Quebec's Bill 62

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Here's a clue for you:  the women in Mennonite/Mormon/Jewish clothing that requires covering up, including their hair, are alive and well today.

None of them cover their faces, and most Mormons, Jews and Mennonites can - and do -  wear t-shirts and jeans if they so desire.

And we are not comparing isolated sects to a billion and a half Muslims.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Argus

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Deflection?  I could never understand that accusation.

I guess pretending to be stupid comes with the risk that you'll actually end up that way.

[OftenWrong]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Uncovering everyone's face, is what's at issue now. Because Quebec is a dog fucker that is trying to mask its racism behind a facade of insecurity, exactly the same way you are.

 

Nonsense. Surveillance is a common requirement in most public places in the world these days. The point is to enhance public safety. You want to go in public and enjoy the freedom which our society is based upon? You should show your face so you can be identified. People have to be held responsible for their actions in public.

Edited October 28, 2017 by OftenWrong

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess pretending to be stupid comes with the risk that you'll actually end up that way.

I wouldn't know.  I try not to concern myself too much with other people's problems.

I do sometimes try to be friendly, and it's misconstrued.  But I don't worry about it too much.

[dialamah]

42 minutes ago, Argus said:

None of them cover their faces, and most Mormons, Jews and Mennonites can - and do -  wear t-shirts and jeans if they so desire.

And we are not comparing isolated sects to a billion and a half Muslims.

If its the reasoning behind the wearing of niqabs and burkas that offends you, then you should be equally offended by any religion that tells women they must dress a certain way to demonstrate their modesty, purity and to avoid sexual harassment.  Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

A billion and a half Muslims don"t wear niqabs or burkas.  Most of those who even wear a head covering wear the hijab.  Women of other faiths that have dress codes are not free to wear jeans or t-shirts without significant social censor and sometimes violence.

If small numbers are a reason not to care about what a group is doing, then you have no reason to comcern yourself with burka or niqab wearing women.  They number fewer than old order Mennonites and Amish, two Christian sects that impose similar dress strictures on women that conservative Islam does.

 

[eyeball]

45 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Nonsense. Surveillance is a common requirement in most public places in the world these days.

Yes, more and so everyday too...just as predicted it would.

The point is to enhance public safety. You want to go in public and enjoy the freedom which our society is based upon? You should show your face so you can be identified. People have to be held responsible for their actions in public.

What about the secret actions of officials in that put the public in harms way?

 

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

What makes you think our governments believe that, or would care one way or another? Governments support third world immigration because new immigrants, esp those from unsophisticated, backward cultures associate whoever is in power with them being allowed into Canada and tend to vote for them. This doesn't tend to work when you bring in people from, say, the UK or Germany. They know that the party in power is distinct from government and tend to vote without regard to who was in power when they arrived. Thus no politician, conservatives or liberals, wants to bring in Europeans.

 

That is the problem that I have been saying for so long. The majority of politicians don't give a stink about Canada or Canadians. All they worry about is votes. And if flooding Canada with a million or two third world immigrants every year that will get them the votes they need to stay in power then they will do it. I can only thank the majority of white people who have doomed Canada for sitting back and doing or saying not a word. And thanks to them my grandchildren will be growing up in a non-white country. They have no idea as to what is in store for them as the third world begin to take over Canada. Thanks.for nothing.

Edited October 28, 2017 by taxme

[taxme]

On 10/20/2017 at 11:46 AM, eyeball said:

Diversity is a Canadian value that they've assimilated. Over and out.

Diversity is the new value of Canada that will have the white population being assimilated into a non-white culture and religion. 

Over and out. 

[OftenWrong]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes, more and so everyday too...just as predicted it would.

What about the secret actions of officials in that put the public in harms way?

 

The world became a more violent place on an individual level. We still have all the bigger problems too, battle of the superpowers etc. But terrorism is used to instil fear on the local level. There is also the ongoing battle against organized crime.

I'm sorry that the world is not a nice place. Yes, Virginia, there is NO SANTA, and the world is in fact very, very bad.
It is a constant struggle to protect civilization from the numerous types of barbarians at the gate. Just hope and pray that you get to live in a quiet, safe bubble. You get to go fishing. Go for beers. Leave the important issues of national security to us.

Edited October 29, 2017 by OftenWrong
us

[Argus]

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

If its the reasoning behind the wearing of niqabs and burkas that offends you, then you should be equally offended by any religion that tells women they must dress a certain way to demonstrate their modesty, purity and to avoid sexual harassment.  Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

Those religions and the supporters of those religions don't believe anyone who leaves should be murdered. They also do not have a history of violent, murderous expansion and multiple calls for the murder of infidels or non-believers in their holy books.

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Those religions and the supporters of those religions don't believe anyone who leaves should be murdered. They also do not have a history of violent, murderous expansion and multiple calls for the murder of infidels or non-believers in their holy books.

You seem to continue to miss or ignore the point I am making:  The same mindset (or thought process or value)  that created the Nun's habit continues today among Christans and Muslims and probably Hindus and Sikhs.  That mindset is that a woman's clothing reflects her purity and modesty, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then she risks arousing a man to sexual violence.

You can raise all kinds of points around that, including style of dress and punishment for failing to adhere to whatever modesty standard is set, but none of that changes the basic reason of why such groups impose dress codes on women. 

Anyway, I am done here.

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/28/2017 at 11:57 AM, Argus said:

You don't think that seems a trifle elitist, like the goateed petty bourgeois sneering at the crowds in the streets as he sips his champagne?

