• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Politics & News... Have at it.

xposbrad said:
Our country, our rules, so yes. When all you see are a pair of eyes, there's a problem. We are telling them not to humiliate their women, so it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the party that worries about "humiliating" women has been historically on the wrong side of supporting them.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
So if we pass a law that says NO religious paraphernalia, including niqabs, crosses, stars of david, yamulkas, priest robes etc, you will be fine with it?
Click to expand...

You are comparing a Niqab to a necklace now? Compare apples to apples here. If there were ANY garment in the jewish or christian religion that covered you from HEAD TO TOE with just your eyes showing I would be against it. This is 2015, where men and women are apparently EQUAL. Please read the history and know what it is you are talking about. We aren't talking about something under your shirt, we are talking about something where you can't even identify who is wearing it. Can you see a nun's face?
 
Please this is no more about gender equality than the Clinton trial was about obstruction of justice. It about the fact it is a muslim tradition and people don''t like them
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
Please this is no more about gender equality than the Clinton trial was about obstruction of justice. It about the fact it is a muslim tradition and people don''t like them
Click to expand...

People don't like the fact that all you see are eyes. However, since this was essentially forced upon women to wear and not usually by choice (hell there are always exceptions), since we are talking about the history, then yes. There is a big problem with this in our western society.
 
xposbrad said:
People don't like the fact that all you see are eyes. However, since this was essentially forced upon women to wear and not usually by choice (hell there are always exceptions), since we are talking about the history, then yes. There is a big problem with this in our western society.
Click to expand...

forcing someone to not wear it simply repeats the same oppression that you are objecting to. You forget that while you view it as oppressive, it is not viewed this way by the women who wear it for religious reasons.
 
Everyone needs to shut up about the niqab. Seriously.

Here's some math. As far as anyone can tell, 2 women have tried to do a citizenship ceremony wearing the niqab. 2. Out of 600000 people who have done the citizenship ceremony, 2 have tried.

2÷600000=0.0000033333 percent of people have tried to wear a niqab during citizenship ceremonies.

0.0000033333%

That's all the people who have been effected by this. 0.0000033333%

The economy is important for every single Canadian. Our response to isil is important to a lot of Canadians. The politics in Ottawa is important to...well, those who care about the political In ottawa, 1/100?

But all of these are infinitely more important than the niqab.

0.0000033333 percent. My god...
 
Krustchev said:
What has most confounded is that someone so intellectually vapid could become the leader of a prominent Western country. I'm pretty sure that every single person who graduated with me from law school is smarter than JT, and by a lot.
Click to expand...

This is indeed an issue. Makes you wonder if you aren't voting for an puppet with people beind the scene just pulling the strings.

It's also pretty amazing the number of time He said one thing and a week later said the opposite. The only issue he seems to 100% endorse are the minority for some reason. He loves them a lot. Nothing against it myself, they are canadian after all, but it's almost a fetish for him.

I work with people from various religions here at work. We all get along. But I wouldn't start celebrating their holidays with them.
 
It is always refreshing to have a non lawyer elected, especially someone whose education is science/data based.



Need less lawyers, who are trained to debate, and more fact/data based problem solving trained professionals in politics.
 
Krustchev said:
That's fine. It's just that this guy seems dumb and unaccomplished professionally.
Click to expand...




Have no clue about Jr, haven't followed this election one bit - hopefully he's not an intellectual clown who made it through school because of the "family name"...
 
Krustchev said:
What has most confounded is that someone so intellectually vapid could become the leader of a prominent Western country. I'm pretty sure that every single person who graduated with me from law school is smarter than JT, and by a lot.
Click to expand...

Obviously, even though people keep saying this, he is not so "vapid" and "dumb" as people make him out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top