BILL 21 - QUEBEC

[Rue]

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

They engage in terrorism and murder in other countries. 

If a country has laws calling for death penalty for what they deem a crime, its not murder, its execution.  It hardly matters if the law itself is just, or if people inside or outside of the country approve of the law.  If a government kills it's own citizens in contravention of its own laws, that would be murder.  

Some Western countries have anti-blasphemy laws, which are rarely, if ever, enforced.  Some Islamic countries have anti-blasphemy laws which includes the death penalty, but rarely enforce it to that degree.  

I don't like those laws either, even if they're rarely enforced.  I think they're wrong, but I'm not about to hold every Muslim in the world responsible for them, especially those who choose to come to live in Canada.  

You are engaging in a similar defective argument people make defending Trump. You try deflect from the  issue of Muslim extremism by raising criticism of  Western states' foreign policies and/or human rights records.  Using you argument, no one can challenge or criticize Muslim extremism because non Muslim extremists in your opinion are or have been equally as bad.

That is illogical. One person being evil does not make another less evil.  It simply makes them both evil.

If you want to challenge Canada or the US as being evil, start a thread. To use that as a rationalization to avoid challenging Muslim fundamentalist extremism that leads to violence is not logical and as I said it is a deflection and a very obvious one at that.

Oy my apostate hurts. I need some more zinc.

Getting back to the issue, it was wrong to have the National Assembly of Quebec pass a law preventing religious attire in public service and leave a large cross on the wall of the assembly. That was hypocritical. It sent the wrong message.

Separating religion and state requires a consistent approach.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Rue

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

You try deflect from the  issue of Muslim extremism by raising criticism of  Western states' foreign policies and/or human rights records.  Using you argument, no one can challenge or criticize Muslim extremism

 

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

To use that as a rationalization to avoid challenging Muslim fundamentalist extremism that leads to violence is not logical and as I said it is a deflection and a very obvious one at that.

Playing "devil's advocate" with deathly religious extremism makes a person look and sound like they support it.  Or the very least - understand and tolerate it.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Goddess

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Marocc said:

You support a terrorist government? So long as they're not Muslims I suppose?

Well, you support terrorist governments so long as they ARE Muslims.

[Marocc]

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, you support terrorist governments so long as they ARE Muslims.

No I don't. What government do you suppose I support?

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Marocc said:

No I don't. What government do you suppose I support?

The Caliphate?

 

I'm just kidding. 

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

by raising criticism of  Western states' foreign policies and/or human rights records.  Using you argument, no one can challenge or criticize Muslim extremism because non Muslim extremists in your opinion are or have been equally as bad.

That would on no way prevent criticism.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

That is illogical. One person being evil does not make another less evil.  It simply makes them both evil.

Stating the obvious.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

To use that as a rationalization to avoid challenging Muslim fundamentalist extremism that leads to violence is not logical

Never seen that being done.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Separating religion and state requires a consistent approach.

If only it could be consistent with human right, but it isn't.

[Goddess]

https://globalnews.ca/news/6284594/quebec-appeal-court-bill-21-decision/

 

Quote

 

The Quebec Court of Appeal has rejected a challenge to the province’s secularism law known as Bill 21.

Both the province and its opponents have said they are willing to take Bill 21 to the Supreme Court if necessary.

 

 

[QuebecOverCanada]

Excellent news!

The judgement made was tremendous. And the arguments presented by the judges to confirm the legality of the law were very witty.

They basically said that wearing religious symbols was not mandatory for being part of a religious group. For instance, many Muslims don't wear veils. Many Jews don't were their kippahs, and they still are part of their religious groups. Same with many Christians not wearing a little cross around their necks. And not wearing those symbols for the time these practitioners are at work representing government does not make it so they are not part of their religion.

[Teena]

15 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Excellent news!

The judgement made was tremendous. And the arguments presented by the judges to confirm the legality of the law were very witty.

They basically said that wearing religious symbols was not mandatory for being part of a religious group. For instance, many Muslims don't wear veils. Many Jews don't were their kippahs, and they still are part of their religious groups. Same with many Christians not wearing a little cross around their necks. And not wearing those symbols for the time these practitioners are at work representing government does not make it so they are not part of their religion.

Awesome news. Now why can't we apply this across the board? 

[QuebecOverCanada]

26 minutes ago, Teena said:

Awesome news. Now why can't we apply this across the board? 

Across the board, meaning across Canada?

[Teena]

20 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Across the board, meaning across Canada?

Yes across Canada  

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Excellent news!

The judgement made was tremendous. And the arguments presented by the judges to confirm the legality of the law were very witty.

They basically said that wearing religious symbols was not mandatory for being part of a religious group. For instance, many Muslims don't wear veils. Many Jews don't were their kippahs, and they still are part of their religious groups. Same with many Christians not wearing a little cross around their necks. And not wearing those symbols for the time these practitioners are at work representing government does not make it so they are not part of their religion.

You call that witty? That's dumb. Makes no sense to compare a veil to a cross necklace because the cross necklace is not required from a Christian and it isn't a cloth. And most importantly because the main problem is not prohibiting the veil but the hijab. I'm hoping they said it differently from you and it wasn't such a lie for real. What if a person has cancer and needs to shave their head? I suppose they will forbid her from wearing a scarf. At the same time prohibiting cross jewellery is childish.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Marocc

[Marocc]

20 minutes ago, Teena said:

Yes across Canada  

I have an idea. The little group of anti religious people in Canada could make their own little place somewhere. You want to shut people out — you'll have to shut yourself in.

[Goddess]

15 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I have an idea. The little group of anti religious people in Canada could make their own little place somewhere. You want to shut people out — you'll have to shut yourself in.

