First Steps Taken Towards Sharia Law In Canada
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
I don't disagree with you John. When you look at the crusades, the witch burnings, and all the other hundreds of thousands of people who died for 'religious right', it's tough to think of any religion as a Religion of Peace.johnhenrygalt said:
Fortunately, Canadian Law wouldn't tolerate the stonings like the poor woman in Kirk's post. But are North American's that much better? I seem to recall an incident in the states where a black man was tied up and dragged behind a pick-up truck on a gravel road until he died. Was that death less horrible then the death in Kirk's post?
Any way you cut it, capital punishment is very very inhumane. But the public stoning is particularly inhumane.
I thought about the whole concept of capital punishment in the USA and are they any better than the muslims who stone people for the slightest offences.
I guess i thought that at least here, they are not going to stone you to death for adultery. (If they did, 95% of terbites would have been worm's meat a long time ago.) I would like to think that a lethal injection is more humane, but really it's not.
As much as there are murdering scum bags out there, the death penalty is barbaric.
Makes you think though
I thought about the whole concept of capital punishment in the USA and are they any better than the muslims who stone people for the slightest offences.
I guess i thought that at least here, they are not going to stone you to death for adultery. (If they did, 95% of terbites would have been worm's meat a long time ago.) I would like to think that a lethal injection is more humane, but really it's not.
As much as there are murdering scum bags out there, the death penalty is barbaric.
Makes you think though
I agree i don't like it either . Canada made a mistake a long time ago trying to cater to every culture. It is getting ridiculous a lot of people come to canada , benefit from our free health care . welfare etc then bitch if the country is not run to suit them.james t kirk said:
Why don't we have the same problem with other races the chinese , the italians the germans . It is because these other groups come to canada to blend in not to complin that things aren't run to suit them.
Has anybody ever thought that a wanted criminal could be hiding under one of those full head to toe garments.
What i have said may not be politically correct but it is my feelings.
The reason canada lacks unity is because these groups owe more allegiance to there religion and old country than they do to canada
I thought it was in Alabama or Mississppie? Anyway, doesn't matter. Do you think that if a stoning took place in Canada, that those invovled wouldn't be prosecuted for 1st degree murder? They could hardly argue that it was an accident or that a death wasn't planned.papasmerf said:
Don't get me wrong, I have concerns and reservations as well. But I think some of the issues (like the stoning) isn't germain to the Canadian situation. As I said on my first post, "I don't know if I hate this idea". I haven't read anything here to change my position. Perhaps if this goes forward, when the Muslim community starts dealing with the conflict Syed refered to between Sharia Law and Canadian Law; depending on their prosposed resolution to those conflicts, I may change my mind. Until then, my position is simply "Live and let live".
I think I've pretty much expressed my opinions (for what they are worth) and as I'm not out to change the world, I think I'm pretty much done with this.
Cave Carson said:
Exactly , because they want Canada to change to suit them.
If you went to their countries you would have to dress according to their customs.
Any two parties who want their contract disputes settled by an arbitrater, be it pope, prophet or the first poor man they encounter, can make that part of the contract. End of story. Until one of them complains the arbitration wasn't proper under the contract, or under the law of the land. In such a case, she or he either takes that dispute to the courts of the land—Her Majesty's Courts in Canada, or uses extra-legal means to obtain a "satisfactory" decision, which quite likely also will involve Her Majesty's Courts, only this time the Criminal ones. Happens all the time, as has been said by others, above.
All this blah-blah and BS about Muslims as if this stuff was something new and fearful is disappointing coming from people whose hobby would by many definitions be considered deviant, if not depraved and criminal. One would hope that we who want tolerance of our different behaviour would be more tolerant of others. See how substituting" Baptist", or "Steelworker", or "Greenpeace" in your diatribe changes things, or doesn't, before you post and label your fellows as sinister without solid facts to back up your accusation. And what about the Masons, or the Elders of Zion, or Black Helicopters or…. Nothing new here. Except failure to wise up.
