Womens only swimming day at public pool.

[taxme]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True....it is clearly segregation by sex/gender in a public facility.   Media reported a father being barred from the pool bleacher seats because he was male...he was not permitted to watch his daughter in the pool.    What about beaches and lakes ?   Would not survive a Charter Rights challenge.

http://torontosun.com/2013/04/06/toronto-dad-upset-hes-not-allowed-to-watch-daughters-swim-class/wcm/8a5f80ea-4030-4ca5-82a5-9d40a41ecdc6

Only in Canada can a father be removed from a swimming pool from watching his daughter swim in a pool where he probably pays his taxes to run that pool because of some 10th century archaic and ancient religion that does not want him there. I think that pretty soon the Muslims will be going to some beach somewhere in Canada and demanding that a certain beach be reserved for them only. And you know what? Knowing how most of our politically correct politicians think they would probably go along with that idea. If they are not able too get away with that one they would probably then demand that our Canadian women should not be allowed to wear a bikini on the beach. We have gutless politically correct politicians as leaders who will not stand up for Canada and it's traditions and ways of doing things. These days it is all about catering and bowing down to the rest of the world. 

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is full of holes to be played with and interpreted into however some politician or judge wants to interpret it. We are all supposed to be all equal but yet Sikhs in BC. can ride their motorcycles without a helmet while I cannot. That is racism pure and simple. But it is alright for the government to be racist when it suits it's political philosophy of the day. In many cases minorities have challenged the COR and have won at the expense of the majority. It appears to be happening every day now in Canada. Believe it or not. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

1) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is full of holes to be played with and interpreted into however some politician or judge wants to interpret it.

2) We are all supposed to be all equal but yet Sikhs in BC. can ride their motorcycles without a helmet while I cannot.

3) That is racism pure and simple

1) Your analysis of complex legal documents is needed here as much as a camel in a sombrero, and for the same reasons also.  Your posts on this topic are vulgar, logically deficient and fallacious to boot.  Diving into your logic is a Rube Goldberg machine of the mind.

2) How I wish you could.

3) It's reasonable accommodation.  If you pine to take on additional risk to be closer to god, you may do so but you need religion first.  That's the way of the west: religious accommodation.

 

If you were truly a patriot, you wouldn't continually crap all over Canada's foundational legal document.

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not the one telling people to leave the country.  I was born here.  My religion is none of your business.  If I ask for some accommodation, you have to listen.  Otherwise, you can move as you don't "get" democracy.

2. You have no proof of that.  Your posts reference internet lies (eg. Angela Merkel's religion falsely stated) so your patriotism is of limited value.  I think it's patriotic to tell the truth, myself.  

I will gladly accept and honest and hard-working foreigner over a lying shit-disturber, just sayin'.

1. You have suggested to a member that if they do not like things as they are then they can move. That is pretty much telling that person to get the hell out of "my" country. I was born here too. I am pretty sure I know what your religion is. No one has any right to any accommodation when they immigrate to Canada from another country. Adapt or leave. 

2. The proof is already out there but you refuse to see it. Ya sure, everything on the internet is all lies. The moon has now been exposed on the internet as being round. Is that all a lie now? Angela is what I said she was. You are stating a false lie. I think that I can safely say that I am a way lot more patriotic than you are. I fight for our Canadian culture and traditions and will not allow other foreign cultures and religions to dictate and over ride my culture and religion and traditions. I agree. It is patriotic to tell the truth. Sadly in Canada truth has become no defense. 

3. I will gladly accept honest and hardworking foreigners who enter this country legally, although we are getting way too many of them, and not the criminal illegals that you appear to support or show your support for foreigners who have no love for our Canadian culture and traditions and ways of life. There have been and still are many lying illegal criminal shit disturber refugees entering Canada illegally. It's those shit disturbers that support these criminals that are the liars. Now I wonder who that could be? Just wondering. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

1. You have suggested to a member that if they do not like things as they are then they can move. ... I am pretty sure I know what your religion is. No one has any right to any accommodation when they immigrate to Canada from another country. Adapt or leave. 

2. The proof is already out there but you refuse to see it. Ya sure, everything on the internet is all lies. The moon has now been exposed on the internet as being round. Is that all a lie now?  

