[Scrappy]

RobertD RobertD:

Scrappy Scrappy:

I guess I'm not a "Good woman" because I'll never be subserviant or obedient.

You wouldn't last very long in a muslim society.... you'd get stoned for not wearing a burka, and talking to anyone you want. That's a no no. You're not even supposed to get an education, their tolerance has limits, and it's very very low.

What I wonder is why is it legal for them to have four wives and forty five children, but they throw us in jail if we have two wives...?

Can you figure this out?

Can I figure this out, well yes. The left/left has made it clear that Canadians do not have values or a culture thus we must pander, appease radical Muslim Immigrants all the while refusing "Christians" their chartered rights. On a happy note the Radical Christians in BC called Bountiful have allowed young girls to be married off in the name of religion for years. Girls as young as 14 forced into marrage against their will, but hell why inforce rape laws in Canada if it's okay with the people of BC. Fear not Robert, pretent it's in the name of Allah or what ever god or idol Bountiful worships and you can have as many wives as you wish. BC is a model of Absolute Tolerance or ELSE.

[RobertD]

Scrappy Scrappy:

RobertD RobertD:

You wouldn't last very long in a muslim society.... you'd get stoned for not wearing a burka, and talking to anyone you want. That's a no no. You're not even supposed to get an education, their tolerance has limits, and it's very very low.

What I wonder is why is it legal for them to have four wives and forty five children, but they throw us in jail if we have two wives...?

Can you figure this out?

Can I figure this out, well yes. The left/left has made it clear that Canadians do not have values or a culture thus we must pander, appease radical Muslim Immigrants all the while refusing "Christians" their chartered rights. On a happy note the Radical Christians in BC called Bountiful have allowed young girls to be married off in the name of religion for years. Girls as young as 14 forced into marrage against their will, but hell why inforce rape laws in Canada if it's okay with the people of BC. Fear not Robert, pretent it's in the name of Allah or what ever god or idol Bountiful worships and you can have as many wives as you wish. BC is a model of Absolute Tolerance or ELSE.

Polygamy is normal, monogamy is abnormal. Bountiful BC is a mormon town, and young girls being married is not that bad, it's better then being kidnapped and sold as prostitutes to be butchered don't you think? And it's better than screwing around dressed like hoes to be date raped. 100,000 women are kidnapped and butchered each year in Canada, just because monogamy makes them single and desperate. Polygamy is not the reason women get abused, it's religion that's the problem; false laws that make people stupid and murderous. That's the problem.

[Dayseed]

Scrappy Scrappy:

The left/left has made it clear that Canadians do not have values or a culture thus we must pander, appease radical Muslim Immigrants all the while refusing "Christians" their chartered rights.

What rights are Christians being denied in this country? Sounds like quite a mouthful of a statement.

[Knoss]

$1:

Polygamy is normal, monogamy is abnormal. Bountiful BC is a mormon town, and young girls being married is not that bad

There forced inot marrage at 14. Polygamy is one thing, sexual abuse is another all together.

[Virgil]

fire_i fire_i:

In that text the author goes "yes to assimilation and integration, no to accomodation". Ah. Then he mentions France's problem with muslims in suburbs. Ah.

Wait.

Isn't "assimilation and integration" all what France had been doing for the last 20-odd years before the problems in the suburbs became massive? Hmm. Didn't quite work did it?

Why not favor "integration and accomodation"? You don't need to assimilate an immigrant for him to be a good asset of your society, he just needs to be integrated - and anyway, why concentrate on the first generation of immigrants when we now are perfectly aware, judging from what happened in France and what happens in Canada itself, that the second and subsequent generations are much more important, being that they could actually end up feeling 100% canadian (unlike their parents, who will always not really feel like they truly fit in entirely)? Anyway the first immigrant will eventually die, so even if he never actually is assimilated, as long as he doesn't feel like he's oppressed, there's no problem. Over time his children and their children and so on will end up just like you and I, and not like the frustrated and crazed revolted youths from France's suburbs.

It's nice and all when assimilation functions, but when it doesn't, what happens? The immigrant feels 'attacked' and 'flees' to areas where he can hang around with other immigrants, and only then (but of course he remains in the country because he wants to keep beneficiating from its services). The result : a community of immigrants with a quality of life lower than that of the rest of the country who are also marginalized among the 'mainstream society' because they refuse to assimilate. Okay. That maybe can work out with the 1st generation, because they'll know they're more of a stranger than anything else. But the 2nd generation kid, and all the next ones, will not see why in the world they have to have a life much worse than that of their 'native' neighbors. They're born in the same country after all, no? Result of that, high discontent among the immigrants. France probably shows one of the worst possible outcomes.

It seems obvious to me : successful immigration is all about a reciprocical effort. You want to move in the country? You're welcome, it's your right, and anyway we need immigrants. Just follow the basic principles of our society, like equality between men and women.

