When Quebec asked a women to remove her niquab while attending class, we were Talebans:
Quote
But the case of Naema Ahmed is not about accommodation at all – it is about the limits of tolerance, and in Quebec it is that which is proving to be unreasonable)
[...]
It may be practiced in some Arab and west Asian countries, such as the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but empowering state agents to enforce dress codes and bar the education of women is hitherto unknown in Canada
(Globe and Mail, March 2010)
But now that the Federal government is forcing women to remove their niquab while swearing their citizenship oath, I can't find the word "Taleban" anywhere in the Globe & Mail.
Quote
But Canada has the right to insist on confirming the identity of the oath-taker (they need to know who is under the veil), and in insisting that the oath be taken, audibly.
Globe and Mail, December 2011 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/is-the-banning-of-veils-at-citizenship-oath-ceremonies-really-necessary/article2268502/)
different reasons. One is to confirm their identiry, the other is because quebec hates minorities ( :P ). This is dumb in any regard, it's the swearing in. So another person can wear a face covering, take it off after the oath, and yell out "aha! i tricked you, i'm a citizen now". Showing their face for tests and the like is different.
Call a Whaaaambulence!
Exhibit 10927382.
Ca vaut pas la peine viper.
http://youtu.be/SNhpw7T36oM
Fausse equivalence.
A l'ecole, elle passe chaque jour devoile. Ici, elle replace le niqab sur le moment le ceremonie est terminee. 1000 heures > 1 heure.
("Devoile" might not be the right word, although literally it should be. I am learning your Taliban ways.)
Deux poids, deux mesures.
PS :The oath of citizenship – an oath to the Queen and her successors, and to obey the laws of Canada, and fulfill the duties of being a citizen –
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
So help me ALLLLAHHHHHHH *boom*
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
Does she have Canadian citizenship ? :D
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:19:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
Does she have Canadian citizenship ? :D
She has no citizenship, not even British citizenship, not even a driver's license as these and passports are signed in her name. How can she be her own subject? :huh:
Quote from: Drakken on December 14, 2011, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:19:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
Does she have Canadian citizenship ? :D
She has no citizenship, not even British citizenship, not even a driver's license as these and passports are signed in her name. How can she be her own subject? :huh:
Hence not Canadian ergo foreign monarch. I take it she's British though ;)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on December 14, 2011, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:19:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
Does she have Canadian citizenship ? :D
She has no citizenship, not even British citizenship, not even a driver's license as these and passports are signed in her name. How can she be her own subject? :huh:
Hence not Canadian ergo foreign monarch. I take it she's British though ;)
A monarch should not be a citizen. You republican weirdos are weird.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 08:30:09 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on December 14, 2011, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:19:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
Does she have Canadian citizenship ? :D
She has no citizenship, not even British citizenship, not even a driver's license as these and passports are signed in her name. How can she be her own subject? :huh:
Hence not Canadian ergo foreign monarch. I take it she's British though ;)
A monarch should not be a citizen. You republican weirdos are weird.
I don't have a problem considering her as British monarch, nice try.
I don't understand why you think it's different for Britain then it is for Canada?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 08:35:04 AM
I don't understand why you think it's different for Britain then it is for Canada?
Is she stateless or what? That's a leftist dream you know...
L'état c'est elle, so to speak.
She has no citizenship at all. If anything she's a foreighn monarch of britan too cause she's really German :lol:
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 08:44:19 AM
She has no citizenship at all. If anything she's a foreighn monarch of britan too cause she's really German :lol:
Your words, not mine. :D
She has no diplomatic passport as most other heads of State have?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:45:50 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 08:44:19 AM
She has no citizenship at all. If anything she's a foreighn monarch of britan too cause she's really German :lol:
Your words, not mine. :D
She has no diplomatic passport as most other heads of State have?
She doesn't have a passport, she IS the passport.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:38:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 08:35:04 AM
I don't understand why you think it's different for Britain then it is for Canada?
Is she stateless or what? That's a leftist dream you know...
She is the state, our citizenship is granted by her from her.
Oh, Neil beat me to it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on December 14, 2011, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 07:19:46 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 07:06:41 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
she's not a foreign monarch. she's canada's monarch (in addition to the monarch of britan and a bunch of other places :P )
Does she have Canadian citizenship ? :D
She has no citizenship, not even British citizenship, not even a driver's license as these and passports are signed in her name. How can she be her own subject? :huh:
Hence not Canadian ergo foreign monarch. I take it she's British though ;)
She isn't a British citizen, she's the Sovereign.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 08:44:19 AM
She has no citizenship at all. If anything she's a foreighn monarch of britan too cause she's really German :lol:
She's no more German than Lady Sovereign is, or that Karl XVI Gustaf is French because he is Bernadotte. I doubt she can even speak German. She's British, point blank.
This ain't the Hanovrians anymore, they stopped being Germans even before the whole Saxe-Coburg-Gotha change thing.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 08:44:01 AM
L'État c'est elle, so to speak.
Only works for absolute monarchies, not for figure heads, veiled or not.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 08:47:35 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:38:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 08:35:04 AM
I don't understand why you think it's different for Britain then it is for Canada?
Is she stateless or what? That's a leftist dream you know...
She is the state, our citizenship is granted by her from her.
Oh, Neil beat me to it.
I thought you were a subject ?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:55:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 08:47:35 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:38:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 08:35:04 AM
I don't understand why you think it's different for Britain then it is for Canada?
Is she stateless or what? That's a leftist dream you know...
She is the state, our citizenship is granted by her from her.
Oh, Neil beat me to it.
I thought you were a subject ?
I am, I think. I get lost in the translation and political correctness of those things.
Although, this brings up a question, do her kids have citizenship? If so does charles lose it upon ascending to the throne?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 02:58:43 AM
As if the oath to a foreign monarch was not bad enough...
As Queen of Jamaica she throws great parties though.
Also, viper is going to be pissed, since royals are visiting Canada again for the 60th aniversary of our Queen.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 09:25:54 AM
Also, viper is going to be pissed, since royals are visiting Canada again for the 60th aniversary of our Queen.
Just 34 years to go to break Pepi II's 4,000 year old record.
And they said it would never be broken.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 09:25:54 AM
Also, viper is going to be pissed, since royals are visiting Canada again for the 60th aniversary of our Queen.
Did you order your 5 free prints of the Official Queen portrait?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 09:35:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 09:25:54 AM
Also, viper is going to be pissed, since royals are visiting Canada again for the 60th aniversary of our Queen.
Did you order your 5 free prints of the Official Queen portrait?
i already have several in my wallet, don't need more :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
Hence not Canadian ergo foreign monarch. I take it she's British though ;)
:lol: No such thing as a "foreign monarch" of a country. She's no more British than Canadian.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2011, 09:59:10 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
Hence not Canadian ergo foreign monarch. I take it she's British though ;)
:lol: No such thing as a "foreign monarch" of a country. She's no more British than Canadian.
I beg to differ. After all, she does get CAP money unlike Canadians ;)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 10:26:36 AM
I beg to differ. After all, she does get CAP money unlike Canadians ;)
Canadians who own farms in Europe do not get CAP money?
But just like Canadians she cannot vote in UK elections.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 08:58:15 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:55:16 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 08:44:01 AM
L'État c'est elle, so to speak.
Only works for absolute monarchies, not for figure heads, veiled or not.
Nope.
Elaborate.
Neil could perhaps give a better explanation if it's something he's interested in, but in the Westminster system the concept of the state is synonymous with the monarchy. In court I don't represent the Province of Alberta - I represent The Queen In Right of Alberta.
It is because our system did start out as an absolute monarchy, but obviously has evolved over the centuries. But those legal fictions remain.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 10:27:18 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 10:26:36 AM
I beg to differ. After all, she does get CAP money unlike Canadians ;)
Canadians who own farms in Europe do not get CAP money?
