Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not want to veer off topic but much of the motivation for this attack was religious. In fact, the report by Supreme Court Justice John Major clearly stated the failure of the RCMP and CSIS in investigating the religious groups (Sikh extremists) that were operating out of Sikh Temples in Canada.
They would have failed regardless. They were inept and beyond incompetent. They even "accidentally" erased the surveillance tapes. And it doesn't matter where it was planned, whether a local Tim Hortons or a religious place. The terror act was motivated by political ideology and intended as a strike against the Indian government, not religious fanaticism or punishing "heretics" or "infidels".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
Even if we were to assume that they were only a "small group of thugs" - they did manage to terrorize an entire country. I brought this example to light only to negate the point you made earlier about religious extremism never being able to "take over" the West.
I was thinking more of our culture adopting a theocratic way of life, which is what many of those fear-mongering emails my boomer parents sometimes get are always so worried about. Like somehow the generations of social progress we have made in regards to rights and freedoms are going to be willfully surrendered so we can wear burqas and bow to Mecca, unless we stem the tide. Those fears are irrational but normal for people who fear what they don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
This is a Straw Man Argument. There are different levels of crazy - one could commit a crime because their holy book says so; or one could commit a crime because they overdosed on alcohol; or one could commit a crime because they are mentally unstable. You might not see a difference, but Canadian law treats all these differently.
But there really is no difference, only our subjective determination of how personally responsible we deem a perpetrator to be. It's all about the context. In the future, religious-based crimes will likely fall within the spectrum of mental illness.
We focus on terrorism as a grave threat to us all, and yet the chances of being harmed or killed in a terrorist act is extremely low. Probably better odds of winning the lottery. There are more deaths and harm caused by automobiles, cancer, heart disease, alcohol, etc, than anything related to terror, so why is it played up as the preeminent threat of our times?
Jambo. Let's assume that 100% of women wearing the burqa/kippa are doing it with pleasure and as a symbol of their faith (no coercion). Given this scenario, are you okay with women in burqa/kippa(s) teaching children in schools and serving as police officers? If the answer is YES ... then using the same logic and the idea of "freedom of religion", one should be allowed to wear pretty much anything mandated by his or her religion?
Say religion X mandates all followers to tattoo their faces. And followers do it willingly.
Say religion Y mandates all followers to wear only bikinis (men and women). Followers do it willingly.
So using your same logic: "freedom of religion" and "Govt should stay out ......" - people from X and Y religions should be allowed to practice their religion freely? And by default, should be allowed to teach in schools and serve in the police force?
I apologize if my question sounds a little strange to you. But there are many religions in the world that ask followers to do bizarre things - Scientology, Australian and African tribal religions, etc. I just want to know if you would afford the same rights to an Australian Aboriginal that you would to a woman wearing a kippa or burqa?
If we were just talking about the burqa i might be in agreement that its a bit extreme and dangerous to be walking around in a tent with much of your vision obscured.but its rare to see someone wearing this garb and mostly the Charter is targeting headscarves,turbans and kippas which are headgear that i have no problem with ,i have no problem with Maori facial tatoos either and i wouldnt have any problems with these people teaching my kids,of course if these teachers were initiating my kids into their faith thats something i wouldnt be comfortable with but thats not what they are doing is it.
From what i see these people are just going about their normal routine in a lifestyle attire they feel comfortable with doing the jobs they were hired to do, Then the Quebec government comes up with this idea that they'll fire all those people if they dont immediately cease and desist wearing their choice of garb, i think theres no doubt i'd rather have my kids taught by these Muslims.Sikhs or Jews than any of these intolerant separatist nut jobs.
4- The PQ, with its majority, starts putting the wheels in motion for a third referendum (depending on how things are going, it may or may not need to revive the dead values charter to fan the flames of Quebec bashing in the ROC that always helps convince Quebecers that ROCers hate their guts and that there is no place for them in Canada
I couldn't care less if they leave. Quebec is an intolerant welfare state that offers precious little to the ROC but continual headaches, senseless demands and constant nitpicking. Let them vote Yes and the Americans can have them.
I couldn't care less if they leave. Quebec is an intolerant welfare state that offers precious little to the ROC but continual headaches, senseless demands and constant nitpicking. Let them vote Yes and the Americans can have them.