If he's drinking champagne, though, he's probably French ie. rabble.  Seriously, no, I don't think that they're all rabble nor do I feel that anti-immigration sentiments deserve to be universally condemned otherwise my fellow traveller David Suzuki would be worth of condemnation... of course my monocle would pop across the room, bringing the faculty party to a hushed standstill if I had to do that.

But this bill is am embarrassment, embodied into legislation. 

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/28/2017 at 12:05 PM, Argus said:

Doesn't say much for the quality of the lawyer's your talking to.

Young lawyers.  How old are you grammarians ?  Are they grammies ?

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/28/2017 at 12:20 PM, Argus said:

Islam has proven that it is unable to reform itself without outside pressure of some kind. 

Your statement equates to saying "Islam has proven that it is able to reform itself WITH outside pressure."  Can you explain ?

So far, we have seen outspoken Muslims from the west providing a positive and alternative point of view, as well as dialogue between Jews and Imams in Montreal (that encounter was conveyed in the last episode of Canadaland btw).  I think having Islam encounter a country with an open culture could be the trick you are looking for.

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/28/2017 at 12:24 PM, Argus said:

They do? What nuns?

Veiled nuns were and perhaps are still a habit in our lifetimes.

[Michael Hardner]

On 10/28/2017 at 12:26 PM, Argus said:

And if they did would blithely disregard them as unimportant.

Conjecture.  I don't see the efficacy of criticizing another culture as much as criticizing your own.  Mufti.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Leave the important issues of national security to us.

Insecurity is the only things you violent morons ever accomplish.

Your silly bromides on violence are hilarious. Makes my beer come out my nose.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. Your silly bromides on violence are hilarious. Makes my beer come out my nose.

2. Insecurity is the only things you violent morons ever accomplish.

1. Hint: I always make sure to swallow before 'unhiding' posts.  It's safer that way.

2. I'm thinking there's truth in this.  The nightmares we all had during the cold war were manifestations of our insecurity, even though we were actually at peace.

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm thinking there's truth in this.  The nightmares we all had during the cold war were manifestations of our insecurity, even though we were actually at peace.

I think our insecurity is more a manifestation of our fear than the other way around.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think our insecurity is more a manifestation of our fear than the other way around.

Sure.  But you have to be educated to fear, so you will have to wait until people forget to get back true security.

In Quebec, they are willing to use government to assuage trendy fears.

[OftenWrong]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think our insecurity is more a manifestation of our fear than the other way around.

By your own admission many times, you've said there are lots of people around the world who want to see "us" suffer. I don't disagree with that, the difference is who to blame, and what if anything's to be done about it. So now you make it sound like there's no problem, just right wingers dreaming there is one where there's actually none.

That is why you can't rely on the left to do what needs to be done when times get tough. You need a right winger who understands the depth of depravity that is mankind, to deal with people who are as vicious as you can imagine.

The good old days when life was simple are gone my friend, the 60's, 70's, 80's. You benefited from them while others suffered because of them. Now those people are threatening payback. That is why Quebecers created Bill 62, the need to show your face in public.

Edited October 29, 2017 by OftenWrong

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You need a right winger who understands the depth of depravity that is mankind, to deal with people who are as vicious as you can imagine.

Takes one to know one? Whatever you say chief. 

Quote

The good old days when life was simple are gone my friend, the 60's, 70's, 80's. You benefited from them while others suffered because of them. Now those people are threatening payback.

I can't say that I really blame them, especially in light of the context you use to describe our benefit.

Edited October 29, 2017 by eyeball

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your statement equates to saying "Islam has proven that it is able to reform itself WITH outside pressure."  Can you explain ?

So far, we have seen outspoken Muslims from the west providing a positive and alternative point of view, as well as dialogue between Jews and Imams in Montreal (that encounter was conveyed in the last episode of Canadaland btw).  I think having Islam encounter a country with an open culture could be the trick you are looking for.

It does not equate to that. I'm not sure Islam can reform at all, even with outside pressure. I'm just sure it can't and won't without.

Islam is a closed system. Everyone has grown up with the absolute surety that the word in their holy book is the unvarnished perfect word of God, and cannot be changed, altered or re-interpreted. Most accept that to be the case. Those who might have their doubts face the prospect of imprisonment, torture and death if they talk much about their doubts. How is this system going to change?

The only real hope is Western Muslims, because in the West, Muslims have not only a ready comparison but the freedom - or at least, more freedom - to oppose the harsh interpretations of the Koran. It still has a cost, possibly including social exclusion from the community, but it's doable here. But it's still a daunting task, and it's much less likely to be done if we all smile and engage in group hugs and giggle at how delightfully ethnic they are, and assure them of our wholesale respect for their religious beliefs - which of course, includes the values which derive from them.

They need to be pushed. Not clubbed, but pushed. And I don't see the likes of Trudeau making the slightest attempt at that - ever.

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Veiled nuns were and perhaps are still a habit in our lifetimes.

I went to Catholic school in the sixties and seventies. I've never seen a veiled nun in my life. Most nuns today only wear their habits in church, then wear street clothes when they go out into the community to help people.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Conjecture.  I don't see the efficacy of criticizing another culture as much as criticizing your own.  Mufti.

If you are talking about Christianity's crimes you need to have context, a scale of comparison. Else you are simply comparing the events of a previous time to those of today. The best context and comparison is that of other religions, other nations.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Argus