But just like Canadians she cannot vote in UK elections.
As much as her ? Besides, I doubt their numbers are significant.
Are you sure about Canadians? Often former colonies get a special treatment, like EU citizens for local elections without being a national of the country in question.
Wikipedia says they can. I'm sure Brits can confirm or infirm it
QuoteUnited Kingdom
(CN and EU member) Since 1949, the United Kingdom, citizens of the Commonwealth countries and of the Republic of Ireland have had full voting rights at all levels and can be candidates, as they could before 1949 as British subjects; they are not regarded in law as foreigners.[2][8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote#United_Kingdom)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Are you sure about Canadians? Often former colonies get a special treatment, like EU citizens for local elections without being a national of the country in question.
Well dang. Canadians are more British than Queen Victoria.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:01:14 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Are you sure about Canadians? Often former colonies get a special treatment, like EU citizens for local elections without being a national of the country in question.
Well dang. Canadians are more British than Queen Victoria.
If being more British means having more voting rights than her, then EU nationals are also more British than Her Gracious Majesty.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 11:01:14 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Are you sure about Canadians? Often former colonies get a special treatment, like EU citizens for local elections without being a national of the country in question.
Well dang. Canadians are more British than Queen Victoria.
:bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2011, 10:42:53 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 08:58:15 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:55:16 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 08:44:01 AM
L'État c'est elle, so to speak.
Only works for absolute monarchies, not for figure heads, veiled or not.
Nope.
Elaborate.
Neil could perhaps give a better explanation if it's something he's interested in, but in the Westminster system the concept of the state is synonymous with the monarchy. In court I don't represent the Province of Alberta - I represent The Queen In Right of Alberta.
It is because our system did start out as an absolute monarchy, but obviously has evolved over the centuries. But those legal fictions remain.
Point taken about the legal
fictions remaining. It says it all.
Most important is the niqab/burqa double standard. Even in a non secular and "multiculturalist" state such as Canada.
Québec got it right from the beginning.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Point taken about the legal fictions remaining. It says it all.
It says that it is no longer a monarchy in any functional sense. So who cares? The Queen is a mascot nothing more.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Most important is the niqab/burqa double standard. Even in a non secular and "multiculturalist" state such as Canada.
Québec got it right from the beginning.
I don't get why it is a "double standard" to require people to have their faces uncovered when necessary for purposes of identification, but not otherwise. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Most important is the niqab/burqa double standard. Even in a non secular and "multiculturalist" state such as Canada.
Québec got it right from the beginning.
I don't get why it is a "double standard" to require people to have their faces uncovered when necessary for purposes of identification, but not otherwise. :hmm:
Duque has spent too much time in France. He's been corrupted :P
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
Fausse equivalence.
A l'ecole, elle passe chaque jour devoile. Ici, elle replace le niqab sur le moment le ceremonie est terminee. 1000 heures > 1 heure.
("Devoile" might not be the right word, although literally it should be. I am learning your Taliban ways.)
Non, elle entre en classe, elle se dévoile. Comme on enlève sa casquette ou sa tuque en entrant en classe. En sortant de la classe, elle remet son voile, comme on remet sa casquette ou sa tuque.
She is Revealed!
:lol:
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 09:25:54 AM
Also, viper is going to be pissed, since royals are visiting Canada again for the 60th aniversary of our Queen.
don't care about visits. I feel the same as if Lady Gaga was visiting us and waving her hand for her millions of worshippers.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Most important is the niqab/burqa double standard. Even in a non secular and "multiculturalist" state such as Canada.
Québec got it right from the beginning.
I don't get why it is a "double standard" to require people to have their faces uncovered when necessary for purposes of identification, but not otherwise. :hmm:
Get in class, remove the veil as you remove any cap or hat. Get out of class, put the veil back on as you would with any cap or hat.
Get in the room, remove the veil for the duration of the ceromony, swear your oath, leave and put the veil back on.
One takes off their cap as a show of respect and modesty in western culture. Keeping a veil on is a show of respect and modesty in theirs. So it's not the same.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
One takes off their cap as a show of respect and modesty in western culture. Keeping a veil on is a show of respect and modesty in theirs. So it's not the same.
Fuck their culture, they ran away from it afterall.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 12:02:22 PM
Get in class, remove the veil as you remove any cap or hat. Get out of class, put the veil back on as you would with any cap or hat.
Get in the room, remove the veil for the duration of the ceromony, swear your oath, leave and put the veil back on.
It's not functionally the same. There is no particular functional reason why people remove caps or hats indoors. There is a functional reason why one wants to know who is swearing an oath.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
One takes off their cap as a show of respect and modesty in western culture. Keeping a veil on is a show of respect and modesty in theirs. So it's not the same.
Fuck their culture, they ran away from it afterall.
butwhy does it bother you that they wear a veil? Does it effect you in any way? i get, and agree with, making them show their face to identify themselves, but beyond that what's the point?
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 12:02:22 PM
Get in class, remove the veil as you remove any cap or hat. Get out of class, put the veil back on as you would with any cap or hat.
Get in the room, remove the veil for the duration of the ceromony, swear your oath, leave and put the veil back on.
:lmfao: Quebec seriously has a
law that requires people to remove their hats or caps in class?
Wow. :huh:
Does the law also mandate which presents can and cannot be given on birthdays?
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 12:12:44 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
One takes off their cap as a show of respect and modesty in western culture. Keeping a veil on is a show of respect and modesty in theirs. So it's not the same.
Fuck their culture, they ran away from it afterall.
butwhy does it bother you that they wear a veil? Does it effect you in any way? i get, and agree with, making them show their face to identify themselves, but beyond that what's the point?
Because it is a slap in the face of my culture, you know the one they desperately needed to join?
Also, I disapprove of expressive religiousness that is not from tradition.
Pft. People slap my culture in the face all the time.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
Pft. People slap my culture in the face all the time.
People do that to my culture everytime beans are put in chili :weep:
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 12:12:44 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2011, 12:06:37 PM
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
One takes off their cap as a show of respect and modesty in western culture. Keeping a veil on is a show of respect and modesty in theirs. So it's not the same.
Fuck their culture, they ran away from it afterall.
butwhy does it bother you that they wear a veil? Does it effect you in any way? i get, and agree with, making them show their face to identify themselves, but beyond that what's the point?
Because it is a slap in the face of my culture, you know the one they desperately needed to join?
Also, I disapprove of expressive religiousness that is not from tradition.
I guess that's why it doesn't bother me - what's the "culture" of Toronto anyway, other than a buncha banks? :D
People don't come here because of our fine tradition of hat-doffing, but to make money and live their lives without excessive hassle.
Making up unnecessary laws just adds to people's hassles. My notion is: I don't tell them what to wear, and I reserve the right to ignore them if they attempt to tell me what to wear.
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 01:15:49 PM
I guess that's why it doesn't bother me - what's the "culture" of Toronto anyway, other than a buncha banks? :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarholdings.com%2Famazonimages%2F201100004693.jpg&hash=d96d717c38a4c3c47093b72f0e89c1c971dbd089)
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2011, 01:20:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 01:15:49 PM
I guess that's why it doesn't bother me - what's the "culture" of Toronto anyway, other than a buncha banks? :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarholdings.com%2Famazonimages%2F201100004693.jpg&hash=d96d717c38a4c3c47093b72f0e89c1c971dbd089)
Okay, banks and losing at hockey. :D
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 12:08:29 PM
It's not functionally the same. There is no particular functional reason why people remove caps or hats indoors. There is a functional reason why one wants to know who is swearing an oath.
they're not only lifting up the veil for 3 seconds, they're completely removing it for the entire duration of the ceremony. Akin to Church, in reality...
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
:lmfao: Quebec seriously has a law that requires people to remove their hats or caps in class?
