Because it's 2016

[DogOnPorch]

He should have brought more security. Maybe they could have shot the place up instead

What?

[andromeda]

Equality is protected under the Constitution. So, unfortunately, is religious freedom.

That said, I find it strange that this is the place where conservatives draw the line when it comes to women's rights. Things like wage parity and even sexual assault aren't a big deal, but this.

equality rights versus freedom of religion. I support the opinion that secular rights always trump religious freedoms. however, the charter somewhat disagrees in section 27 with ..... 'the charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.' but the charter doesn't prevent churches, mosques, or synagogues who discriminate from having their charitable status taken away from them. I would think that a prime minister who labels himself as a 'feminist' and who is teaching his children to become feminists would not be caught dead in a religious institution that discriminates against women. after all this is 2016 you know.

[msj]

equality rights versus freedom of religion. I support the opinion that secular rights always trump religious freedoms. however, the charter somewhat disagrees in section 27 with ..... 'the charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.' but the charter doesn't prevent churches, mosques, or synagogues who discriminate from having their charitable status taken away from them. I would think that a prime minister who labels himself as a 'feminist' and who is teaching his children to become feminists would not be caught dead in a religious institution that discriminates against women. after all this is 2016 you know.

Equality and religious rights are going to continue to clash at a Constitutional level until and unless the religions change their bigoted tune.

But religious institutions are allowed their charitable status based on their religious status.

While I agree that that is insufficient to warrant charitable status it is the law and I doubt it will be changed any time soon.

Yes, we get it: Trudeau bad for respecting the customs of this mosque and he should just ignore it and search for votes elsewhere.

I admire Trudeau for bringing those women into the mens holy room and specifically referencing them and the women "upstairs."

It may have been a very quiet "in your face" but it was an "in your face" nonetheless.

The man has balls compared to any other leader who would have done the cowardly thing and ignored that mosque altogether.

[The_Squid]

equality rights versus freedom of religion. I support the opinion that secular rights always trump religious freedoms. however, the charter somewhat disagrees in section 27 with ..... 'the charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.' but the charter doesn't prevent churches, mosques, or synagogues who discriminate from having their charitable status taken away from them. I would think that a prime minister who labels himself as a 'feminist' and who is teaching his children to become feminists would not be caught dead in a religious institution that discriminates against women. after all this is 2016 you know.

What about a Catholic church?

[DogOnPorch]

What about a Catholic church?

Has he pandered to Catholics in their churches?

[Smallc]

What?

I thought I should just be ridiculous too, since we're just talking nonsense now.

[DogOnPorch]

I thought I should just be ridiculous too, since we're just talking nonsense now.

Look...Trudeau did bring three female MPs that did have to act like second class citizens in their own country. What's worse is that they just stood there silently and let their boss treat them that way.

[andromeda]

Yes, we get it: Trudeau bad for respecting the customs of this mosque and he should just ignore it and search for votes elsewhere.

I could understand if he was invited into a mosque in Saudi arabia. but this is Canada. why should anyone feel the need to respect the customs of others when it involves the discrimination of Canadians in Canada? maybe he should have ignored it. what did it accomplish?

[andromeda]

premier wynne says that 'men only' Ontario college campuses in Saudi arabia are UNACCEPTABLE because they discriminate against women. if it's wrong for us to go to Saudi arabia and respect their discriminatory customs .... then why is it not wrong here? probably because it gains votes.

[msj]

what did it accomplish?

Well, people are talking about it.

And we are talking about religious freedom and how that can conflict with equality.

I also wonder how it went over in the Muslim community there - I would love to know how the extremists felt about that kind of message while those women were in the background in their room. Would also be curious as to what some of the Muslim women thought too.

I think the best thing to do is to watch the video posted a page or two back.

Watch the body language, listen to the words, see how he purposefully includes the "sisters" upstairs and works the local (female) MP into it.

It is a masterful performance of "f you" to the extremists while getting his own views across.