Just about zero has been said in this thread that actually justifies the least concern by anyone. And stuff like "Why did they come here anyway, if they want their own laws?" is downright disgusting and shameful—unless you're a full-blooded Mississauga, or Mohawk speaking about anyone who arrived after 10,000 or so BCE. Your folks re-made what they found, and so will these people. Maybe without exterminating the people they found in place. Wish we could say the same.
Oh BTW, papasmerf you might want to check the spelling in your sig line and match either Canadian or US versions of "honour", it is your sig after all.
All this blah-blah and BS about Muslims as if this stuff was something new and fearful is disappointing coming from people whose hobby would by many definitions be considered deviant, if not depraved and criminal. One would hope that we who want tolerance of our different behaviour would be more tolerant of others. See how substituting" Baptist", or "Steelworker", or "Greenpeace" in your diatribe changes things, or doesn't, before you post and label your fellows as sinister without solid facts to back up your accusation. And what about the Masons, or the Elders of Zion, or Black Helicopters or…. Nothing new here. Except failure to wise up.
Just about zero has been said in this thread that actually justifies the least concern by anyone. And stuff like "Why did they come here anyway, if they want their own laws?" is downright disgusting and shameful—unless you're a full-blooded Mississauga, or Mohawk speaking about anyone who arrived after 10,000 or so BCE. Your folks re-made what they found, and so will these people. Maybe without exterminating the people they found in place. Wish we could say the same.
Oh BTW, papasmerf you might want to check the spelling in your sig line and match either Canadian or US versions of "honour", it is your sig after all.
Last edited:
Old Geezer!
"As for coming to Canada, seeking a better life for your loved ones shouldn't have to mean giving up all of your heritege. Can they not be proud to be Muslims as well as being proud to be Canadians? I don't see that they have to be exclusively one or the other."
It's been frequently documented that even mainline mosques preach that Western society is decadent. This is not just a tenet of Islamic extremists. I'm not happy with immigrants coming here to build a better life for their families and then badmouthing our society. In fact, I'm sick of it!
"From what I've heard, Islam is a religion of peace."
Talk is cheap. The actions of Islamic societies/governments give the lie to that convenient phrase.
"I think some people may be reacting against this proposal out of fear/anger created by a compartively few fanatics that we call terrorists."
Support for the "few" fanatics is far more widespread among "moderate" Muslims of Middle Eastern heritage than we secular liberal Westerners like to think.
Oldjones!
"Just about zero has been said in this thread that actually justifies the least concern by anyone. And stuff like "Why did they come here anyway, if they want their own laws?" is downright disgusting and shameful—unless you're a full-blooded Mississauga, or Mohawk speaking about anyone who arrived after 10,000 or so BCE. Your folks re-made what they found, and so will these people. Maybe without exterminating the people they found in place."
Playing the old guilt card, are you? You'll have to do better than that. I'm on to that particular trick. You see I know full well that I'm not personally responsible for the deeds of even my own - let alone anyone else's - ancestors.
Besides, have you considered where the Indians went wrong? Their mistake was their open immigration policy. You see where it got them. We might perhaps learn from their mistake if we cherish our secular liberal society!
"As for coming to Canada, seeking a better life for your loved ones shouldn't have to mean giving up all of your heritege. Can they not be proud to be Muslims as well as being proud to be Canadians? I don't see that they have to be exclusively one or the other."
It's been frequently documented that even mainline mosques preach that Western society is decadent. This is not just a tenet of Islamic extremists. I'm not happy with immigrants coming here to build a better life for their families and then badmouthing our society. In fact, I'm sick of it!
"From what I've heard, Islam is a religion of peace."
Talk is cheap. The actions of Islamic societies/governments give the lie to that convenient phrase.
"I think some people may be reacting against this proposal out of fear/anger created by a compartively few fanatics that we call terrorists."
Support for the "few" fanatics is far more widespread among "moderate" Muslims of Middle Eastern heritage than we secular liberal Westerners like to think.
Oldjones!
"Just about zero has been said in this thread that actually justifies the least concern by anyone. And stuff like "Why did they come here anyway, if they want their own laws?" is downright disgusting and shameful—unless you're a full-blooded Mississauga, or Mohawk speaking about anyone who arrived after 10,000 or so BCE. Your folks re-made what they found, and so will these people. Maybe without exterminating the people they found in place."