I wonder if the Americans would tolerate their crap? Ha! Quebec doesn't know how good it has it.
I love how these discussions go off in all directions. Most of the points seem to be " what if's ? " I see it this way. Religious freedom in Canada is a right, as long as that freedom doesn't break our laws.
There are no cases I know of where Canadians have tried to wear bikini's, or tin foil hats etc and claim that they have it as their right to go work in a public institution. They probably wouldn't of been hired anyway.
What HAS happened is whole groups of people who have been going to work, doing their job, and wearing symbols of their faith ( whether WE think it's oppressive or not is really not for us to decide, heck my mother had to keep her head covered going to church in the 1960's ) are now having to consider leaving their jobs or their faith. This in Canada???
I am NOT a religious person and personally do find religion a crutch with histories full of violence and oppression etc. HOWEVER, I do not think that making laws denying freedom of religious expression is useful. In fact the opposite.
Some here question how so called liberals can be against this charter when so called liberals are against religious conformity and somehow would welcome a squashing of religious expression.
This shows a total lack of understanding of liberal values.
If we were just talking about the burqa i might be in agreement that its a bit extreme and dangerous to be walking around in a tent with much of your vision obscured.but its rare to see someone wearing this garb
So why do you have a problem with a burqa? If a woman is wearing it cause of her devotion to her god, and is not coerced in anyway ..... ...
You are concerned about her vision and safety? Are you kidding me?
Quote:
mostly the Charter is targeting headscarves,turbans and kippas which are headgear that i have no problem with ,i have no problem with Maori facial tatoos either and i wouldnt have any problems with these people teaching my kids,of course if these teachers were initiating my kids into their faith thats something i wouldnt be comfortable with but thats not what they are doing is it.
Well, this isn't really about what you have a problem with. It seems to me that you are not applying your logic equally to all scenarios. You have a problem with burqa cause of vision and safety. But you have no problems with scary face tattoos in a class room with young children. Does this make any sense? You deem the hijab to be okay, but you want to ban the burqa - while both come fromt he same religion/ tradition ?!?!
I love how these discussions go off in all directions. Most of the points seem to be " what if's ? " I see it this way. Religious freedom in Canada is a right, as long as that freedom doesn't break our laws.
There are no cases I know of where Canadians have tried to wear bikini's, or tin foil hats etc and claim that they have it as their right to go work in a public institution. They probably wouldn't of been hired anyway.
What HAS happened is whole groups of people who have been going to work, doing their job, and wearing symbols of their faith ( whether WE think it's oppressive or not is really not for us to decide, heck my mother had to keep her head covered going to church in the 1960's ) are now having to consider leaving their jobs or their faith. This in Canada???
I am NOT a religious person and personally do find religion a crutch with histories full of violence and oppression etc. HOWEVER, I do not think that making laws denying freedom of religious expression is useful. In fact the opposite.
Some here question how so called liberals can be against this charter when so called liberals are against religious conformity and somehow would welcome a squashing of religious expression.
This shows a total lack of understanding of liberal values.
So liberal values involve accepting illiberal behaviours or practices simply because they have a religious foundation?
Yeah in my opinion waring something like this burqa and walking around in downtown Montreal or Toronto is something i would call hazardous to your well being.
I love how these discussions go off in all directions. Most of the points seem to be " what if's ? " I see it this way. Religious freedom in Canada is a right, as long as that freedom doesn't break our laws.
While few in number, many present/ past religious acts in Canada have broken the law and have not been prosecuted:
1. Hate speeches against the U.S. and other NATO countries in several religious institutions in Canada
2. Ongoing abuse/ subjugation of women in some segments of societies
And many of the "what if's" that you mock were the basis of The Supreme court of Canada judgement on Thursday, December 20, 2012 - it ruled that the niqab would not be permissible in courts of law in the majority of cases.
Quote:
There are no cases I know of where Canadians have tried to wear bikini's, or tin foil hats etc and claim that they have it as their right to go work in a public institution. They probably wouldn't of been hired anyway.
Teachers have been fired because of the nature of their present/past jobs. A whole lot of them involve wearing bikinis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