And, finally, lets face reality - those people who have their knickers in a knot over Trudeau providing comfort via his presence in a mosque that has people who hold antisemitic views and/or segregates on the basis of gender will not be voting Liberal anyway so he can "pander" to those Muslims in that mosque who will exercise their anonymous right to vote at the next election.

[msj]

premier wynne says that 'men only' Ontario college campuses in Saudi arabia are UNACCEPTABLE because they discriminate against women. if it's wrong for us to go to Saudi arabia and respect their discriminatory customs .... then why is it not wrong here? probably because it gains votes.

You do realize that Wynne is not Trudeau and Trudeau is not Wynne right?

Pardon the facetiousness here but why do people have to conflate things like this?

Who cares what Wynne says in a thread that is specifically about Trudeau's visit and what he said in that mosque.

[msj]

While we are on this thread drift lets point out that there are boys and girls only schools in Canada.

[TimG]

I personally have no issue with a Mosque having religiously motivated segregation. This falls under 'reasonable accommodation' and is not a lot different from a church that does not allow female priest or acknowledge gay marriages.

I have a much bigger issue with the statements the Imam is alleged to have made. If a religion expects Canadian society to accommodate them then they must accommodate those that do not share their beliefs.

[msj]

I personally have no issue with a Mosque having religiously motivated segregation. This falls under 'reasonable accommodation' and is not a lot different from a church that does not allow female priest or acknowledge gay marriages.

Agreed

Our Constitution does allow for reasonable accommodation and religions get the benefit of doubt for being religious (as circular an argument as for the existence of god, imo).

I have a much bigger issue with the statements the Imam is alleged to have made.

Sure, the guy is an antisemitic piece of work.

Charge him with hate speech if that is your cup of tea.

Or recognize him for the bigot he is (for which I suspect everyone in this thread is in agreement) and move on.

People are allowed to hold stupid beliefs and we are allowed to call them bigots. If the shoe fits and all that.....

If a religion expects Canadian society to accommodate them then they must accommodate those that do not share their beliefs.

As for expecting them to accommodate a Canadian society that does not share their beliefs: um, yeah, wasn't that the point of Trudeau to go into their mosque and say what values we share (peace, diversity, compassion etc) whether that is contrary to the bigots views or not?

Maybe next time they will invite Ernst Zundel instead. He won't bring women with him and he will almost certainly not talk up diversity and compassion.

[Benz]

Should he demand a female priest/pastor at a Catholic or Lutheran church or would that be intolerant?

I think it makes more sense for a PM to lead by example rather than to ostracize various Christian and Islamic communities. Promoting positive secular, humanist values that lead to a demand for change from within a community will yield more positive results than an attempt to force values on a specific group.

I beg you to show me one, just one case of a religious organization that followed such positive result. On the contrary, all of them are in expansion and they are not fading incompatible values.

I think change will come sort of like the quiet revolution in Quebec in the 1960's.

One day mosques will find that the young are not coming because they have embraced secular values.

Even those who do show up will be more secular than the previous generation.

So, meh.

oh là! The churches have been busted out of the power by the political sphere with concrete actions. The government has slammed the door right in their face and they made clear that the only place religions belong is in churches or private life. We did not wait for the churches to understand. We told them "this is how it works" and we did not bother to hear their opinion. It was not a discussion or an exchange of thoughts. We did not have such thing as "multiculturalism" back then. We considered the religious belief of a person totally irrelevant for our politics. The only concession that was made is a one course for Christianity and the people were allowed to take moral instead (later in the 80's).

Not comparable to this new attitude of Pandora box where one's religious belief overcome any rules. If our politicians back then were like Trudeau today, the churches would still be having a huge influence on politics.

[Benz]

Two wrongs does not make a right. If conservatives have a natural tendency to look elsewhere when the lack of equality between women and men is in their backyard, it does not in any circumstances excuse what Trudeau did.

Trudeau could spent time and give importance to any Muslim groups, or associations, or communities. But he choosed that one. If I was a Muslim and I would not agree with those extremists, I would be pissed off that Trudeau behaves like if those guys are the legitimated representation of my community. Trudeau is rather giving importance and support to those extremists.