3. I  It's those shit disturbers that support these criminals that are the liars. 

1. In response to them saying the same thing first.  I'm commenting on telling people to move.  And no, you don't know my religion despite your past Jew-baiting posts towards me.  Everyone has a right to accommodation.  It's written in law, which trumps your maniacal donkey braying on this topic.

2. I use intelligence to filter out lies.  Congratulations on your accepting facts on the moon.

3. We have proof to the contrary with your posts.  I thought Conservatives were about accountability once.  I guess that Argus is correct in that your type are not true conservatives.  

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Why not ?  You seem to think you can boss people around because you were born here.  Well, you can't boss me so I for one will push back.  If you don't like it then you can move.

2) That would be you.  You assume that you have domain over other opinions because you state (without proof I might add) that you were born here.

Because they know BEFOREHAND where they come to and what they are getting into. They cannot change the terms after signing the contract (or signing immigration papers). Compatibility is a factor under consideration in our immigration system and those who are not compatible must be kept OUT. Before they come they know well that our culture is based on equality of all including equality of gender so later they cannot come here and try to impose theirs, like segregation of sexes. 

I never claimed I was born here. In fact I have said in my past posts that I am an immigrant who chose Canada because of what Canada stands for and that is freedom and equality for all and cannot stand those who wish to come here and destroy it.

I think that you are a very nice person Michael but it is unfortunate that you are not aware of what certain groups of people can do to this western democracy for which so many died for and its people if they are allowed to form a majority and elect their type of government. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[taxme]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Your analysis of complex legal documents is needed here as much as a camel in a sombrero, and for the same reasons also.  Your posts on this topic are vulgar, logically deficient and fallacious to boot.  Diving into your logic is a Rube Goldberg machine of the mind.

2) How I wish you could.

3) It's reasonable accommodation.  If you pine to take on additional risk to be closer to god, you may do so but you need religion first.  That's the way of the west: religious accommodation.

 

If you were truly a patriot, you wouldn't continually crap all over Canada's foundational legal document.

1. You are one guy that is truly lost in the politically correct liberal multicultural world. I must admit that you are very good at posting words here that look like a Rubik's cube all jangled up. How or where am I being vulgar? This I need you to show me if you dare? Come on, lay it on me, make your day. 

There is one thing is that I know for sure is that I can always expect nothing less from you but insults and attacks. A great game that your people like to play when they cannot win an argument or debate. Btw, how is my Englishes these days? Just wondering? 

2. So, it is quite obvious to me that you do not have a problem with a Sikh being able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet here in BC but I have to wear one, right? So, it is alright by you that it is alright to discriminate against some citizen's of BC and not others and are being shown for all to see a pure act of racism that is being committed by the government of BC towards anyone who is not a Sikh, eh? Shocking. 

3. If Canadians keep trying to accommodate all the foreign cultures and religions and languages that enter this country they may pretty soon find altogether that their religion, culture and language will become second class in their own country or at least on an equal basis. That is going to get much more costly as years go by.  It is already costing hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars every year just to try and accommodate every other race and their religion and culture on earth at the expense of our own culture, language and religion. Screw that. 

4. The COR says that everyone is supposed to be equal but yet here in Canada some are being treated more equal than others. Sikh's were an example that I have pointed out to you who are being treated differently than to other Canadians who are not Sikh. That is not false, a lie or bull chit, it is the truth. The truth something you really do have a problem with recognizing. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will gladly accept and honest and hard-working foreigner over a lying shit-disturber, just sayin'.

I have no problem with honest and hard working foreigner (and in my view once a foreigner gets her or his citizenship that person is no longer a foreigner). I have issues with those who do not realize that citizenship comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities are RESPECT for the existing culture of the land they CHOSE to join and become a member. And to integrate and contribute in a positive manner to the society which has given them refuge and has welcomed them to their arms like paying taxes, sharing their rich culture, enjoy diversity, and etc. as most of immigrants do.

Edited May 30, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[angrypenguin]

Speedo only men's day please. #speedolivesmatter

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's the way of the west: religious accommodation.

Men have not had to fight for their rights like women have.

I wonder if you would be as willing to accomodate a religion that wanted to set men's rights back several hundred years?  It's probably hard for you to imagine, as men have always had their rights and have rarely had to fight for them like women have.  

Edited May 30, 2018 by Goddess

[taxme]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. In response to them saying the same thing first.  I'm commenting on telling people to move.  And no, you don't know my religion despite your past Jew-baiting posts towards me.  Everyone has a right to accommodation.  It's written in law, which trumps your maniacal donkey braying on this topic.