Wow. :huh:
Does the law also mandate which presents can and cannot be given on birthdays?
does everything happening in a classroom needs to be a provincial law? I don't know, tell me, is there a
law that says you must be in class when the bell rings? :roll:
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 01:15:49 PM
I guess that's why it doesn't bother me - what's the "culture" of Toronto anyway, other than a buncha banks? :D
People don't come here because of our fine tradition of hat-doffing, but to make money and live their lives without excessive hassle.
Making up unnecessary laws just adds to people's hassles. My notion is: I don't tell them what to wear, and I reserve the right to ignore them if they attempt to tell me what to wear.
well, we already knew Canada has no culture, what we've being a colony&all. But anyway, this is Federal law. No veil. Racist law from racist people I guess.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 02:15:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
:lmfao: Quebec seriously has a law that requires people to remove their hats or caps in class?
Wow. :huh:
Does the law also mandate which presents can and cannot be given on birthdays?
does everything happening in a classroom needs to be a provincial law? I don't know, tell me, is there a law that says you must be in class when the bell rings? :roll:
I'd guess being in class once the bell has rung falls under rules of the school. I'd guess that such a requirement typically doesn't involved depriving people of their rights.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
Fausse equivalence.
A l'ecole, elle passe chaque jour devoile. Ici, elle replace le niqab sur le moment le ceremonie est terminee. 1000 heures > 1 heure.
("Devoile" might not be the right word, although literally it should be. I am learning your Taliban ways.)
Non, elle entre en classe, elle se dévoile. Comme on enlève sa casquette ou sa tuque en entrant en classe. En sortant de la classe, elle remet son voile, comme on remet sa casquette ou sa tuque.
Comme une yarmulke? Ou une dastar, comme une Sikh porte pour satisfaire aux exigences de sa religion?
Je concede que, peut-etre, Quebec simplement deteste tout religion en generale. :P
Mais pourquoi foutre de chapeaux?
P.S. Merci pour parler francais avec mois.
Si jamais je demenage au Quebec, je peux etre invocque d'etre mechant pour les mususlmans aussi. Comme, la liberte de religion est bon, mais bombarder est meillure.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 03:10:11 PM
P.S. Merci pour parler francais avec mois.
Si jamais je demenage au Quebec, je peux etre invocque d'etre mechant pour les mususlmans aussi. Comme, la liberte de religion est bon, mais bombarder est meillure.
Bonjour, you cheese eating surrender monkey.
Some fried pepper jack wedges would really hit the spot right now.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 04:29:39 PM
Some fried pepper jack wedges would really hit the spot right now.
:lol:
I was about to say something like 'being a southerner it is more like a fried cheese eating surrender monkey'.
When I worked at my old, old restaurant, they were served as appetizers. I used to eat two plates of them for dinner. J'AI FAIM.
Thanks Ide. Now I want Mozzarella sticks. YOU ASS.
Oh, those are good too.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 02:15:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
:lmfao: Quebec seriously has a law that requires people to remove their hats or caps in class?
Wow. :huh:
Does the law also mandate which presents can and cannot be given on birthdays?
does everything happening in a classroom needs to be a provincial law? I don't know, tell me, is there a law that says you must be in class when the bell rings? :roll:
Apparantly, you think that a school dress code should be part of Quebec provincial law.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
Fausse equivalence.
A l'ecole, elle passe chaque jour devoile. Ici, elle replace le niqab sur le moment le ceremonie est terminee. 1000 heures > 1 heure.
("Devoile" might not be the right word, although literally it should be. I am learning your Taliban ways.)
Non, elle entre en classe, elle se dévoile. Comme on enlève sa casquette ou sa tuque en entrant en classe. En sortant de la classe, elle remet son voile, comme on remet sa casquette ou sa tuque.
Je concede que, peut-etre, Quebec simplement deteste tout religion en generale. :P
We're not exactly fans, no.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 03:10:11 PM
P.S. Merci pour parler francais avec mois.
Si jamais je demenage au Quebec, je peux etre invocque d'etre mechant pour les mususlmans aussi. Comme, la liberte de religion est bon, mais bombarder est meillure.
If you're to speak French then haul your tight boy ass around here so we can practice.
As for the Canadians - let them wallow in their multikulti bullshit until they drown in it... Which shouldn't be very long at the rate it's happening!
G.
Why are you all planning to ditch French and join the rest of the world?
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2011, 02:25:03 PM
I'd guess being in class once the bell has rung falls under rules of the school.
Same here...
Quote
I'd guess that such a requirement typically doesn't involved depriving people of their rights.
What is a right, what is an obligation?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 02:53:20 PM
Comme une yarmulke? Ou une dastar, comme une Sikh porte pour satisfaire aux exigences de sa religion?
Les Sikhs se sont vu refuser l'entrée à l'Assemblée Nationale avec leur kirpan...
Sikh were barred from entering the National Assembly with their kirpans.
Quote
Mais pourquoi foutre de chapeaux?
?
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2011, 08:08:50 PM
Apparantly, you think that a school dress code should be part of Quebec provincial law.
Grumbler says that. I never did. I just said there are rules in schools where you can't keep your hat inside the classroom once the class has started. In college&university, it depends on the teacher. Generally speaking, they don't like it, and it's an absolute no for the exams.
As I said, not everything needs to be a law, but if people invoke their religious bullshit to impose their values on the rest of the society, then it often needs to be made law.
No one would invoke the right to religious freedom to start a fight in school. Hence, no laws for that, only school rules.
The niqab is a symbol of cultural oppression. As we have seen with the Shafia case, it's really not always a "choice" of the woman, especially the younger ones. Though the medias may be very good at finding women claiming they do it on a voluntary basis, it's hard to imagine people moving from their country only to replicate their habits here. The more women are covered from head to toes, the greater the social pressure.
Hence, in public spaces like parliament, schools, tribunals, election booths, it should be forbidden. There is a seperation between State and Church, I'd like to keep it for all religions, not just Christianity. It's insane to remove a Christmas tree because some bozos decided it's anti-islam. First, it starts with the veil, then it goes to insane shit like this.
So, you stop it at the root. Just like the Conservative government did, and I approve of this measure. That'll just make me a Canadian Conservative nazi, so be it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 08:59:40 AM
Elaborate.
The fact has gone but it's still the legal position. For example she doesn't dismiss Parliament except when advised by the PM, but she still dismisses and calls Parliament. Similarly a lot of the government's powers are still technically royal prerogatives, they come straight from the monarch not from Parliament - for example going to war.
Now in a practical analysis the truth is none of that really comes from or adheres to the monarch as would be the case with an absolute monarch, but that's still the theory and law.
Similarly with this, she can't be her own subject so she's above British, Australian, Canadian.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 09:47:45 PM
Quote
I'd guess that such a requirement typically doesn't involved depriving people of their rights.
What is a right, what is an obligation?
I'm not really sure why you feel like you're the best at reaching into men's (well in this case women's) hearts. Why are you so confident that these women must be adopted said veils because they are forced to and not because they choose to?
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2011, 10:15:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 09:47:45 PM
Quote
I'd guess that such a requirement typically doesn't involved depriving people of their rights.
What is a right, what is an obligation?
I'm not really sure why you feel like you're the best at reaching into men's (well in this case women's) hearts. Why are you so confident that these women must be adopted said veils because they are forced to and not because they choose to?
Interestingly or not, the two or three veiled women I've talked to about this issue have said they choose to do it and that is was a political act/symbolic.
By "be", I meant "have" :blush:
I think Philadelphia has a particularly large community of Black Muslims, but traveling from Phila. to Istanbul, it was weird to not see any women in full black chador, just generic color print headscarves. (With the caveat of course that I didn't spend much time in the hardcore Anatolian working-class districts.)
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2011, 11:34:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 14, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2011, 11:21:51 AM
Most important is the niqab/burqa double standard. Even in a non secular and "multiculturalist" state such as Canada.