Playing the old guilt card, are you? You'll have to do better than that. I'm on to that particular trick. You see I know full well that I'm not personally responsible for the deeds of even my own - let alone anyone else's - ancestors.
Besides, have you considered where the Indians went wrong? Their mistake was their open immigration policy. You see where it got them. We might perhaps learn from their mistake if we cherish our secular liberal society!
Cave, have you read the article? The only badmouthing going on seems to be in this thread against muslims.Cave Carson said:
But just out of curiosity, as 'criticising our society' is the right of any member of a Democratic country, how long DO you have to be here? One generation? Two? Longer? My family has been here for 7 or 8 generations, have we been here long enough to be called 'Canadian'?
P.S. In case anyone is wondering, I'd probably be classed as a WASP - easy on the 'P' because I'm also an agnostic. But just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I can't respect another's right to believe.
Cheap shot! If you don't care how it's spelt, it didn't mean much to you in the first place!papasmerf said:
How can you compare the 2 . This stoning of women is a way of life and a common occurence. It is ok to kill your sister for sex outside marriage in other countries not here. The fact is in the U.S incident the people would be punished and it was a rare incident. In Muslim coutries they get away with abusing women.
cave every bit of your "argument" applys equally well if not better with "Christian" replacing "Muslim", and so on. If you're going to shamelessly spout this stuff, you might at least differentiate the society you're attacking from the one you're 'defending'—as much irony as single quotes can carry there.
Perhaps you might also illustrate your use of the phrase: "we secular liberal Westerners", as I've completely missed the 'liberal' content of your argument. At least in any sense of "liberal" I'm familiar with.
If you think you should feel guilty for your ancestors, go right ahead; or don't. Only you imagine you might be supposed responsible for their actions. I just think you should be responsible for your own words and deeds. Since you haven't said what exactly is wrong with these newcomers doing just what your ancestors did, you need to do so. Or stop claiming liberal highground while whining through the swamps of reaction and bigotry, stereotyping these people, who in fact are being just like your folks. "We don't want them here, being different from us." That's really it, isn't it?
As for this "secular" label you repeat, there's another thread on the Alliance's response to gay marriage in which the Christian foundation of our society is being most vigourously asserted. And I believe even beyond TERB, that view's got some following. Or is that too, a belief system which "we secular liberals" should not tolerate?
Tolerate. Now there's a word to try to live. Sorry. I've probably been more heated, and I know I've been less clear, than I should have been. I hope, if you respond, that my rashness wasn't catching, and you manage to bring the debate back to a calm and reasoned level.
papa whatever "honnor" is; it is, as you say, truly yours. I guessed "honour" was what you meant; seems I was wrong. Sorry to hear it's already lost.
Perhaps you might also illustrate your use of the phrase: "we secular liberal Westerners", as I've completely missed the 'liberal' content of your argument. At least in any sense of "liberal" I'm familiar with.
If you think you should feel guilty for your ancestors, go right ahead; or don't. Only you imagine you might be supposed responsible for their actions. I just think you should be responsible for your own words and deeds. Since you haven't said what exactly is wrong with these newcomers doing just what your ancestors did, you need to do so. Or stop claiming liberal highground while whining through the swamps of reaction and bigotry, stereotyping these people, who in fact are being just like your folks. "We don't want them here, being different from us." That's really it, isn't it?
As for this "secular" label you repeat, there's another thread on the Alliance's response to gay marriage in which the Christian foundation of our society is being most vigourously asserted. And I believe even beyond TERB, that view's got some following. Or is that too, a belief system which "we secular liberals" should not tolerate?