On the other hand, we'll allow you to keep with your traditions when we know they don't hurt anybody. Who cares if you're a construction worker and want to wear a turban instead of your helmet? If accidents happen, it's your bad, that's all - we have no reason to try and stop you, all it'd do is piss you off.

I see people being outraged being that kind of lame, tiny-ass accomodations (my example actually happened), but what in the world is wrong with it? It's freaking nothing, refusing stuff like that over and over just makes otherwise integrated immigrants just want to rip everyone's head off! It's just a moronic attitude.

These are all just small events, but when they add up, the total can be big.

Of course I'm not saying all accomodations are good. Just be reasonable. If it hurts the majority to please a small minority, it's probably not worth it and this time, should simply be refused. But if it doesn't even remotely affect the majority, like for my turban vs helmet example earlier, why in the world would the majority refuse at all?

One could say that with accomodation, it's either all or nothing, that due to jurisprudence and the accessibility of courts and all that, if a single immigrant is accomodated, then tons can ask for whatever accomodation they wish and obtain it. Okay. But then why blame accomodation itself instead of the weakness, the fault in our justice system? If unreasonable accomodation is possible because of an earlier unreasonable jurisprudence, and court can do nothing about it, then there's a problem with the court... isn't it evident? Why not simply clearly state it : all cases of accomodation have to be judged on a case by case basis, with jurisprudence playing little of a role, if not none at all? Anyway, accomodation is based on reasonability, but how in the world could such a blurry concept be defined in a single court case that subsequently is used as basis for all successive ones? It'd be much better to go case by case : no it wouldn't be perfect because reasonability would still remain very arbitrary, but that's something you can't avoid, and things would be much better. So why not?

Oh, and before someone points it out. Remember what I said : reciprocical effort. We're ready to accomodate. But respect the basis of our society, damnit. You spread hateful rhetoric about the occident? You don't accept to see men and women as equals? You absolutely want to outlaw people hopping on a single leg because your oddball religion or traditions claim it's "wrong" while being perfectly aware that very few people actually are affected by such a thing and that doing it would be unfairly affecting people's liberty? Well then you're an idiot, and you're not welcome. Move out. We don't want revolutionnary teens à la Française, but we don't want local-born terrorists like England, now do we?

Basically, assimilation without accomodation = bad. Accomodation without integration = bad. Integration and accomodation = good, and it leads to assimilation of further generations.

Phew, feels good to empty your bag, doesn't it?

I agree with what you say completely. What happens in France and Quebec are examples of why nation states cannot function as liberal (and I use this word strictly in the sense of it's literal meaning) societies.

When a state is controlled by one majority nationality or ethnic group, minority groups are oppressed. A rather ironic example is Quebec. As a minority in the country, Quebecois have been fighting for the rights of their culture for a number of years. I ask Quebec then, why they would do the same to the minorities in their province as they fear so much being done to them by Canada. The immediate answer would seem to be that Quebec is a nation-province, and so laws are passed in the interest of the Quebecois nation and ignorant of other cultures within the province. Consider also, the laws banning English signes...

All peoples with a state must be granted equal rights, and one of those rights should be the right to protect culture. White Canadians often complain about how other cultures get what they call "special priveleges" in the country. But what they call "special priveleges" are in fact the result of a basic right that all White Canadians share with the other nationalities, the right to protect their respective cultures. If the government were not already based on the descent of Europaean traditions and were a liberal society, it would be the Whites who had "special priveleges". The basic right of cultural protection should not be denied for any nation, unless those rights endanger the rights of others.

If those Canadians would take an objective point of view to the matter rather than a Western one, they too will find that basing societies on national or cultural values eliminates true liberty from society.

$1:

To this day, it is absolutely forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man, even though men are not under the same restriction as to their choice of marriage partners. This is is a consequence of the low status of a wife against that of her husband. A Muslim is not allowed to be subordinate to a non-Muslim, and a wife must be subordinate to her husband.



Many contemporary Muslims realize that traditional Islamic practice is painfully out of step with modern tastes, not just on this issue, but on many others. Thus have ensued very imaginative efforts to reinterpret the long held traditions of their religion, exaggerating both the negative treatment of Arab women prior to Muhammad and the reforms that he is said to have brought about.



Muhammad's blunt words on marriage are what they are. On top of this, he forbid women from traveling alone. Nor are they allowed to be alone with a non-relative male. Women must cover themselves, and, when there is sexual sin, nearly always bear the responsibility of guilt, as it is assumed that they did not follow the rules.

I question the credibility of your citations of the Qu'ran, but do not interpret this as saying your quotes are falty or untrue, it is simply that they only show one side of the issue. It is also true that Muhammed's wife proposed to him, that she owned a business, and brought in most of the income for Muhammed.