Québec got it right from the beginning.
I don't get why it is a "double standard" to require people to have their faces uncovered when necessary for purposes of identification, but not otherwise. :hmm:
HVC has spent too much time in Anglo Canada. He's been corrupted :P
FYP
e.g his Portuguese skills suck though even his English leaves a lot to be desired. :P
Quote from: Grallon on December 14, 2011, 09:00:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 03:10:11 PM
P.S. Merci pour parler francais avec mois.
Si jamais je demenage au Quebec, je peux etre invocque d'etre mechant pour les mususlmans aussi. Comme, la liberte de religion est bon, mais bombarder est meillure.
If you're to speak French then haul your tight boy ass around here so we can practice.
I think I've aged out of the system, Gral.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 09:49:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 14, 2011, 02:53:20 PM
Comme une yarmulke? Ou une dastar, comme une Sikh porte pour satisfaire aux exigences de sa religion?
Les Sikhs se sont vu refuser l'entrée à l'Assemblée Nationale avec leur kirpan...
Sikh were barred from entering the National Assembly with their kirpans.
C'est bien; ils sont des armes. Et leurs turbans?
QuoteQuote
Mais pourquoi foutre de chapeaux?
?
Literally from English: "Porquoi donnez-vous une merde sur chapeaux?" I thought I was using "foutre" right, but maybe not.
It's because foutre is a verb.
"But why give/to do/put of/the hats" is basically what you wrote.
And this isn't fucking Rosetta Stone, Ideologue. :mad:
I'M IMMERSING MYSELF.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 15, 2011, 07:58:32 AM
And this isn't fucking Rosetta Stone, Ideologue. :mad:
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:19:19 AM
I think I've aged out of the system, Gral.
Of course you're too old for sex - I was referring to practicing french. :P
G.
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 02:15:18 PM
does everything happening in a classroom needs to be a provincial law? I don't know, tell me, is there a law that says you must be in class when the bell rings? :roll:
Dude,
it was your analogy! :lmfao:
You compared requiring the removal of the veil in the classroom (a matter of law, since it involved, according to you, "empowering state agents to enforce dress codes and bar the education of women") with removing caps and hats (also a matter of law, if the analogy isn't some intellectually dishonest bullshit you made up to support an otherwise untenable position.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2011, 10:15:27 PM
I'm not really sure why you feel like you're the best at reaching into men's (well in this case women's) hearts. Why are you so confident that these women must be adopted said veils because they are forced to and not because they choose to?
because even moderate muslim ask the government not to tolerate this? Because there are multiple testimonies to the effect that the veil is imposed? Because as you can see in muslim countries, barely any women wear a weil until islamists come to power? It would be a strange coincidence that all these women suddenly feel they must be closer to God just when a Taleban like faction comes to power.
Islamists are on the war path, and they're trying to destroy western liberalism. It has to be made clear to them, that once they come here, they leave that part of their life behind and adapt to the western civilization and its freedoms. Else, they go elsewhere.
Afaik, the US doesn't even allow a women to testify while covered. Apparently, this whole idea that you would have an undeniable right to weir a veil everywhere, anytime has its limits in a country wich prides itself in its individual freedoms. Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 07:31:01 AM
C'est bien; ils sont des armes. Et leurs turbans?
Le turban n'est pas un problème à l'Assemblée Nationale, mais à l'école, ou au tribunal, ils doivent l'enlever.
Quote
Literally from English: "Porquoi donnez-vous une merde sur chapeaux?" I thought I was using "foutre" right, but maybe not.
It's considered impolite to wear a hat inside most places.
Quote from: grumbler on December 15, 2011, 08:51:24 AM
Dude, it was your analogy! :lmfao:
You implied it was a law, as if every single rule out there has to be a written law in the civil or criminal code.
Quote
You compared requiring the removal of the veil in the classroom (a matter of law, since it involved, according to you, "empowering state agents to enforce dress codes and bar the education of women") with removing caps and hats (also a matter of law, if the analogy isn't some intellectually dishonest bullshit you made up to support an otherwise untenable position.
A policy becomes law when people stop respecting it based on their religious rights.
And no women is barred from education in Quebec. You should check your facts.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 11:14:16 AM
because even moderate muslim ask the government not to tolerate this? Because there are multiple testimonies to the effect that the veil is imposed? Because as you can see in muslim countries, barely any women wear a weil until islamists come to power? It would be a strange coincidence that all these women suddenly feel they must be closer to God just when a Taleban like faction comes to power.
I thought we were talking about Quebec where women want to wear veils. Are Islamists in power in Quebec?
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 11:14:16 AMIslamists are on the war path, and they're trying to destroy western liberalism. It has to be made clear to them, that once they come here, they leave that part of their life behind and adapt to the western civilization and its freedoms. Else, they go elsewhere.
Sorry but I find it hard to buy that narrative. I see women walking around in veils here in New York and I doubt they are trying to destroy the prevailing liberalism of the city.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 11:14:16 AM
Afaik, the US doesn't even allow a women to testify while covered. Apparently, this whole idea that you would have an undeniable right to weir a veil everywhere, anytime has its limits in a country wich prides itself in its individual freedoms. Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...
But you're talking about different things. There is a good argument as to why we'd want to be able to see who is testifying. There isn't really a compelling argument that we need to see who is in a class room - although I could see some sort of security check at the entrance of a school to make sure that random individuals aren't sneaking into a school under the cover of a veil.
Quote from: Le Viper Trente-SeptIt's considered impolite to wear a hat inside most places.
Le porte de chapeaux est considere impoli en America aussi. Un peu. Je n'ai pas ete autorise a porter un chapeau en ecole, comme je me souviens. Je n'aimais ca alors, je ne l'aime pas aujourd'hui. Incivilites floue suels n'est pas une raison suffisante pour interdire une practique, IMO. Comme la cuillette de votre noz en publique, ou porter blanc apres le Labor Day.
QuoteLe turban n'est pas un problème à l'Assemblée Nationale, mais à l'école, ou au tribunal, ils doivent l'enlever.
Mais pourquoi? Qui est blesse? Simples signes de l'heritage culturel ne sont pas plus nocifs en eux-memes d'un T-shirt.
Je pense que le mieux de leur donner la liberte d'ete stupide. Ils finnesent par fondre da la pot--leur point de fusion est beaucoup plus faible. ;)
Au moins, tant que la civilisation occidentale peut plausiblement pretendre superiorite.
But "superiority" is setting the bar pretty low, given we're talking about Islamoids.
P.S.: if you amend your plan so that no women can wear T-shirts either, I am fully on board.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 11:14:16 AM
... Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...
Why do you even bother Vip? At this point, between the bad faith, the theatrics and the reflexive posturing, it is virtually impossible to discuss anything on this board.
They say we are racists - then we are racists; they say we are fascists - then so are we! Who cares what they think anyway? It's not like your arguing will change one iota of their opinion.
You've got to practice detachment.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 15, 2011, 12:07:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 11:14:16 AM
... Yet here, we're still debating all this in court...
Why do you even bother Vip? At this point, between the bad faith, the theatrics and the reflexive posturing, it is virtually impossible to discuss anything on this board.
They say we are racists - then we are racists; they say we are fascists - then so are we! Who cares what they think anyway? It's not like your arguing will change one iota of their opinion.
You've got to practice detachment.
G.
I don't remember calling viper a racist. :huh:
I don't think you're racists. I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).
Without this common sense even-handedness, rights become simply a matter of privilege rather than freedom, and we become more like the Islamic societies we should rightly abhor (and bomb). Which is why the Taliban moniker, if over-the-top, sometimes fits when Quebecois (and of course many, many, many Americans) get really frothy about it.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:12:43 PM
I don't think you're racists. I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).