Tolerate. Now there's a word to try to live. Sorry. I've probably been more heated, and I know I've been less clear, than I should have been. I hope, if you respond, that my rashness wasn't catching, and you manage to bring the debate back to a calm and reasoned level.
papa whatever "honnor" is; it is, as you say, truly yours. I guessed "honour" was what you meant; seems I was wrong. Sorry to hear it's already lost.
booboobear: a horable death is a horable death. It doesn't matter how many times it happens. Have you read the article on the first post? James T Kirk and others have brought up stoning as an argument against the formation of an Arbitration panel based on Shari law under which muslim parties in a dispute may apply for binding arbitration which could be enforced through the Canadian courts.booboobear said:
What some of the posters can't or won't understand, is that the Canadian Muslims ARE NOT PROPOSING to make Canada an Islamic State! Canadian Law will still be the 'law of the land'. Canadians will not be subject to Shari Law unless they are Muslim AND both parties in a dispute agree to Arbitration under Shari Law!
The main point behind my comment you were refering to is that if the Muslim Arbitration panel is adopted, murder will still be illegal here - talk of Stoning adultresses or cutting the hands of a thief are not relavent to the Canadian Muslim proposal. These actions would still be illegal here!
But perhaps your post is a good response to Cave Carson's post. Perhaps the reason some Muslims have come to Canada is, not to get away from being Muslim, but to get away from '...Muslim coutries (that) get away with abusing women'.
Old Geezer!
"Cave, have you read the article?"
Yes. I have. And I'm not challenging their right to agree to letting a third party settle their dispute. Nonetheless, I'm still wondering why people who think Canadian law is deficient emigrate here.
"The only badmouthing going on seems to be in this thread against muslims."
That's what comes of relying on TERB to be your sole source of information about world events. You will every so often miss something. Take these words. I didn't write them. They were written by an American Muslim:
"When I hear some Muslims put down the West I remind them that I am an American. I am a Muslim but am an American and I tell them that I get tired of hearing my culture bashed.... I get very frustrated with some of these people who put down the USA. I don't just get frustrated I get royally pissed at them. Many of them live here using our system. They get Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid and the works. They have learned to play the system, then they ridicule the US and the West and call us infidels and kufr. Yes, many of these people who bash the West are reaping the rewards of the West. It isn't right and it isn't right for so-called Muslims to hate people in the West." - Yusufscat
Badmouthing of the West among immigrants from some places is not exactly uncommon. That's the kind of thing that makes most of the rest of us furious! What was immigration thinking when it let these people into the country? Was immigration sleeping? Why are these people not deported immediately if they hate us and are just using the system? In fact, why are they eligible for social assistance in the first place? Was the ability and willingness to work not a precondition for being allowed into the country as it always was in previous times?
And do these immigrants who spurn us and our secular liberal values and our code of jurisprudence not realize that it is precisely these things that have enabled us to build our nations and achieve unparalleled prosperity?
Keep in mind that my remarks are addressed only at those immigrants who despise us.
"But just out of curiosity, as 'criticising our society' is the right of any member of a Democratic country, how long DO you have to be here?'
A few minutes if you want to be a Canadian. If, on the other hand, you're just here to take advantage of our system, you shouldn't be here in the first place. It's not the first group that runs our country and Western values down.
"Cave every bit of your "argument" applys equally well if not better with "Christian" replacing "Muslim"...."
You're right. I'm no defender of Christians either so feel free to substitute "Christian" for "Muslim" anywhere you choose. Any Christian who comes to Canada from any part of the world just to run us down and take advantage of our system should leave - the sooner the better!
"At least in any sense of "liberal" I'm familiar with."
How about the classical nineteenth century definition of liberal - the limited government, low tax variety? "Welfare, Foodstamps and Medicaid" aren't financed without taxation you know.
"I just think you should be responsible for your own words and deeds."
Fine.
"Since you haven't said what exactly is wrong with these newcomers doing just what your ancestors did, you need to do so."
Oh?! For one thing, why do you claim they were my ancestors with nary a shred of evidence to support your case? Just because you've guessed that I'm white?
Secondly, my ancestors didn't come to Canada to either put down the West or live on social assistance. Neither did they agitate for their own judicial tribunals. They thought Canada's laws were just fine.