Providing quotes of such ignorance could also be done to accuse my culture (and I use my culture not for purposes of relevance but rather because my knowledge of it is greater) of sexisme to women. It could for example be mentioned that "Cree women cannot play the drum, this is because the drum gives life". Your style interpretation of this would be that women are not allowed to give life. But we all know that women are and have to give life for a people to survive. So the interpretation would not make sense. The real reason that women cannot play the drum is that the drum was a creation to allow men the ability to give life, in order to ensure that the balance between men and women remains equal. I only wish I knew more of the Qu'ran to provide a more direct reference, but unfortunately I have yet to begin studying the religion through literature, so I am unable to provide my own citations in contrast to yours.

Might I also point out that his allowance of anal sex does show a signe of a more liberal thought.

[Virgil]

Seagram Seagram:

tsotas tsotas:

AKZ AKZ:

tsotas tsotas:

hehehe, whitey's days are numbered. As they should be. 30 years from now, the only thing "white" about Canada will be the snow.

What has made this country great is the fact that we are a multicultural sald bowl, not a melting pot like America. We have two official languages.

We are not meant to be a white country. We are a multi-cultural, multi-colored nation.

it.

Your ignorance is astounding, white legislators wrote the laws that allow immigration from these backward, hateful countries. Do you think they would write these laws in Isamabad or teranh? The only reason you are in this country is because of the hospitality of white men. If you read a book or two you might realize that white men might not be able to jump, but they can scrap like no body's business, don't push your luck.

Par contraire, your ignorance is astounding. He said it's multicultural, and then you addressed White people as being one culture. Consider that different Europaean cultures co-operated, Aboriginals co-operated-- a great deal more factors allowed for the construction of this country that "White legislators".

And why are you proud of a history of intentional disease infetion, genocide, imperialisme, oppression, war, and conquest? I prefer to focus on other aspects of Europaean history when speaking proudly of my White ancestors rather than their "[scrapping] like no body's business".

[RobertD]

Knoss Knoss:

There forced inot marrage at 14. Polygamy is one thing, sexual abuse is another all together.

Precisely, I would even say there is more sexual abuse in monogamy society than in polygamy ones. Such assertion can easily be verified with the rampant sexual abuse in school system children being kidnapped by the system and put in homosexual homes where they are subjected to drugs and sexual abuse of every kind. All under the watchful and blind eye of the authority.

[george123]

RobertD RobertD:

Precisely, I would even say there is more sexual abuse in monogamy society than in polygamy ones. Such assertion can easily be verified with the rampant sexual abuse in school system children being kidnapped by the system and put in homosexual homes where they are subjected to drugs and sexual abuse of every kind. All under the watchful and blind eye of the authority.

Wow, where did you grow up? I have never seen a child "kidnapped" by the system and get sent to a "homosexual home" before. That is a new one to me. I though the system frowned on those "homosexual homes", and was acctualy trying to prevent them from raising children.

Oh no! We have to stop the evil system from kidnapping children and sending them to "homosexual homes" to be abused! Call the police! Oh no, wait! The police are the "authority" that is watchful yet blind! What do we do?! Wait! I have an idea! We can go to those "homosexual homes" and beat those gay, gay people to death and save those children from the kidnapping and sexual abuse, not to mention the drugs. Those gay people are so bad. How can the "system" and the "authority" send children there?! They have been brainwashed by the big bad homosexuals and their houses. We must call the poligamists! They can save us! With their superior wife abusing powers, and their child marriage, the children will be saved! Then we can all go to the magical happy land where I can wear a gum-drop hat and live on lolipop lane!

[george123]

If you can't tell, I was being sarcastic.

[RobertD]

george123 george123:

Wow, where did you grow up? I have never seen a child "kidnapped" by the system and get sent to a "homosexual home" before. That is a new one to me. I though the system frowned on those "homosexual homes", and was acctualy trying to prevent them from raising children.

Oh no! We have to stop the evil system from kidnapping children and sending them to "homosexual homes" to be abused! Call the police! Oh no, wait! The police are the "authority" that is watchful yet blind! What do we do?! Wait! I have an idea! We can go to those "homosexual homes" and beat those gay, gay people to death and save those children from the kidnapping and sexual abuse, not to mention the drugs. Those gay people are so bad. How can the "system" and the "authority" send children there?! They have been brainwashed by the big bad homosexuals and their houses. We must call the poligamists! They can save us! With their superior wife abusing powers, and their child marriage, the children will be saved! Then we can all go to the magical happy land where I can wear a gum-drop hat and live on lolipop lane!

Another arseplugged kook.

[george123]

Funny, you are the one talking about the system kidnapping children to send them to homosexual homes to be sexualy abused and be exposed to drugs. That sounds pretty kooky to me.