Who will replace Mulcair? (NDP leadership)

[lio45]

Actually, her point about telling tolerant-of-intolerance politicians in places like Britain and Canada that they're dangerously close to kinda opening the door to Sharia in special cases of extreme accomodation being not the same thing as thinking they're Muslims personally is a valid one.

(Haven't watched the vid, but from the article, I can see that that was the point.)

Singh and JT are both the same type of kumbayesque "Sharia-friendly Western World politician", and that's not me mistakenly thinking Trudeau is a Muslim - the distinction is important (and obvious, it seems to me).

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, her point about telling tolerant-of-intolerance politicians in places like Britain and Canada that they're dangerously close to kinda opening the door to Sharia in special cases of extreme accomodation being not the same thing as thinking they're Muslims personally is a valid one.

(Haven't watched the vid, but from the article, I can see that that was the point.)

Singh and JT are both the same type of kumbayesque "Sharia-friendly Western World politician", and that's not me mistakenly thinking Trudeau is a Muslim - the distinction is important (and obvious, it seems to me).

I don't know how you can call JT and Singh "tolerant-of-intolerance" or "Sharia-friendly" politicians. That's about as far from the truth as possible.

[Calgarian]

As long as someone isn't violating the law, who cares if they follow the tenets of Sharia or not, and who cares if politicians are tolerant of it?

[Doady]

I wonder what happened to her in life to make her succumb to so much hatred and reject so much of our society. I can't help but feel sorry for people like that.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Doady

I wonder what happened to her in life to make her succumb to so much hatred and reject so much of our society. I can't help but feel sorry for people like that.

Terrorism happened, that's what sparked the massive rise in Islamophobia. Unfortunately some people are so small minded that they want to ban a religion that is practiced by about 1/4 of the worlds population.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Terrorism happened, that's what sparked the massive rise in Islamophobia. Unfortunately some people are so small minded that they want to ban a religion that is practiced by about 1/4 of the worlds population.

No one is seriously talking about banning Islam or any other religion, but just because a religion is practised by whatever X% of the world's population doesn't mean it automatically deserves respect much less a "free pass" from scrutiny.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

As long as someone isn't violating the law, who cares if they follow the tenets of Sharia or not, and who cares if politicians are tolerant of it?

It's not that black and white. First off, if you're among those who believe in the afterlife, doing the "right thing" by violating the law here on Earth then paying the legal price in the earthly society you live in (something like the Shafia honor killings for example) can be the preferred course of action. "We have laws" yet these teenage girls nonetheless all died.

And also, the people in charge of applying the law have discretionary power - which can and does sometimes lead to situations like what we saw in Montreal with Jews being allowed to park in no parking zones by playing the religion card.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be alarmist at all... but let's not have our head in the sand either. In my experience (living in probably the most Arab province in the country), Muslim immigrants are definitely among the most "taco trucks on every single corner if you let them" type of immigrants, culturally/religiously. It shouldn't be taboo to point out where we draw our lines for gender equality and freedom from religion in the public sphere.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's not that black and white. First off, if you're among those who believe in the afterlife, doing the "right thing" by violating the law here on Earth then paying the legal price in the earthly society you live in (something like the Shafia honor killings for example) can be the preferred course of action. "We have laws" yet these teenage girls nonetheless all died.

And also, the people in charge of applying the law have discretionary power - which can and does sometimes lead to situations like what we saw in Montreal with Jews being allowed to park in no parking zones by playing the religion card.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be alarmist at all... but let's not have our head in the sand either. In my experience (living in probably the most Arab province in the country), Muslim immigrants are definitely among the most "taco trucks on every single corner if you let them" type of immigrants, culturally/religiously. It shouldn't be taboo to point out where we draw our lines for gender equality and freedom from religion in the public sphere.

I agree with everything you said here.

Originally Posted by Acajack

No one is seriously talking about banning Islam or any other religion

The people like this lady want exactly that, the people who elected Trump because of his proposed ban on Muslims want exactly that, the alt right or whatever they are called want exactly that

but just because a religion is practised by whatever X% of the world's population doesn't mean it automatically deserves respect much less a "free pass" from scrutiny.

I haven't said anything of the sort. I think I've been pretty clear that I feel people can practice whatever religion they want, however they want, so long as it doesn't break the law. Banning parts of these religions just further alienates people and reinforces the narrative that it's us vs them. There are laws, and those laws should apply to each and every citizen equally.

[Loco101]

There are big differences within all of the major religions. And people don't follow religions the same way. I know some people who were raised Muslim but are now Atheist or just don't care about Islam. But many in the public will identify them as Muslim because of their names and family background.

I used to go to church and there were some people there who believed that Canada should be ruled by biblical law.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I agree with everything you said here.