Thirdly, if I were to argue that your ancestors were wrong in their treatment of the Indians, does that mean that we should now be ready and willing to go the way of the Indians? Upon what premise? That we should repeat the mistake the Indians made because there's historical precedent for such mistakes? Are you arguing that two wrongs would set things to right? I disagree.
""We don't want them here, being different from us." That's really it, isn't it?"
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm more than capable of making my own assertions.
"As for this "secular" label you repeat, there's another thread on the Alliance's response to gay marriage in which the Christian foundation of our society is being most vigourously asserted. And I believe even beyond TERB, that view's got some following. Or is that too, a belief system which "we secular liberals" should not tolerate?"
It is intolerable. I believe in a very strict separation between Church and State. I'm entirely opposed to being taxed to support the religious belief system of another. That's very simply wrong. Go to whatever Church you choose but keep your stinking hands out of my pocketbook!
"Cave, have you read the article?"
Yes. I have. And I'm not challenging their right to agree to letting a third party settle their dispute. Nonetheless, I'm still wondering why people who think Canadian law is deficient emigrate here.
"The only badmouthing going on seems to be in this thread against muslims."
That's what comes of relying on TERB to be your sole source of information about world events. You will every so often miss something. Take these words. I didn't write them. They were written by an American Muslim:
"When I hear some Muslims put down the West I remind them that I am an American. I am a Muslim but am an American and I tell them that I get tired of hearing my culture bashed.... I get very frustrated with some of these people who put down the USA. I don't just get frustrated I get royally pissed at them. Many of them live here using our system. They get Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid and the works. They have learned to play the system, then they ridicule the US and the West and call us infidels and kufr. Yes, many of these people who bash the West are reaping the rewards of the West. It isn't right and it isn't right for so-called Muslims to hate people in the West." - Yusufscat
Badmouthing of the West among immigrants from some places is not exactly uncommon. That's the kind of thing that makes most of the rest of us furious! What was immigration thinking when it let these people into the country? Was immigration sleeping? Why are these people not deported immediately if they hate us and are just using the system? In fact, why are they eligible for social assistance in the first place? Was the ability and willingness to work not a precondition for being allowed into the country as it always was in previous times?
And do these immigrants who spurn us and our secular liberal values and our code of jurisprudence not realize that it is precisely these things that have enabled us to build our nations and achieve unparalleled prosperity?
Keep in mind that my remarks are addressed only at those immigrants who despise us.
"But just out of curiosity, as 'criticising our society' is the right of any member of a Democratic country, how long DO you have to be here?'
A few minutes if you want to be a Canadian. If, on the other hand, you're just here to take advantage of our system, you shouldn't be here in the first place. It's not the first group that runs our country and Western values down.
"Cave every bit of your "argument" applys equally well if not better with "Christian" replacing "Muslim"...."
You're right. I'm no defender of Christians either so feel free to substitute "Christian" for "Muslim" anywhere you choose. Any Christian who comes to Canada from any part of the world just to run us down and take advantage of our system should leave - the sooner the better!
"At least in any sense of "liberal" I'm familiar with."
How about the classical nineteenth century definition of liberal - the limited government, low tax variety? "Welfare, Foodstamps and Medicaid" aren't financed without taxation you know.
"I just think you should be responsible for your own words and deeds."
Fine.
"Since you haven't said what exactly is wrong with these newcomers doing just what your ancestors did, you need to do so."
Oh?! For one thing, why do you claim they were my ancestors with nary a shred of evidence to support your case? Just because you've guessed that I'm white?
Secondly, my ancestors didn't come to Canada to either put down the West or live on social assistance. Neither did they agitate for their own judicial tribunals. They thought Canada's laws were just fine.
Thirdly, if I were to argue that your ancestors were wrong in their treatment of the Indians, does that mean that we should now be ready and willing to go the way of the Indians? Upon what premise? That we should repeat the mistake the Indians made because there's historical precedent for such mistakes? Are you arguing that two wrongs would set things to right? I disagree.
""We don't want them here, being different from us." That's really it, isn't it?"
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm more than capable of making my own assertions.
