the faces of half of the people who follow it as an extremist. But like I said, it's up to the individual. Some might differ.

So you are suggesting that religious freedom only applies only if we first impose our 'dress standards' on people?

.

[PIK]

Argus, don't bother , trudeau has then all brainwashed into believing this country is for the immigrant of the future not for the people that actually live here and pay the bills. How anyone could take this women serious is beyond me. The liberals and NDP have become wimps big time, if they let this women tell them what to do. It is disgusting and a insult to the people that have died for this country to allow her to get away with this.

[Argus]

I think we know who is being hypocritical here. That would be the one who in one post talks about being in support of human rights, and in the next talks about stripping them away because of their religion

I think we know who is being ignorant here. That would be the one who ascribes positions to others they've never taken. I have never suggested we put in a law banning the wearing of shrouds nor have I spoken in favour of one.

What I have said is that we need no more people like this, and should not be importing them.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

I think we know who is being ignorant here. That would be the one who ascribes positions to others they've never taken. I have never suggested we put in a law banning the wearing of shrouds nor have I spoken in favour of one.

What I have said is that we need no more people like this, and should not be importing them.

Define "people like this"?

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Argus, don't bother , trudeau has then all brainwashed into believing this country is for the immigrant of the future not for the people that actually live here and pay the bills. How anyone could take this women serious is beyond me. The liberals and NDP have become wimps big time, if they let this women tell them what to do. It is disgusting and a insult to the people that have died for this country to allow her to get away with this.

Um, just for your edification, it was the courts who told the Cons. what to do, since what they tried to do is illegal.

[Guest]

So you are suggesting that religious freedom only applies only if we first impose our 'dress standards' on people?

.

Like I said, it's up to the individual. If you think forcing to women to hide their faces is okay, I would just say I differ, that's all.

Remember, I support anyone who wants to hide their own face, so I wouldn't say I'm imposing anything on anyone.