The people like this lady want exactly that, the people who elected Trump because of his proposed ban on Muslims want exactly that, the alt right or whatever they are called want exactly that


I haven't said anything of the sort. I think I've been pretty clear that I feel people can practice whatever religion they want, however they want, so long as it doesn't break the law. Banning parts of these religions just further alienates people and reinforces the narrative that it's us vs them. There are laws, and those laws should apply to each and every citizen equally.

Everyone always answers with "as long as they don't break the law", but it's a lot more complicated than that.

Laws and rules are bent all the time for religious or cultural reasons and really the only thing that seems to be totally off limits is actually physically harming someone or killing them.

Everything else appears to be subject to interpretation when it comes to matters of religion or culture.

For example we have laws or at least very strict rules against kids bringing weapons such as knives to school, but these are routinely "bent" for religious reasons in order to allow Sikh boys to bring the kirpan that an interpretation of their faith says they must carry with them.

I suppose that for the same reason as kid who's a member of the Knights of Columbus could bring a sword to school (and wear those cool hats with feathers too) since it's also a long-standing practice that exists within an established, recognized religion (Roman Catholicism).

We're on a slippery slope with this, make no mistake.

[Doady]

Rules and laws are bent all the time for non-religious reasons as well.

How often are people stopped and fined for going 105km/h or 110km/h in a 100km/h zone? Slippery slope?

Why are emergency vehicles allowed to pass red lights? Slippery slope?

Follow the spirit and intent of the rules and laws, not the letter.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Everyone always answers with "as long as they don't break the law", but it's a lot more complicated than that.

Laws and rules are bent all the time for religious or cultural reasons and really the only thing that seems to be totally off limits is actually physically harming someone or killing them.

Everything else appears to be subject to interpretation when it comes to matters of religion or culture.

For example we have laws or at least very strict rules against kids bringing weapons such as knives to school, but these are routinely "bent" for religious reasons in order to allow Sikh boys to bring the kirpan that an interpretation of their faith says they must carry with them.

I suppose that for the same reason as kid who's a member of the Knights of Columbus could bring a sword to school (and wear those cool hats with feathers too) since it's also a long-standing practice that exists within an established, recognized religion (Roman Catholicism).

We're on a slippery slope with this, make no mistake.

You have posted from time to time along similar lines - you imply some sort of problem or threat, but you never say what it is. What is it? Has there been a rash of kirpan stabbings in Montreal since 2001?

[Acajack]

I am not aware of Knights of Columbus sword murders or crossbow killings in our schools either but I doubt they'd be welcome in a classroom.

Another point is that you make more friends or at least garner more sympathy to your cause if you appear to be reasonable.

In the case of Sikhism the big ass metal kirpan knife is not an absolute requirement if you look it up. A small kirpan (even a plastic one) is considered acceptable.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Doady

Rules and laws are bent all the time for non-religious reasons as well.

How often are people stopped and fined for going 105km/h or 110km/h in a 100km/h zone? Slippery slope?

Actually, that's not a slippery slope at all - you can be stopped and ticketed anytime for doing 110 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, and anyone to whom this happens will have to fully accept the enforcement, always, every time.

Contrast that with the kirpan - it's not true that anytime, any schoolyard supervisor anywhere can decide to start enforcing the rule of banishment of lethal weapons without anyone having any recourse to raise some shit about it or any room for arguments and discussion.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be alarmist at all... but let's not have our head in the sand either. In my experience (living in probably the most Arab province in the country), Muslim immigrants are definitely among the most "taco trucks on every single corner if you let them" type of immigrants, culturally/religiously. It shouldn't be taboo to point out where we draw our lines for gender equality and freedom from religion in the public sphere.

Many people seem to think that this is a hypothetical that will work itself out, that if you're bringing it up you must therefore be grandstanding, and since there's no real conceivable reason for this you're probably racist.

I'm gay and I go out with groups of gay friends. This is supposedly a gay-friendly city but actually we get yelled at in public regularly (i.e. sharing war stories is a regular topic of conversation; the last time this happened to me was a couple weeks ago). A couple years back there was a mayoral candidate in Burnaby, where I live, who included in her platform that same sex public displays of affection should be banned. A bunch of our neighbours are, well, not very nice to us. I had some guy call me an alcoholic in the elevator a while ago because I was bringing recyclables down and he deemed that I had more than I should (none of his business whatsoever).

Then we also had the Trinity Western debacle, which is based on religious accommodation. It may soon be the case that if you're gay you're not welcome at 50% of the law schools in the Lower Mainland.

So actually I feel like this stuff does have a real impact on my life and of the lives of my friends and acquaintances. I understand how women feel too when they are judged by what they wear and how they behave. It is hard to be comfortable living in a place where, say, 30% of people privately or publicly think that the way you live your day-to-day life or your very existence is morally negative. People who don't have to worry about this should consider themselves lucky and not assume that everyone else is the same.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's not that black and white. First off, if you're among those who believe in the afterlife, doing the "right thing" by violating the law here on Earth then paying the legal price in the earthly society you live in (something like the Shafia honor killings for example) can be the preferred course of action. "We have laws" yet these teenage girls nonetheless all died.