2. I use intelligence to filter out lies.  Congratulations on your accepting facts on the moon.

3. We have proof to the contrary with your posts.  I thought Conservatives were about accountability once.  I guess that Argus is correct in that your type are not true conservatives.  

 

1. What is with this Jew bating nonsense? Why do you constantly make false statements all the time? I have asked you many times to point out as to where I have said that I hate Jews? Verbatim please, if you can or dare. Why do you always keep running away from that question that I keep asking of you? I am getting really fed up with your accusations. show me the beef? 

No one as any right to any accommodation when it is not applied equally to anyone else. What? Do you think that a Sikh who is not wearing a helmet will not get injured or killed because they are wearing a turban? The turban will protect them from harm? The law was created to protect the motorcyclists from receiving serious head injuries or being killed. Surely the Sikhs could be accommodating over that common sense law, uhmm? Yes/no? 

2. I don't see all that much intelligence at times coming from you. Personal, you appear to be way more politically correct for my liking. Just saying. I just pointed out something that I read on the internet that has been proven to be true. Remember you are the one that believes that all things posted on the internet is all full of bull and conspiracy nonsense. I think that I proved you wrong, right? 

3. A true conservative is all about accountability and should be all about more freedom less government and less taxes. Hey, that is me.  It is my opinion that Argus is not a true conservative to me at all. You see liberals and socialists will stick together no matter what one may say good or bad while conservatives tend to want to insult and fight with one another over silly nonsense. That is why conservatism always has a tough time trying to get going in politics. They cannot seem to want to help and support each other but prefer to attack each other. Argus is like that. C'est la vie. 

[taxme]

36 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Because they know BEFOREHAND where they come and what they are getting into. They cannot change the terms after signing the contract (or signing immigration papers). Compatibility is a factor under consideration in our immigration system and those who are not compatible must be kept OUT. Before they come they know well that our culture is based on equality of all including equality of gender so later they cannot come here and try to impose theirs, like segregation of sexes. 

I never claim I was born here. In fact I have said in my past posts that I am an immigrant who chose Canada because of what Canada stands for and that is freedom and equality for all and cannot stand those who wish to come here and destroy it.

I think that you are a very nice person but it is unfortunate that you are not aware of what certain groups of people can do to this western democracy so many died for and its people if they are allowed to form a majority and elect their type of government. 

I have to say that I find MH to be truly an exercise in futility. MH believes that anyone immigrating to Canada should be allowed to violate and ignore our laws and Canadians should be forced to accept and be more accommodating and pretty much assimilate into their culture and traditions and religions for multicultural sake. I believe that I once heard some Canadian politically correct multicultural politician say that Canadians must become more sensitive to their to their ways of doing things so as not to insult or hurt their precious feelings but instead make them feel like they are back home in their country from whence they came. How can the Muslims be allowed to get away with treating their women pretty much like crap here in Canada. Does our Charter of Rights not suppose to be meant for them also? Political correctness and multicultural have been given way to much power and control over common sense and logic and how things use to be done in Canada many decades ago.  

Personally, I don't think that MH is a very nice person at all. Just saying. 

[Argus]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Why not ?  You seem to think you can boss people around because you were born here.  Well, you can't boss me so I for one will push back.  If you don't like it then you can move.

I understand why you're reacting as you are, but I wanted to seize on this particular point because I think it's an important one. It suggests that both you and he have equally valid right to object to the others position. Legally, of course, you're correct. But I don't think you do. If you and I share the cost of buying a house equally. We have equal right to it. But if you decide you want to bring in a couple of your friends and let them stay there I don't think your argument "I have just as much right as you do" is valid. You're changing the conditions of life in the apartment, making it more crowded, and bringing in people I might not know, like or be comfortable around. Why should you get to do that?

[cannuck]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you were truly a patriot, you wouldn't continually crap all over Canada's foundational legal document.

Uh...then I guess I am the very definition of NOT a "patriot".   When a totally flawed document drafted by a card carrying communist and assisted by several socialists who openly adhere to the Regina Manifesto as their key belief, and when it has NOT been accepted by all provinces, yeah, I've got a rather big problem with that.  Add in the very intentional and obvious avoidance of property rights.