"As for this "secular" label you repeat, there's another thread on the Alliance's response to gay marriage in which the Christian foundation of our society is being most vigourously asserted. And I believe even beyond TERB, that view's got some following. Or is that too, a belief system which "we secular liberals" should not tolerate?"
It is intolerable. I believe in a very strict separation between Church and State. I'm entirely opposed to being taxed to support the religious belief system of another. That's very simply wrong. Go to whatever Church you choose but keep your stinking hands out of my pocketbook!
Cave Carson. Thank you for elaborating. I think I understand better where you are coming from. I just thought your earlier post was too general, painting all 1 million Canadian Muslims with the same brush. I realize now I'd taken your post out of context.
I agree with what you say about those who '...live here using our system. They get Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid and the works... ...just here to take advantage of our system... '
"And do these immigrants... ...not realize that it is precisely these things that have enabled us to build our nations and achieve unparalleled prosperity? "
I'm guessing most of the Muslims who are 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) generation Canadian do realize this - and that is why they want to stay as Canadians and not emigrate back to the Islamic states. It is these Canadian Muslims that I was thinking of when I've been formulating my opinions and writing my posts.
And I most definily agree with your last statement: "I believe in a very strict separation between Church and State. I'm entirely opposed to being taxed to support the religious belief system of another. That's very simply wrong. Go to whatever Church you choose but keep your stinking hands out of my pocketbook!".
Yet, at the same time, if the Canadian Muslims wish to voluntarily participate in Arbitration based on Shari Law, then I can respect their wishes - as long as they don't try to force me to abide by Shari law.
I agree with what you say about those who '...live here using our system. They get Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid and the works... ...just here to take advantage of our system... '
"And do these immigrants... ...not realize that it is precisely these things that have enabled us to build our nations and achieve unparalleled prosperity? "
I'm guessing most of the Muslims who are 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) generation Canadian do realize this - and that is why they want to stay as Canadians and not emigrate back to the Islamic states. It is these Canadian Muslims that I was thinking of when I've been formulating my opinions and writing my posts.
And I most definily agree with your last statement: "I believe in a very strict separation between Church and State. I'm entirely opposed to being taxed to support the religious belief system of another. That's very simply wrong. Go to whatever Church you choose but keep your stinking hands out of my pocketbook!".
Yet, at the same time, if the Canadian Muslims wish to voluntarily participate in Arbitration based on Shari Law, then I can respect their wishes - as long as they don't try to force me to abide by Shari law.
cave you called them your ancestors, when you said whatever they did, it wasn't your responsibility. If they and their oh-so-laudable XIXthC liberal immigrant buds were content as peaches with the laws they found, wouldn't those laws still be in place, Family Compact, Stamp Act (for US readers) or The Great Law of Peace?
But my OED makes no mention of your "limited government" variety of XIXthC liberal; instead in every one of the various meanings of liberal—especially the political— it emphasizes openness to change and reform. No Food Stamps, no MedicAid for sure (except we've never had those things in Canada) But wasn't it Bentham, an early XIXthC liberal, if I'm remembering properly, who said: "from each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his need"? So maybe those old liberals deserve some of the modern tar you're slinging. Best we trust the dictionary, rather than your definition, I think. Besides, I thought you described our society as "liberal"—but surely not in the sense you detailed.
Just how do we change and progress then, if dissatisfaction is grounds for deportation? And why do natives—such as corporate legal counsel who insist binding 3d party arbitration without recourse to the courts shall be the only dispute resolution under the contracts they draft and I "freely" enter into[inserts m-dash, gasping for breath]—why do they escape exile, a fine XIXth C punishment for such dissidence and disloyalty to the Crown?
Sorry. I always was taught, and still think "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the principle to live by. Please note that it asks nothing you cannot do, like make others behave to you as you want to behave towards them. That's damn hard, if it's possible at all.