Among all the possible actions he could have done to construct strong links with that community, he did that one. The reason is simple. He doesn't give a ****. He only want to make sure he will have those leaders on his side. He knows very well they have a good influence and he is helping them as well. It is mutual political interests.

[Argus]

What about a Catholic church?

Do Catholic churches segregate everyone by gender and also demand that they be segregated throughout their lives?

Well, people are talking about it.

Well, conservatives are talking about it and progressives and liberals are doing their best to ignore it.

[Argus]

I personally have no issue with a Mosque having religiously motivated segregation. This falls under 'reasonable accommodation' and is not a lot different from a church that does not allow female priest or acknowledge gay marriages.

It is actually A LOT different, and such mosques do not merely segregate men and women, boys and girls while inside. They demand gender segregation throughout life, preaching that boys and girls, men and women, should never socialize outside the immediate family. And, of course, all the rest of Muslim misogyny is observed by such institutions, and preached to the young there.

[msj]

Trudeau could spent time and give importance to any Muslim groups, or associations, or communities. But he choosed that one. If I was a Muslim and I would not agree with those extremists, I would be pissed off that Trudeau behaves like if those guys are the legitimated representation of my community. Trudeau is rather giving importance and support to those extremists.

Yes, had Trudeau gone in there without any women to accompany him, and had he not specifically mentioned his companions and the women "upstairs" then I could see your point.

Also, had Trudeau talked of killing Jews and other such things then I could also see him giving comfort to the extremists.

But he did not do any of that.

He talked contrary to the extremists views while bringing women into the very room women apparently were not supposed to be (presumably given the reference to the women upstairs).

So all this "legitimizing" nonsense is completely opposite to the facts.

Among all the possible actions he could have done to construct strong links with that community, he did that one. The reason is simple. He doesn't give a ****. He only want to make sure he will have those leaders on his side. He knows very well they have a good influence and he is helping them as well. It is mutual political interests.

Yeah, because nothing builds bridges with extremists than to bring women into their little holy room and talk up diversity while specifically bringing attention to the women in the room and the women not in the room.

[msj]

Well, conservatives are talking about it and progressives and liberals are doing their best to ignore it.

So I am ignoring it am I?

[msj]

Do Catholic churches segregate everyone by gender and also demand that they be segregated throughout their lives?

No, but are you going to ignore that women are unable to become priests/bishops/cardinals in their hierarchy?

So I guess we see where you draw the line, huh?

[?Impact]

Look...Trudeau did bring three female MPs that did have to act like second class citizens in their own country. What's worse is that they just stood there silently and let their boss treat them that way.

Perhaps they were just obeying the rules:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. - 1 Corinthians 14:34

[BC_chick]

I'm so mixed what to say about this topic.

On the one side, I get it. Who cares if he visited, it's not like he's living his life as a woman and Jew-hating Muslim.

But I have to agree with the right-wingers on this a bit too, it was kind of icky. By default the visit implies acceptance.

Given the level of extremism in this mosque, I don't think it was a cool thing to do.

[TimG]

It is actually A LOT different, and such mosques do not merely segregate men and women, boys and girls while inside.

The debate here is about the Mosque segregation and I cant see any scenario were we can say there is a problem with that. When you start talking about how the religion affects life outside the mosque they have an obligation to show accommodation for others as well. Since the rest of society has no issue with sexes intermingling they really have no choice but to accept that. Demands to impose their views on public swimming pools or other public situations should be ignored. Edited September 16, 2016 by TimG

[Smallc]

I'm so mixed what to say about this topic.

On the one side, I get it. Who cares if he visited, it's not like he's living his life as a woman and Jew-hating Muslim.

But I have to agree with the right-wingers on this a bit too, it was kind of icky. By default the visit implies acceptance.

I have to agree with msj - he brought women and said some pretty powerful stuff about Canadian values. It wasn't about acceptance.

Given the level of extremism in this mosque, I don't think it was a cool thing to do.

We don't actually know that there is more than one guy.