The acid test of that is exactly what we see in this thread:  it is a PUBLIC pool, so there is absolutely no way there should be ANY discrimination of any kind applied.  Conversely, a real "constitution" would respect the property rights of private organizations to do exactly as they please - be men only, women only, muslim only, Christian only - because they are on PRIVATE property - the anathema of the Regina Manifesto and our dear leaders' model of the Trudeau family, the Communist Manifesto.

This makes sense from a document meant to give some kind of equality to Canadians in one section - the one following the section that gives decendants of aboriginal Canadians a whole other class of rights and privileges NOT available to other Canadians.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, Goddess said:

I wonder if you would be as willing to accomodate a religion that wanted to set men's rights back several hundred years? 

Well, they kind of do.  You're not free to speak against God, to do what you want with your body.  As long as people are free under the law, how they think of the world isn't the government's business.

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

1) But if you decide you want to bring in a couple of your friends and let them stay there I don't think your argument "I have just as much right as you do" is valid.
2) Why should you get to do that?

1) Well, the analogy fails in that the people in question are no more my 'friends' than yours but ok...

2) Me ?  It's not me who gets those rights, it's them.  Take it up with the law.  I just want to explain to people that "I was here first" is a bullshit argument....

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1) Uh...then I guess I am the very definition of NOT a "patriot".   When a totally flawed document drafted by a card carrying communist and assisted by several socialists who openly adhere to the Regina Manifesto as their key belief, and when it has NOT been accepted by all provinces, yeah, I've got a rather big problem with that.  Add in the very intentional and obvious avoidance of property rights.

2) The acid test of that is exactly what we see in this thread:  it is a PUBLIC pool, so there is absolutely no way there should be ANY discrimination of any kind applied.  Conversely, a real "constitution" would respect the property rights of private organizations to do exactly as they please - be men only, women only, muslim only, Christian only - because they are on PRIVATE property - the anathema of the Regina Manifesto and our dear leaders' model of the Trudeau family, the Communist Manifesto.

1) A few questions.  You hate Trudeau, so you hate his constitution but... your complaint points seem to be vague except that 1) you hate Trudeau and 2) property rights.  Not sure how you would declare property rights in a constitution anyway.  What do you mean ?

2) Again this is all about hatred for a guy who was in power 34 years ago.... seems pretty irrational.  Also you talk about PUBLIC pools, then PRIVATE organizations.  Which is it ?  If private property should be free to discriminate then public property should be exempt ?

The US has federal laws against discrimination in restaurants and such 'public private' (my word) places, as well as income tax and eminent domain.  Just like your far-left counterparts who rail against our capitalist "system", I invite you to submit something better.  Perhaps a system of government founded on hating Trudeau ?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Well, the analogy fails in that the people in question are no more my 'friends' than yours but ok...

YOU are the one bringing them in, for whatever reasons you're choosing.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Me ?  It's not me who gets those rights, it's them.  Take it up with the law.  I just want to explain to people that "I was here first" is a bullshit argument....

No, the argument is I'm here NOW. So changes need to be in my favour, not in the favour of foreigners who are not here and have no rights here.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) YOU are the one bringing them in, for whatever reasons you're choosing.

2) No, the argument is I'm here NOW. So changes need to be in my favour, not in the favour of foreigners who are not here and have no rights here.

1) The analogous situation, though, is different.  I don't sponsor immigrants.

2) "Changes in your favour" is a different thing from "your opinion counts over others".  You elect governments to work in your favour - Canadian spelling appreciated.  One voice, one vote - make use of it I say.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) The analogous situation, though, is different.  I don't sponsor immigrants.

But you are part of the group which supports importing them into my living room. Thus you are, in effect, bringing them in.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) "Changes in your favour" is a different thing from "your opinion counts over others".  You elect governments to work in your favour - Canadian spelling appreciated.  One voice, one vote - make use of it I say.

Legally we have the same rights as I said. But if you are doing something to change my quality of life and enjoyment, not to mention cost me money, I think my right to object is stronger than you're desire to simply have a more colourful mosaic within Canada. As for Canadian spelling, I have to ignore the red 'incorrect spelling' line which appears under any word I use which isn't spelled as Americans would.

[Michael Hardner]

 

Just now, Argus said:

1) But you are part of the group which supports importing them into my living room. Thus you are, in effect, bringing them in.