The right response to the current sharia story is all within your power. And ours, unlike stemming the human tide that always flows from want to plenty. That tide has been part of civilization since before Roman Senators debated whether those Germans could really be loyal citizens, if they kept those wack haircuts, and weird gods. If Rome had insisted on race-purity—I know, not your idea at all, but relevant—the empire would have collapsed centuries earlier, if it ever even got out of Italy. Co-opt lasts way longer than conquer. Which might explain the collapse of the initially liberal and successful Islamic Empire that gave us the Renaissance, and which then turned repressive. So Columbus' Queen Isabella re-took Spain, and tossed the Moors out, along with the Jews for good measure. Ushering in the wildly successful Spanish World Rule we all recall.
Sorry, I do go on. Now just in case I accidentally changed the subject in my ramble. Do we agree 'security' issues and conquering are not what we're about here? Didn't mean to allow them to sneak in. Sorry if they did.
But my OED makes no mention of your "limited government" variety of XIXthC liberal; instead in every one of the various meanings of liberal—especially the political— it emphasizes openness to change and reform. No Food Stamps, no MedicAid for sure (except we've never had those things in Canada) But wasn't it Bentham, an early XIXthC liberal, if I'm remembering properly, who said: "from each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his need"? So maybe those old liberals deserve some of the modern tar you're slinging. Best we trust the dictionary, rather than your definition, I think. Besides, I thought you described our society as "liberal"—but surely not in the sense you detailed.
Just how do we change and progress then, if dissatisfaction is grounds for deportation? And why do natives—such as corporate legal counsel who insist binding 3d party arbitration without recourse to the courts shall be the only dispute resolution under the contracts they draft and I "freely" enter into[inserts m-dash, gasping for breath]—why do they escape exile, a fine XIXth C punishment for such dissidence and disloyalty to the Crown?
Sorry. I always was taught, and still think "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the principle to live by. Please note that it asks nothing you cannot do, like make others behave to you as you want to behave towards them. That's damn hard, if it's possible at all.
The right response to the current sharia story is all within your power. And ours, unlike stemming the human tide that always flows from want to plenty. That tide has been part of civilization since before Roman Senators debated whether those Germans could really be loyal citizens, if they kept those wack haircuts, and weird gods. If Rome had insisted on race-purity—I know, not your idea at all, but relevant—the empire would have collapsed centuries earlier, if it ever even got out of Italy. Co-opt lasts way longer than conquer. Which might explain the collapse of the initially liberal and successful Islamic Empire that gave us the Renaissance, and which then turned repressive. So Columbus' Queen Isabella re-took Spain, and tossed the Moors out, along with the Jews for good measure. Ushering in the wildly successful Spanish World Rule we all recall.
Sorry, I do go on. Now just in case I accidentally changed the subject in my ramble. Do we agree 'security' issues and conquering are not what we're about here? Didn't mean to allow them to sneak in. Sorry if they did.
Oldjones!
"Sorry, I do go on. Now just in case I accidentally changed the subject in my ramble."
Yes. I agree. You do ramble. All I have to do know is figure out whether there is anything on which we are fundamentally in disagreement.
"Cave you called them your ancestors, when you said whatever they did, it wasn't your responsibility."
Now here's something on which we disagree. My exact words were "You see I know full well that I'm not personally responsible for the deeds of even my own - let alone anyone else's - ancestors. I thought the implication that these fellows weren't my ancestors was quite clear.
"... wouldn't those laws still be in place, Family Compact, Stamp Act (for US readers) or The Great Law of Peace?"
Well, yes, laws do change/evolve over time. That in no way negates the general principle that one should not emigrate to a country if one is completely uncomfortable with its laws, society, customs, etc. Heaping abuse on one's host is, after all, rude.
"But my OED makes no mention of your "limited government" variety of XIXthC liberal...."
An OED won't do. You probably need a book on the evolution of liberalism. Nineteenth century liberals were classic minarchists whose chief concern was protecting individuals from too powerful a state. Sometime in the 20th century the word came to be applied to those like the New Dealers who sought to guaranty certain basic material decencies to all individuals, even at the expense of other individuals. The people didn't change; but the usage of the word did.
"... if dissatisfaction is grounds for deportation."
It's too late by then. The problem with Canada's immigration pokicy, which was theoretically designed with the country's best interests in mind, is that those styling themselves as refugees in effect jump the queue. They are then effectively here for the duration, at public expense, until and unless a lawyer more clever than the one the federal government has hired for the claimant, convinces the judge that the fellow is not telling the truth about being the refugee. The process is actually even more involved than my description!