Without this common sense even-handedness, rights become simply a matter of privilege rather than freedom, and we become more like the Islamic societies we should rightly abhor (and bomb). Which is why the Taliban moniker, if over-the-top, sometimes fits when Quebecois (and of course many, many, many Americans) get really frothy about it.
+1
Ide.
Viper is feminine.
So, La viper 37
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:12:43 PM
I don't think you're racists. I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).
Most people aren't in the habit of tolerating toxic substances within their organisms.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 15, 2011, 12:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:12:43 PM
I don't think you're racists. I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic), and be rationally related to a legitimate government objective (which I do not believe enforcing fuzzy social mores about hats to be).
Most people aren't in the habit of tolerating toxic substances within their organisms.
G.
Most people aren't in the habit of calling others 'toxic substances'. Nor do they talk about substances coming into their organisms. :x
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:04:22 PM
Mais pourquoi? Qui est blesse? Simples signes de l'heritage culturel ne sont pas plus nocifs en eux-memes d'un T-shirt.
Tu ne pourrais porter un t-shirt "Fuck the law" au tribunal.
Quote
Je pense que le mieux de leur donner la liberte d'ete stupide. Ils finnesent par fondre da la pot--leur point de fusion est beaucoup plus faible. ;)
Le problème, c'est qu'ils restreignent la liberté des autres, accentuent la pression sur les nouveaux arrivants et importe un système de valeur (pas seulement que le voile) incompatible au nôtre.
Quote
But "superiority" is setting the bar pretty low, given we're talking about Islamoids.
True. But in face of legal challenges everywhere, we must be firm. Even when the muslims call canadians racists.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2011, 11:47:54 AM
I thought we were talking about Quebec where women want to wear veils. Are Islamists in power in Quebec?
Not yet, but many among them fear they are imposing their laws. Like Italians and organized crime. If you let them tax merchants because it's part of their culture, you get yourself other problems.
At some point, you have to put limits.
Quote
Sorry but I find it hard to buy that narrative. I see women walking around in veils here in New York and I doubt they are trying to destroy the prevailing liberalism of the city.
Wearing it the streets is not the same as wearing it inside government buildings, for voting, for testifying, for education, etc.
IIRC, the US doesn't allow a woman to wear the veil when taking her picture for the driving licence in any state. I couldn't wear a cap in school during an exam, why should a woman be allowed to wear a veil? Why accept for others what we deny to ourselves?
Honour crimes are on the rise, and we must prevent any part of that ideology from implanting itself here. Immigrants are welcome, but they must understand this is not an islamic country. We will not remove a christmas tree because it is offensive to them, nor will we refrain from wishing "Merry Christmas" to others because they themselves don't celebrate it.
Quote
But you're talking about different things. There is a good argument as to why we'd want to be able to see who is testifying.
Freedom of expression: i have the right to wear what I want.
Freedom of dressing how I choose.
Freddom of religion: i have the right to show my religious sign, the veil being akin to a cross. The fact that you can't see clearly the face of the person is irrelevant, if we're talking about religion. You are essentially placing religious rights below other rights. But now, you say it's ok to do it.
QuoteThere isn't really a compelling argument that we need to see who is in a class room
Teachers like to be able to observe their students, to engage in a meaningful conversation with them, to check if the person in class is really the one who is registered, etc, etc.
Besides, it is a government building: no religious signs should be visible. Religion is officially out of public schools since a few years. And we do subsidize muslim and jewish schools where they can wear whatever they want, so long as they comply to the general education guidelines.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:12:43 PM
I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic),
That's multiculturalism, and it's been a failure, in Canada and abroad.
Our cultural heritage is derived from Christianity. We don't hold any prayer anymore in schools and public office (well, Saguenay is the exception, they're fighting up to the Supreme Court for that...), but I don't mind a crucifix on the wall of the National Assembly, just as I don't mind a crescent in a predominantly muslim town hall. But veil,hats, knives, no. Imho, the RCMP should never have accepted the turban for the Sikh. Now we're stuck with cases where entrepreneurs must defend themselves in court because their Sikh employees don't want to wear the protective hat for construction workers.
Quote
Without this common sense even-handedness, rights become simply a matter of privilege rather than freedom, and we become more like the Islamic societies we should rightly abhor (and bomb). Which is why the Taliban moniker, if over-the-top, sometimes fits when Quebecois (and of course many, many, many Americans) get really frothy about it.
How have we been frothy, really? By requiring a muslim to comply with the no religious signs in schools? I couldn't wear a crucifix over my clothes in public school, and there's no prayer being recited. In our society, it's judged normal to see someone's face when interacting with them. I don't care what they do at home, or in the streets. But in the parliaments, the schools, the voting booths, I believe things are different.
And I am offended that some bureaucrat of the Government of Canada has seen fit to forbid all employees from wishing Merry Christmas because it's offensive to some. Just as I am offended that a Montreal subburb has removed it's Christmas tree due to complaints from Muslim immigrants. This is not the way I want this country to be. I should not have to change to adapt to those who come here. If I move elsewhere, I will adapt, or I will leave. Same for them.
I will not "erase" myself to please some obscurantists and their useful idiots.
Quote from: viperTu ne pourrais porter un t-shirt "Fuck the law" au tribunal.
Au contraire. Regadez-vous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California). Je peux.
(Peut-etre pas dans la salle du tribunal actuel. Cela serait probablement contempt of court.)
Edit: and anyway, un voile n'est pas obscenes, de toute metrique. But again, court is a special place, where heightened restraints on conduct can occur (yet evidently not enough to keep me from writing fuck on my jacket so long as I am not directly involved in a case). Schools can use heightened restraints as well, true, but I would say to a lesser or different degree.
QuoteLe problème, c'est qu'ils restreignent la liberté des autres, accentuent la pression sur les nouveaux arrivants et importe un système de valeur (pas seulement que le voile) incompatible au nôtre.
Je suis d'accord, surtout. Cependant est la travail des systemes juridiques afin d'identifier les elements de la culture qui menacent reelemente (par example, meurtres d'honneur) et de supprimer ces aspects. Laissez la reste a conditionnement social. Il est comment nous detruit les cultures de tout de monde en Amerique. :P
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
We will not remove a christmas tree because it is offensive to them
Yet you want them to remove a veil because it's offensive to you.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 12:12:43 PM
I think you're simply forgetting that tolerance of non-physically harmful expression has to be pretty uniformly distributed (i.e., to men and women, atheist and Muslim, straight and gay), be content neutral (not favoring atheistic or Christian expression over Islamic),
That's multiculturalism, and it's been a failure, in Canada and abroad.
Our cultural heritage is derived from Christianity. We don't hold any prayer anymore in schools and public office (well, Saguenay is the exception, they're fighting up to the Supreme Court for that...), but I don't mind a crucifix on the wall of the National Assembly, just as I don't mind a crescent in a predominantly muslim town hall. But veil,hats, knives, no. Imho, the RCMP should never have accepted the turban for the Sikh. Now we're stuck with cases where entrepreneurs must defend themselves in court because their Sikh employees don't want to wear the protective hat for construction workers.
Quote
Without this common sense even-handedness, rights become simply a matter of privilege rather than freedom, and we become more like the Islamic societies we should rightly abhor (and bomb). Which is why the Taliban moniker, if over-the-top, sometimes fits when Quebecois (and of course many, many, many Americans) get really frothy about it.
How have we been frothy, really? By requiring a muslim to comply with the no religious signs in schools? I couldn't wear a crucifix over my clothes in public school, and there's no prayer being recited. In our society, it's judged normal to see someone's face when interacting with them. I don't care what they do at home, or in the streets. But in the parliaments, the schools, the voting booths, I believe things are different.
And I am offended that some bureaucrat of the Government of Canada has seen fit to forbid all employees from wishing Merry Christmas because it's offensive to some. Just as I am offended that a Montreal subburb has removed it's Christmas tree due to complaints from Muslim immigrants. This is not the way I want this country to be. I should not have to change to adapt to those who come here. If I move elsewhere, I will adapt, or I will leave. Same for them.