2) Legally we have the same rights as I said. But if you are doing something to change my quality of life and enjoyment, not to mention cost me money, I think my right to object is stronger than you're desire to simply have a more colourful mosaic within Canada. 

1) They are not my friends, and I am not doing this for them.  I'm doing it because I think it's good policy for Canada.  Once they are established here their vote counts legally and morally as mine does.  If they suggest an idea I will evaluate that idea on its own merits, not because they were born elsewhere.  I just saw an article that explained how software innovation is partially driven by immigration in the US and that's an example of a benefit of immigration.

2) Your need to assign me a motive discredits your argument.  I'll concede this: there *may* be some issues which I would assign more importance to home-grown opinions on, for example the idea of official bilingualism, keeping Remembrance Day or heritage issues.  I don't believe that we should forget our past.  So you kind of 1/2 won this in my mind.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) They are not my friends, and I am not doing this for them. 

It's irrelevant if they are your friends. You are bringing them in. And I didn't suggest you were doing it for them so much as for you.

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm doing it because I think it's good policy for Canada. 

On what grounds? There are clear problems to me and my enjoyment of the house. It'll be more crowded. There will be cultural issues and arguments. Food and electricity which I share the costs with you will cost more. What do I get out of it?

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Your need to assign me a motive discredits your argument. 

If I assign you a motive for supporting a given policy it's because you have failed to explain your motivations or the support behind your stated positions.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) It's irrelevant if they are your friends. You are bringing them in. And I didn't suggest you were doing it for them so much as for you.

2) On what grounds? There are clear problems to me and my enjoyment of the house. It'll be more crowded. There will be cultural issues and arguments. Food and electricity which I share the costs with you will cost more. What do I get out of it?

3) If I assign you a motive for supporting a given policy it's because you have failed to explain your motivations or the support behind your stated positions.

 

 

1) I'm doing it for us.

2) We have had discussions about the content of the argument ad nauseum.  This is about the right for someone to tell a Canadian to 'get out' of here.  Notice I didn't impugn motives on the person who is saying that.  This follows my own rule to NOT impugn motives.

3) Really ?  I have failed to discuss my support of immigration with you in the past.  Memory, man, memory...

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, they kind of do.  You're not free to speak against God, to do what you want with your body.  As long as people are free under the law, how they think of the world isn't the government's business.

Just don't speak out publicly and all is well. It is when you speak out in public and speak your own mind that the government deems to feel that you are promoting some kind of hatred or violence(their interpretation of hatred or violence)then you can be sure that government will start to butt in your business. The government does it all the time. But you would not know anything about that because you keep listening to the lying liberal globalist MSM all the time. The alternative media to you is full of racists and conspiracy screwballs and not worth the time of day listening too. Thank gawd I don't think like you because I would be just as ill informed as you are. This is Canada, not the rest of the world, and we have our own ways of doing things here in Canada, and the rest of the world that comes here should be told that so they know where they stand. They should be told that you cannot come to Canada if you have any intentions of trying to change our laws and traditions. It ain't going to happen, pardner. Become Canadian and learn to live with our rules or leave. Works for me. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by taxme

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) A few questions.  You hate Trudeau, so you hate his constitution but... your complaint points seem to be vague except that 1) you hate Trudeau and 2) property rights.  Not sure how you would declare property rights in a constitution anyway.  What do you mean ?

2) Again this is all about hatred for a guy who was in power 34 years ago.... seems pretty irrational.  Also you talk about PUBLIC pools, then PRIVATE organizations.  Which is it ?  If private property should be free to discriminate then public property should be exempt ?

The US has federal laws against discrimination in restaurants and such 'public private' (my word) places, as well as income tax and eminent domain.  Just like your far-left counterparts who rail against our capitalist "system", I invite you to submit something better.  Perhaps a system of government founded on hating Trudeau ?

I want to live in a country where everything that old man Trudeau put his signature too be eliminated from Canada. If it were not for that communist we would not be talking about immigration, multiculturalism, bilingualism and massive third world legal and illegal immigration. And to this day his kid the prime mistake of ours continues on with the destruction of what was once a great and wealthy and prosperous country. Gawd help Canada and Canadians if that fool wins the next election. He will open the immigration flood gates for good for all to just walk in willy-nilly and that should finish of this once great WASP nation for good. My opinion. 

[Michael Hardner]

Deleted

Edited May 31, 2018 by Michael Hardner