And also, the people in charge of applying the law have discretionary power - which can and does sometimes lead to situations like what we saw in Montreal with Jews being allowed to park in no parking zones by playing the religion card.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be alarmist at all... but let's not have our head in the sand either. In my experience (living in probably the most Arab province in the country), Muslim immigrants are definitely among the most "taco trucks on every single corner if you let them" type of immigrants, culturally/religiously. It shouldn't be taboo to point out where we draw our lines for gender equality and freedom from religion in the public sphere.

You're not being alarmist, you're stating some obvious truths, you said it more diplomatically than i would have. The world certainly has its collective head in the sand to the regressivist dangers of Islamic ideology. It's the 21st version of the Commie threat (the Red Menace), but supremacist politico-social cults masquerading as benign spiritual traditions are sacrosanct apparently.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No one is seriously talking about banning Islam or any other religion, but just because a religion is practised by whatever X% of the world's population doesn't mean it automatically deserves respect much less a "free pass" from scrutiny.

Why can't we ban certain religions or religious practices? Human ritual sacrifice (and not the voluntary kind) was a practice of a number of religions and sects which were eventually outlawed, and thank heavens for that!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Many people seem to think that this is a hypothetical that will work itself out, that if you're bringing it up you must therefore be grandstanding, and since there's no real conceivable reason for this you're probably racist.

I'm gay and I go out with groups of gay friends. This is supposedly a gay-friendly city but actually we get yelled at in public regularly (i.e. sharing war stories is a regular topic of conversation; the last time this happened to me was a couple weeks ago). A couple years back there was a mayoral candidate in Burnaby, where I live, who included in her platform that same sex public displays of affection should be banned. A bunch of our neighbours are, well, not very nice to us. I had some guy call me an alcoholic in the elevator a while ago because I was bringing recyclables down and he deemed that I had more than I should (none of his business whatsoever).

Then we also had the Trinity Western debacle, which is based on religious accommodation. It may soon be the case that if you're gay you're not welcome at 50% of the law schools in the Lower Mainland.

So actually I feel like this stuff does have a real impact on my life and of the lives of my friends and acquaintances. I understand how women feel too when they are judged by what they wear and how they behave. It is hard to be comfortable living in a place where, say, 30% of people privately or publicly think that the way you live your day-to-day life or your very existence is morally negative. People who don't have to worry about this should consider themselves lucky and not assume that everyone else is the same.

Thanks for posting this.

Strangely enough many of the strongest critics of lio's views either here or in society happen to be gay. Go figure. I guess they don't get harassed?

Another thing is that the more regressive aspects of the older established belief systems in Canada have largely been forced underground in the past decades. It's a legitimate question to ask if a massive influx of people from abroad with more socially conservative values won't also prompt those already in Canada (but keeping a low profile) to come out of the woodwork.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing is that the more regressive aspects of the older established belief systems in Canada have largely been forced underground in the past decades. It's a legitimate question to ask if a massive influx of people from abroad with more socially conservative values won't also prompt those already in Canada (but keeping a low profile) to come out of the woodwork.

There are a bunch of ridings in BC that switched over to a Conservative plurality in recent years due to immigration, and the Conservative party explicitly targeted immigrant voters. The federal Conservatives had a debate in 2016 over whether or not to finally get rid of the anti-gay marriage stuff in their official policy document. If Conservative support had been a bit higher in Canada from 2000 onward we never would have gotten same-sex marriage.

And by the way, there are still a bunch of extremely important gay rights issues active in Canada. The biggest examples are in health care. BC didn't cover HPV vaccines in males because it was argued at one point that if women were vaccinated that would be sufficient for the whole population, because only women would give it to men, right? HPV causes throat cancer in anybody just as it can cause cervical cancer. PreP is another big issue. There's medication available that's cheap and is nearly 100% effective at preventing HIV, but it's not covered yet in Canada, so people are needlessly getting HIV (and a whole bunch of other STIs because it turns out when people go on PreP and get good health care their STI incident rate goes down by 50% for a whole bunch of other things, not just HIV). Guess which parties talk about covering it and which don't?

Whether we accept it or not, immigration has de facto political implications. And Canada's political policies are keenly aware of this because they have to be.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Thanks for posting this.

Strangely enough many of the strongest critics of lio's views either here or in society happen to be gay. Go figure. I guess they don't get harassed?

Another thing is that the more regressive aspects of the older established belief systems in Canada have largely been forced underground in the past decades. It's a legitimate question to ask if a massive influx of people from abroad with more socially conservative values won't also prompt those already in Canada (but keeping a low profile) to come out of the woodwork.

I always wondered about that...

How the heck an Orthodox Sikh guy like Jagmeet Singh can be such an apologist is beyond me, his religion was specifically created to fight Islamic fascism. He's being a typical politician.