I will not "erase" myself to please some obscurantists and their useful idiots.
But that's just it. I don't see it as a personal change you have to make. I mean, I see people in niqabs (or some kind of veiling system, I know enough to know they're different) even here, believe it or not. I usually have a visceral reaction of "That poor, dumb, probably oppressed bint." But it doesn't strike me as an existential threat to my society. And as for Christmas trees and the like... well, old tannenbaum can stay, but public employees should not be saying "Merry Christmas" anyway, in their formal role. It's not a big deal.
I'm not saying you're necessarily frothy. That was more directed at G, who is froth incarnate (and the world is better for it). :P
Well Viper, if that's how you want to roll how about you stop speaking French?
Oh shit that reminds me, I meant to make a Francophone joke:
QuoteTu ne pourrais porter un t-shirt "Fuck the law" au tribunal.
Parce il dit "Fuck the law" ou parce est en Anglais? :D
I remember graffiti in Paris saying 'Fuck the Police' amongst a bunch of French stuff so maybe they have adopted this handy and emotionally evoking phrase.
Though I do recall some other guy came along and crossed out one 'Fuck the Police' and sprayed a french equivalent below it. Ici on parle Francais.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Not yet, but many among them fear they are imposing their laws. Like Italians and organized crime. If you let them tax merchants because it's part of their culture, you get yourself other problems.
At some point, you have to put limits.
Okay - Marty. Not sure how you can equate allowing people to dress in different ways with extortion...
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Wearing it the streets is not the same as wearing it inside government buildings, for voting, for testifying, for education, etc.
IIRC, the US doesn't allow a woman to wear the veil when taking her picture for the driving licence in any state. I couldn't wear a cap in school during an exam, why should a woman be allowed to wear a veil? Why accept for others what we deny to ourselves?
Again that is different. There is a compelling reason as to why you need to have your face uncovered for a license photo. :huh: Anyway, I'm sorry that you had to deal with such oppression - I could have worn a cap during an exam, although it is true that some professors would have been annoyed as it is against cultural custom. Anyway, I don't think we deny ourselves the ability to wear veils. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Honour crimes are on the rise, and we must prevent any part of that ideology from implanting itself here. Immigrants are welcome, but they must understand this is not an islamic country. We will not remove a christmas tree because it is offensive to them, nor will we refrain from wishing "Merry Christmas" to others because they themselves don't celebrate it.
This seems like a mish-mosh of things other than veil wearing. You seem to think that immigrants can't be allowed to espouse any parts of their native cultures because it necessarily threatens "ours". I'm not sure what that has to be the case.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Freedom of expression: i have the right to wear what I want.
Freedom of dressing how I choose.
Freddom of religion: i have the right to show my religious sign, the veil being akin to a cross. The fact that you can't see clearly the face of the person is irrelevant, if we're talking about religion. You are essentially placing religious rights below other rights. But now, you say it's ok to do it.
Not really sure what you are trying to say here. I'm not saying that at all.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Teachers like to be able to observe their students, to engage in a meaningful conversation with them, to check if the person in class is really the one who is registered, etc, etc.
Besides, it is a government building: no religious signs should be visible. Religion is officially out of public schools since a few years. And we do subsidize muslim and jewish schools where they can wear whatever they want, so long as they comply to the general education guidelines.
You can't engage with someone if they are wearing a veil? Surely they put themselves at a disadvantage but that's on them. I do recognize that their probably are some issues for exams/public school level at making sure that the registered person is truly that individual - although I'm not sure that means veils should be out right banned. Anyway, when I was in school - kids could still wearing small crosses on their necks and Jews could still wear yarmulkes. That had nothing to do with public schools supporting religion.
Anyway, I'm now confused as to what you are supporting. You think no religious signs should be visible but it makes sense to support saying Merry Christmas and keeping public Christmas trees? :huh: Sounds more like you are okay with religious symbols as long as they are ones that you support.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:47:34 PM
And I am offended that some bureaucrat of the Government of Canada has seen fit to forbid all employees from wishing Merry Christmas because it's offensive to some. Just as I am offended that a Montreal subburb has removed it's Christmas tree due to complaints from Muslim immigrants. This is not the way I want this country to be. I should not have to change to adapt to those who come here. If I move elsewhere, I will adapt, or I will leave. Same for them.
Muslims aren't the only ones who make such complaints. Here many Atheists do such.
If you cover your face where I work you're not getting in. End of story.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2011, 02:05:03 PM
I remember graffiti in Paris saying 'Fuck the Police' amongst a bunch of French stuff so maybe they have adopted this handy and emotionally evoking phrase.
Though I do recall some other guy came along and crossed out one 'Fuck the Police' and sprayed a french equivalent below it. Ici on parle Francais.
And how. One of my favourite moments in French cinema:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gFenEV9N2U
I love the floating over the estate and then the cow. It's wonderful.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2011, 02:27:05 PM
Okay - Marty. Not sure how you can equate allowing people to dress in different ways with extortion...
there's been a few cases where it was argued - unsuccessfully - that it was part of their culture.
I remember a judge giving a lighter sentence to a muslim because he annally raped a child and thus preserved her virginity, wich was important in their culture.
Recently, we have a muslim family killing their children and the man's former wife because she was dating a Pakistani. He's a self-described liberal, and according to his lawyer, he's 8.5/10 on the liberal scale - for an Afghan.
If people come here and judge themselves by their old set of values, we have a problem.
This is where it leads when you let extremists get a beachhead.
Quote
Again that is different. There is a compelling reason as to why you need to have your face uncovered for a license photo. :huh: Anyway, I'm sorry that you had to deal with such oppression - I could have worn a cap during an exam, although it is true that some professors would have been annoyed as it is against cultural custom. Anyway, I don't think we deny ourselves the ability to wear veils. :lol:
An head cover is an head cover. Be it for religious, cultural or pleasure reasons, it's the same.
I like women with the less possible clothes :P
Quote
This seems like a mish-mosh of things other than veil wearing. You seem to think that immigrants can't be allowed to espouse any parts of their native cultures because it necessarily threatens "ours". I'm not sure what that has to be the case.
Any part?? Are you reading yourself?
We're talking about covering women from head to toe, here, to hide them from society, to make them invisible, to make them inferior to men who walk in open light.
I believe in equality between men&women, and when you have such extremists here trying to bend the rules in their favour, even requiring the right to teach creationism, it's got to stop.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Freedom of expression: i have the right to wear what I want.
Freedom of dressing how I choose.
Freddom of religion: i have the right to show my religious sign, the veil being akin to a cross. The fact that you can't see clearly the face of the person is irrelevant, if we're talking about religion. You are essentially placing religious rights below other rights. But now, you say it's ok to do it.
Not really sure what you are trying to say here. I'm not saying that at all.
Quote
You can't engage with someone if they are wearing a veil?
It's annoying to speak with someone completely covered, you never know what they really think, you can't observe their reaction.
Quote
Anyway, I'm now confused as to what you are supporting. You think no religious signs should be visible but it makes sense to support saying Merry Christmas and keeping public Christmas trees? :huh: Sounds more like you are okay with religious symbols as long as they are ones that you support.
I'm atheist, I don't support any religion. I recognize however that my cultural background comes from catholicism, the way it was practices in northern France and later in Quebec. And I'm very attached to my culture. Just as the Americans will freak out if someone suggests removing the "under God" from the pledge of Allegiance ;) even if it's been there for only a few decades and is clearly offensive to non believers, I will freak out when muslims extremists set the agenda here. That is why I don't want the niqab in public places. That is why I don't want the Niqab while a woman recite her oath of citizenship. We have to be clear about who we are, what we accept, what we don't.
Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.
Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them. We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances. You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
there's been a few cases where it was argued - unsuccessfully - that it was part of their culture.
I remember a judge giving a lighter sentence to a muslim because he annally raped a child and thus preserved her virginity, wich was important in their culture.
Recently, we have a muslim family killing their children and the man's former wife because she was dating a Pakistani. He's a self-described liberal, and according to his lawyer, he's 8.5/10 on the liberal scale - for an Afghan.
If people come here and judge themselves by their old set of values, we have a problem.
This is where it leads when you let extremists get a beachhead.
A few cases that went in a bad direction = cultural crisis?
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
An head cover is an head cover. Be it for religious, cultural or pleasure reasons, it's the same.
I don't think a head cover is just a head cover. In the US, we do allow exceptions/protections for religions. I might necessarily be the biggest fan of that but I recognize that there is a difference.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
Any part?? Are you reading yourself?
We're talking about covering women from head to toe, here, to hide them from society, to make them invisible, to make them inferior to men who walk in open light.
I believe in equality between men&women, and when you have such extremists here trying to bend the rules in their favour, even requiring the right to teach creationism, it's got to stop.
Except that you haven't established that these women are being forced to do so against their will. Instead, you just claim to speak for them with apparently little concern to how they actually feel. That's rather patronizing.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
It's annoying to speak with someone completely covered, you never know what they really think, you can't observe their reaction.
There are lots of things that are annoying. I don't think annoyance should play a factor in determining when we create laws that cut down on individual freedoms.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
I'm atheist, I don't support any religion. I recognize however that my cultural background comes from catholicism, the way it was practices in northern France and later in Quebec. And I'm very attached to my culture. Just as the Americans will freak out if someone suggests removing the "under God" from the pledge of Allegiance ;) even if it's been there for only a few decades and is clearly offensive to non believers, I will freak out when muslims extremists set the agenda here. That is why I don't want the niqab in public places. That is why I don't want the Niqab while a woman recite her oath of citizenship. We have to be clear about who we are, what we accept, what we don't.
I don't understand why it is so important to continue with a cultural tradition that enshrines God - if we aren't actually believing in him. You're going to promote one version of the Moon God over another simply because it has traditionally been part of your culture? Anyway, like I said, I've seen many fully veiled women here in New York and I think one would be hard pressed to suggest that liberalism is dying in NYC. I'm not sure why we need to put such an emphasis on "who we are, what we accept, what we don't." We're multi-faceted thing and we should recognize that as long as individual rights aren't being removed.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PMEven the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.
Sounds like a nice attempt at a preventative.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PMNot all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them. We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances. You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.
Does the veil always mean extremism?
Also, I wonder (and don't attack me for wondering this) but if part of how you perceive the threat of extremism, so magnified, stems from some of the victimhood that you feel as a French speaker in a largely English speaking nation/world. While muslim extremism is certainly an issue - I don't see red when I see someone in a full veil. A little sad perhaps but that's that.
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.
Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them. We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances. You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.
I don't see any slippery slope here.
Here's a bright-line difference:
(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.
(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.
Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 04:50:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.
Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them. We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances. You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.
I don't see any slippery slope here.
Here's a bright-line difference:
(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.
(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.
Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
Get out of here, you and your reasonableness, next you you'll be talking about golden something or others. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 04:50:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
Even the Federal government had to include a section about gay rights & women rights in it's new citizenship guide for new immigrants.
Clearly, we face a problem here.
Not all muslims wear the veil, only the most extremists of them, and they bring a whole set of undesirable values with them. We should not tolerate extremism, the veil is the symbol of that, and it shouldn'be allowed in any government building under any circumstances. You need to set the bar pretty low, otherwise, they come and they pile on their demands, one after another as soon as they win.
I don't see any slippery slope here.
Here's a bright-line difference:
(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.
(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.
Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
Sounds good to me.
I said it before Malthus did. <_<
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 04:50:29 PM
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
You should go explain that to the corpses of the Shafia girls murdered by their Muslim father and brother heh?
G.
Right after he explains some things to the parents of all those crying young boys, Sandusky.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 09:21:32 PM
Right after he explains some things to the parents of all those crying young boys, Sandusky.
Sandusky's boys weren't consenting - mine were :contract:
And the Shafia girls certainly weren't consenting to their own drowning for the sake of the madman's honor.
G.
You don't know the details of the Sandusky case.
Quote from: Grallon on December 15, 2011, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 04:50:29 PM
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
You should go explain that to the corpses of the Shafia girls murdered by their Muslim father and brother heh?
G.
Why would he explain that to the corpses? Clearly it was the males who didn't learn the lesson. :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 04:50:29 PMI don't see any slippery slope here.
Here's a bright-line difference:
(1) Living one's own life in accordance with one's own dictates on personal matters such as dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = okay.
(2) Forcing others to obey one's own individual dictates on personal matters of dress, deportment, sexuality etc. = not okay.
Goes for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. So the deal is: you come to this country, you buy into this concept - meaning you obtain the right to wear what the hell you want (subject to limited, functional exceptions, like having to expose your face for ID); OTOH, you have to accept that everyone else has these rights, too - so if it pisses you off that women run around in tank tops, or gays are flaunting their gayness in public, too damn bad.
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
I'm down with that.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:03:15 PM
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Gay isn't a culture.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:03:15 PM
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Only in their turf. I know Grallon at least is content to let the French Speakers outside of Quebec rot.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 15, 2011, 05:44:24 PM
I said it before Malthus did. <_<
True but you didn't divide it into handy bullet points.
Quote from: Grallon on December 15, 2011, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 15, 2011, 04:50:29 PM
Also, if the women in your family prefer to wear tank tops rather than burkahs, or the men in your family decide they are gay and want to go out clubbing with the boys, and you can't persuade them otherwise, again too damn bad - use force to compel them and the cops haul your ass off, where you have to face the likes of BB in court. :D
Seems that's where the line ought to be held.
You should go explain that to the corpses of the Shafia girls murdered by their Muslim father and brother heh?
G.
You mean explain it to that dad and bro.
But why should I? That's what BB and his like are for.
The criminal justice system is our way of "explaining" stuff like this to those who don't get it. Then they will have a minimum of 25 years to consider the matter.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2011, 02:27:05 PM
Anyway, I'm sorry that you had to deal with such oppression - I could have worn a cap during an exam, although it is true that some professors would have been annoyed as it is against cultural custom.
There's a kid sitting in front of me right now taking an exam with a cap on. A black Irish fisherman cap. He says it brings him luck. I have no objections whatever.
Quote from: grumbler on December 16, 2011, 09:56:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2011, 02:27:05 PM
Anyway, I'm sorry that you had to deal with such oppression - I could have worn a cap during an exam, although it is true that some professors would have been annoyed as it is against cultural custom.
There's a kid sitting in front of me right now taking an exam with a cap on. A black Irish fisherman cap. He says it brings him luck. I have no objections whatever.
i hope you realize you're helping to bring upon the destruction of western civilization :ultra: :P
Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 10:09:18 AM
i hope you realize you're helping to bring upon the destruction of western civilization :ultra: :P
Once you start letting Irish things in it all goes to hell.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:03:15 PM
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
You really should learn to read, it would help with your mental illness, I'm sure.
Quote from: grumbler on December 16, 2011, 09:56:13 AM
There's a kid sitting in front of me right now taking an exam with a cap on. A black Irish fisherman cap. He says it brings him luck. I have no objections whatever.
there's no way he'd do that here, teachers are paranoid about cheating and having answers written on the cap.
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:26:59 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 16, 2011, 09:56:13 AM
There's a kid sitting in front of me right now taking an exam with a cap on. A black Irish fisherman cap. He says it brings him luck. I have no objections whatever.
there's no way he'd do that here, teachers are paranoid about cheating and having answers written on the cap.