This is, of course, part of the general issue of whether and how much Canada's best interests should be moderated on "compassionate' grounds like family reunification.
"Do we agree 'security' issues and conquering are not what we're about here? Didn't mean to allow them to sneak in."
Mostly. Conquest is certainly not an issue. Security though has been a very real issue lately and immigrants "sneaking in" has been a concern for well over forty years.
"Sorry, I do go on. Now just in case I accidentally changed the subject in my ramble."
Yes. I agree. You do ramble. All I have to do know is figure out whether there is anything on which we are fundamentally in disagreement.
"Cave you called them your ancestors, when you said whatever they did, it wasn't your responsibility."
Now here's something on which we disagree. My exact words were "You see I know full well that I'm not personally responsible for the deeds of even my own - let alone anyone else's - ancestors. I thought the implication that these fellows weren't my ancestors was quite clear.
"... wouldn't those laws still be in place, Family Compact, Stamp Act (for US readers) or The Great Law of Peace?"
Well, yes, laws do change/evolve over time. That in no way negates the general principle that one should not emigrate to a country if one is completely uncomfortable with its laws, society, customs, etc. Heaping abuse on one's host is, after all, rude.
"But my OED makes no mention of your "limited government" variety of XIXthC liberal...."
An OED won't do. You probably need a book on the evolution of liberalism. Nineteenth century liberals were classic minarchists whose chief concern was protecting individuals from too powerful a state. Sometime in the 20th century the word came to be applied to those like the New Dealers who sought to guaranty certain basic material decencies to all individuals, even at the expense of other individuals. The people didn't change; but the usage of the word did.
"... if dissatisfaction is grounds for deportation."
It's too late by then. The problem with Canada's immigration pokicy, which was theoretically designed with the country's best interests in mind, is that those styling themselves as refugees in effect jump the queue. They are then effectively here for the duration, at public expense, until and unless a lawyer more clever than the one the federal government has hired for the claimant, convinces the judge that the fellow is not telling the truth about being the refugee. The process is actually even more involved than my description!
This is, of course, part of the general issue of whether and how much Canada's best interests should be moderated on "compassionate' grounds like family reunification.
"Do we agree 'security' issues and conquering are not what we're about here? Didn't mean to allow them to sneak in."
Mostly. Conquest is certainly not an issue. Security though has been a very real issue lately and immigrants "sneaking in" has been a concern for well over forty years.
On just about everything cave. You say your:
is somehow a statement that these folks weren't your ancestors? Huh!
You say that, like Alice in Wonderland I'm to understand that when you use a word like "liberal" it means just what you intend it to mean, so I am not to trust the dictionary. You picked the word "liberal"to describe our society. But damned if you're letting me in on your meaning. XIXth C liberals—like Bentham—or XXIstC, the central liberal tenets are freedom, openess and reform. Don't set up your welfare straw man for me.
Or slip away to bleat about queue-jumping refugees: a topic for another day. The subject is whether newcomers are to be quiescent except when they espouse the received national wisdom according to …? Ah! Well there's another problem with "if they don't like it they should leave". Don't like what? according to whom? You? Glad to see you're now describing the dissaffected as "completely[my emphasis] uncomfortable with [the country's] laws", but that's not where you began.
And I was particularly intrigued by your description of how our laws just "change/evolve", as if people—dissatisfied, quarrelsome, reforming maybe "completely uncomfortable" people had nothing to do with it. You may have missed it, but many of the American rebels and the later Upper and Lower Canadian ones were brand new immigrants. Wasn't it their actions that forged your "secular liberal society"? Should they have shut up, and listened to their betters who've been here longer? You might try to find their breadth of vision, instead of the reactionary Tory conservatism they fought against.
I notice my Golden Rule reference evoked no response from you, so it is just barely possible that on that precept we are not in disagreement. But as for the rest of what you may be saying… Well if you're having trouble figuring out
then your points have gotten away even from you.