I think it's important to note that not ALL Muslims disagree with Bill 21.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-why-some-canadian-muslims-celebrated-the-quebec-hijab-ban#comments

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-quebec-leads-the-rest-of-canada-with-religious-symbols-ban

 

22 minutes ago, Marocc said:

You call that witty? That's dumb. Makes no sense to compare a veil to a cross necklace because the cross necklace is not required from a Christian and it isn't a cloth. And most importantly because the main problem is not prohibiting the veil but the hijab. I'm hoping they said it differently from you and it wasn't such a lie for real. What if a person has cancer and needs to shave their head? I suppose they will forbid her from wearing a scarf. At the same time prohibiting cross jewellery is childish.

This is from the articles:

Quote

The fact is that while the Sikh turban, Jewish yarmulkes and the Catholic crucifix are definitely religious symbols, the hijab is not. Rather it is a political symbol that until the late 1970s was unheard of in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, Somalia and Nigeria. It was the uniform of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world.

Despite the fact the English media gives space almost exclusively to Islamists who support Sharia law, many Muslim leaders and activists in Quebec have supported the new law.

Muslim activist Ferid Chikhi, reacting to the Quebec hijab, debate wrote: “Whether we like it or not, what is most disturbing in Quebec is what I call malignant entryism by Islamists who want to impose their ideology on the host society at all costs while refusing to respect its laws.”

You're not defending a sacred religious right - you are defending an Islamist symbol and we all know what their aims are.

 

Quote

What if a person has cancer and needs to shave their head?

You call that witty? That's dumb.  Cancer patients are not promoting an Islamist agenda by wearing something on their bald heads when they lose their hair.  Same with those who think a winter touque = hijab.  Idiots.

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Goddess

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 hour ago, Teena said:

Yes across Canada  

It would be a good thing for Canada in my opinion, but it would not be able to pass in some Provinces as there are concentrations of people that think that their religious beliefs may infringe on other people's rights to have a neutral government when it comes to religion, because these people want their religion to be the State's religion, and they adamantly believe it is their right to push their proselytism, and is even one of their religious duties in their opinion.

Edited December 13, 2019 by QuebecOverCanada

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

You call that witty? That's dumb. Makes no sense to compare a veil to a cross necklace because the cross necklace is not required from a Christian and it isn't a cloth. And most importantly because the main problem is not prohibiting the veil but the hijab. I'm hoping they said it differently from you and it wasn't such a lie for real. What if a person has cancer and needs to shave their head? I suppose they will forbid her from wearing a scarf. At the same time prohibiting cross jewellery is childish.

I have many Muslim coworkers at work. Many don't wear their veils. They are Muslims, whether your interpretation of the Sharia or not says otherwise, ok?

[Argus]

On 12/12/2019 at 1:24 PM, Marocc said:

No I don't. What government do you suppose I support?

The one in Iran.

[Marocc]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

The one in Iran.

Why would you think I support that?

[Marocc]

13 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

I have many Muslim coworkers at work. Many don't wear their veils. They are Muslims, whether your interpretation of the Sharia or not says otherwise, ok?

Veil is not necessary – hijab is. And just because someone somewhere who calls him-/herself Muslim does something doesn't make that something good/normal/correct.

13 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

these people want their religion to be the State's religion, and they adamantly believe it is their right to push their proselytism, and is even one of their religious duties in their opinion.

Who wants to make their religion the State's religion? What would that mean?

 

14 hours ago, Goddess said:

Islamist agenda

 

[Marocc]

14 hours ago, Goddess said:

You're not defending a sacred religious right - you are defending an Islamist symbol and we all know what their aims are.

 Keep telling that to yourself.

[Marocc]

15 hours ago, Goddess said:

I think it's important to note that not ALL Muslims disagree with Bill 21.

Islam is not something where people vote for what's good and what's bad.

"Ibn Umar reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

Verily, modesty and faith come together. If one of the two is missing, so is the other.

Source: Shu’ab al-Imān 7211, Grade: Sahih"

https://abuaminaelias.com/al-mundhiri-modesty-haya-shamelessness/

Edited December 14, 2019 by Marocc

[Goddess]

On 12/14/2019 at 2:13 AM, Marocc said:

 Keep telling that to yourself.

Did you watch the YouTube I posted where Salima Ali explains the verses that speak about hijab?

 

On 12/14/2019 at 2:55 AM, Marocc said:

Islam is not something where people vote for what's good and what's bad.

One of the issues with Islam is that NOTHING is bad.  You can beat your wife or not - whatever you choose.  Either way - you're a good Muslim.  Maybe Islam should start voting on what's good and what's bad.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Goddess

[Marocc]

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Did you watch the YouTube I posted where Salima Ali explains the verses that speak about hijab?

I have seen it. She is incorrect and has no qualifications to advice anyone on such matters.

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

One of the issues with Islam is that NOTHING is bad. 

Incorrect.

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You can beat your wife or not - whatever you choose. 

You cannot beat your wife at all.

[Goddess]

30 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I have seen it. She is incorrect and has no qualifications to advice anyone on such matters.

 

And your qualifications for correct interpreting of koranic verses are..........??

Edited December 16, 2019 by Goddess

[Goddess]

30 minutes ago, Marocc said:

She is incorrect

Why is she incorrect?  Because her interpretation  disagrees with your own?  Maybe she has learned from a peaceful imam and you are listening to a cruel one?

You make these broad statements - "She is incorrect." but you don't say why she is incorrect.  Her view seems perfectly normal, logical, reasonable and sane.   Your's does not.