Hmm..so sounds like there's something already broken there to begin with. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:03:15 PM
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
You really should learn to read, it would help with your mental illness, I'm sure.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't be against the building of mosques. Those are certainly hotbeds for extremists to meet up.
Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
I find that hard to believe :P
Ide's excellent formatting makes his memorable though -_-
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:03:15 PM
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
While some idiots in the States did complain/protest about the idea of building a mosque near Ground Zero, IIRC nobody who posts here was opposed to the idea.
Now, I could be mistaken, and maybe some posters here
did complain about the idea. Ok, anyone who did is a hypocrit if they complain about other countries discriminating against Moslems.
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
Where does Raz "regularly" post about the building of new mosques?
Is he one of the posters http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/08/24/18630/temecula-mosque/ here?
He would have to be tusing multiple names http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-07-05-newmosques04_ST_N.htm here to be considered "regular," and that piece is over a year old, so past tense.
QuoteYou really should learn to read, it would help with your mental illness, I'm sure.
Maybe you could set the example? Whether it helps with your mental illness or not, the precedent might help Raz.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2011, 10:55:51 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
Where does Raz "regularly" post about the building of new mosques?
there is no protest about the building of ne Mosques in the US? Damn, I must have read wrong.
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/07/ramsey-says-islam-not-a-religion/
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-06/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_american-muslims-ground-zero-mosque?_s=PM:US
Those filthy MSM and their lies!
Quote from: dps on December 16, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
Now, I could be mistaken, and maybe some posters here did complain about the idea. Ok, anyone who did is a hypocrit if they complain about other countries discriminating against Moslems.
doesn't matter if people
here are for or against it. There have been protests against the building of Mosque, in Tennessee, as well as near ground zero, and elsewhere. We never had that in Quebec, afaik. No politician ever came forth saying "Islam is not a religion". Yet, Raz says we're the racist, we're supposedly asking for tons of things outside our borders and disrespecting extremists here. I think Raz is a moron who has no lessons to give, but that's just my opinion.
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2011, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2011, 10:55:51 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
Where does Raz "regularly" post about the building of new mosques?
there is no protest about the building of ne Mosques in the US? Damn, I must have read wrong.
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/07/ramsey-says-islam-not-a-religion/
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-06/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_american-muslims-ground-zero-mosque?_s=PM:US
Those filthy MSM and their lies!
Not seeing Raz protesting in there. :huh:
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2011, 03:15:08 PM
doesn't matter if people here are for or against it. There have been protests against the building of Mosque, in Tennessee, as well as near ground zero, and elsewhere. We never had that in Quebec, afaik. No politician ever came forth saying "Islam is not a religion". Yet, Raz says we're the racist, we're supposedly asking for tons of things outside our borders and disrespecting extremists here. I think Raz is a moron who has no lessons to give, but that's just my opinion.
:huh:
Again where is Raz in all this? Can't he be equally appalled at what is happening in this country?
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2011, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2011, 10:55:51 AM
Where does Raz "regularly" post about the building of new mosques?
there is no protest about the building of ne Mosques in the US? Damn, I must have read wrong.
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/07/ramsey-says-islam-not-a-religion/
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-06/us/new.york.ground.zero.mosque_1_american-muslims-ground-zero-mosque?_s=PM:US
Those filthy MSM and their lies!
:lmfao:
You are saying that was Raz? Or can you just not read? To quote yourself,
QuoteYou really should learn to read, it would help with your mental illness, I'm sure.
And the pretense that Grallon would not protest the building of any new mosques in Quebec is simply not credible. Grallon can step in here and correct me if I am wrong.
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2011, 03:15:08 PM
Quote from: dps on December 16, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
Now, I could be mistaken, and maybe some posters here did complain about the idea. Ok, anyone who did is a hypocrit if they complain about other countries discriminating against Moslems.
doesn't matter if people here are for or against it.
Sure it does. We're each responsible for our own individual opinions. If other residents of Quebec hold racist views, that's not on you; if other Americans hold racist views, that's not on American posters here.
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2011, 10:25:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2011, 05:03:15 PM
This is what annoys me most about Viper and Grallon. They demand recognition of their culture and even special rights for it, but they have zero interest in extending anything like that for anyone else.
Yeah, we regularly protest about the building of new Mosquee... oups, that's in your turf, sorry, my bad.
You really should learn to read, it would help with your mental illness, I'm sure.
Yeah, that in no way addresses my statement. For one thing, a group of yahoos protesting a new Mosque does not have force of law. Number two, I, and most Americans (and other anglophones it appears) are willing to tolerate other cultures in our borders. What language a person speaks or what kind of hat they wear is in my opinion not a matter which the government should get involved in.
In fact, I've posted on this board several times damning people who attack Mosques or protest them being built. Earlier this year I defended the right of people to engage in kosher and halal butchering even if it doesn't fit strictly into in FDA guidelines. I did not call you racist. I did insinuated Grallon was since he called a person "vermin" knowing only his ethnic heritage.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 17, 2011, 08:04:48 PM
In fact, I've posted on this board several times damning people who attack Mosques or protest them being built. Earlier this year I defended the right of people to engage in kosher and halal butchering even if it doesn't fit strictly into in FDA guidelines. I did not call you racist. I did insinuated Grallon was since he called a person "vermin" knowing only his ethnic heritage.
And where does Grallon and I fit in your world of Yahoos? You just equated all of us to them, because we don't give rights to extremists. Yes, you did call me a racist. And you implied somehow that we ask for special treatment outside our borders, and you even said we're not a minority in another thread, wich demonstrate your lack of calculation skills.
Quebec does not react any different than any other societies. Veiled woman can't vote and can't testify in the US. Yet, doing so in Quebec becomes racist. To that, and all those who think like you: FUCK YOU.
Where did I call you a racist? I must have forgotten. Please show me. You don't give rights to people. You have labeled the people you don't like as extremists and then justify that as a reason not give same rights you demand. You do demand special privileges outside of Quebec (for you language) and I don't think Francophones are a minority in Quebec.
Where do you fit into the world of Yahoos? Not sure really, I don't know you personally. Grallon is a vile bigot, pedophile, and nihilist. He enjoys cackling prophecies of doom and reminding us that soon our world will fall apart. When asked to back it up, he's notably quiet. I suspect he is a moral coward.
You complain about how your people were treated in the past and the need to protect your culture. Fair enough. I can sympathize with that. I don't think it's government's place to tell people what language to speak, or how to conduct their daily lives. The Dominion of Canada disagreed and made life hard on Francophones in the past. I'm sorry about that. I had no hand in it, nor did my country. However, just as I don't think the Dominion of Canada should have enforced English language on the people of Quebec, I don't think Quebec should force their language on others. I suspect the difference between us is I believe in liberalism. It's not my concern if someone wears a veil, or bells or speaks in tongues. The idea of not letting someone in a public building because they are wearing a veil "A symbol of extremism", strikes me as absurd. It's like banning the eating of gravy on fries in a public building because it's indicative of support of the Quebec Liberation Front and the eater may have just placed bomb somewhere. You don't seem to think the same way. If they move to Quebec, then they better learn French and act like a Quebeci as soon as possible. That's Nationalism, not liberalism. And if you are that way fine, but I ask myself, why should the rest of Canada tolerate you. The rest of Canada tolerates the antics and bitching from Quebec in the spirit of liberalism and multiculturalism. You spit at the idea of multiculturalism and hold the rest of Canada's culture in contempt (or you claimed they have no culture).
I wonder, what would happen if some terrible disaster befell the rest of Canada. Most Anglophones died and the only place habitable place was Quebec. How you treat the refugees. How would you run things if you were the majority?
I'm still not sure what me posting about Mosques has to do with anything. I even did a search on this forum and found me using people protesting or attacking mosques as an example of a bad thing. So you really missed the mark there.
Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quebec does not react any different than any other societies.
:yeahright: