Election 2015

[The Unknown Poster]

I never claimed to be an expert on those same things so let's not hold my opinion up as more deserving to tear down because you think I think im an expert.

It's common sense to me. If it's not common sense to you I guess that's what they call a difference of opinion. But you think your position is weightier. And that's fine.

Why would the government appeal a decision they would likely lose? Because they feel strongly about it. Id wager most appeals are losses. Why do people Appral anything? Bexajse tjeu feel strongly about it. becaude they feel its worth trying. Because they feel it's worth generating public discussion.

You can disagree with the government. That's your right. Majority of Canadians seem to agree on this issue. But it's the governments right to appeal and to take forth an issue they feel strongly about. That's their role as government.

Governments are elected. Judges aren't.

If also called this whole thing a red herring anyway. It's not nearly worth the print it's getting. And I believe strongly in the rights of people to do as they please. But I think the government is correct on this issue and that is taking a stand against offensive cultural practices and symbols of oppression that should not be supported in Canada.

You're free to disagree.

[The Unknown Poster]

National Post

After a marathon campaign that featured strong debate on issues ranging from the economy to wearing the niqab, Mainstreet’s numbers indicated that the desire for change among the electorate was finding a home in the Liberal camp, as support for Tom Mulcair’s NDP faded.

Among the poll’s main national findings:

— The Liberals had the support of 38 per cent of Canadian voters who had made up their mind or were leaning in one direction.

— The governing Conservatives were running second, with 33 per cent of the decided and leaning vote.

— The NDP was well back, with 21 per cent.

— The Green party had five per cent, while the Bloc Québécois, running only in Quebec, had four per cent.

[bb1]

I never claimed to be an expert on those same things so let's not hold my opinion up as more deserving to tear down because you think I think im an expert.

It's common sense to me. If it's not common sense to you I guess that's what they call a difference of opinion. But you think your position is weightier. And that's fine.

Why would the government appeal a decision they would likely lose? Because they feel strongly about it. Id wager most appeals are losses. Why do people Appral anything? Bexajse tjeu feel strongly about it. becaude they feel its worth trying. Because they feel it's worth generating public discussion.

You can disagree with the government. That's your right. Majority of Canadians seem to agree on this issue. But it's the governments right to appeal and to take forth an issue they feel strongly about. That's their role as government.

Governments are elected. Judges aren't.

If also called this whole thing a red herring anyway. It's not nearly worth the print it's getting. And I believe strongly in the rights of people to do as they please. But I think the government is correct on this issue and that is taking a stand against offensive cultural practices and symbols of oppression that should not be supported in Canada.

You're free to disagree.

Symbols of oppression? Listen if I believed you were gullible enough to fall for that I would just shake my head and move on.Its just another ploy by a party to win an election and you know it.

[The Unknown Poster]

Lol BB1. I would say women having zero choice one subject makes the face/body covering an oppressive thing.

Personally I believe in equality. You don't have to agree though. That's your right. Gullible is believing in the big bad conservative boogeyman.

[Mr Dee]

A lighter moment in the hair battle...

 

 

 

[Logan007]

Lol BB1. I would say women having zero choice one subject makes the face/body covering an oppressive thing.

Personally I believe in equality. You don't have to agree though. That's your right. Gullible is believing in the big bad conservative boogeyman.

But see, that's just it.  That's your belief, not theirs.  They believe in covering up, it's their choice.  If you ask the women they will even tell you that that's what they believe in.  You can call it offensive all you want, but it's what they believe in.

 

You may think it's ok for women to walk around half naked.  In their eyes that's not right, and covering up women helps them to not sin by lusting after women, especially ones that are married.

[iso_55]

 

You wouldn't hire a mechanic with no experience working on cars. But PM? Sure no experience needed.

 

This analogy sucked the first time you used it too.

 

Is a nerdy economist like Harper a better fit to be a leader than a charismatic pretty boy that people gravitate too? Not as easy an answer as you think it is. A big part of the leader's job is to get people to like/support him. It's not like he's in charge of drafting every bill and personally preparing the budget. As long as he's got smart people in the background doing the dirty work he'll be fine. It doesn't matter if Harper is a supergenius if people can't stand him.

 

Been saying this all along,

[kelownabomberfan]

Trudeau's new ads where he's screaming into the microphone are starting to get on my nerves.  Especially when he calls me "friend".  Sorry Justin, you are a spoiled rich kid from Montreal.   We are never going to be friends.

[iso_55]

Trudeau's new ads where he's screaming into the microphone are starting to get on my nerves.  Especially when he calls me "friend".  Sorry Justin, you are a spoiled rich kid from Montreal.   We are never going to be friends.

Funny, haven't seen that one. Just Trudeau stuck on an escalator walking the wrong way. What kind of a leader does that?

[bb1]

Lol BB1. I would say women having zero choice one subject makes the face/body covering an oppressive thing.

Personally I believe in equality. You don't have to agree though. That's your right. Gullible is believing in the big bad conservative boogeyman.

No gullible is believing that the big bad conservative boogeyman actually give a rats ass about equality.

[The Unknown Poster]

Lol BB1. I would say women having zero choice one subject makes the face/body covering an oppressive thing.

Personally I believe in equality. You don't have to agree though. That's your right. Gullible is believing in the big bad conservative boogeyman.

But see, that's just it. That's your belief, not theirs. They believe in covering up, it's their choice. If you ask the women they will even tell you that that's what they believe in. You can call it offensive all you want, but it's what they believe in.

You may think it's ok for women to walk around half naked. In their eyes that's not right, and covering up women helps them to not sin by lusting after women, especially ones that are married.

You're right. It's either covered complete or half naked

Can't even discuss with logic like that. If you think the way women are treated in some middle eastern cultures is oky based on "that's their believe" I'm sorry, you're wrong. But regardless that should not be permitted here.

But this not the issue. Because women are free to cover their faces here. That's not the issue. So let's not have a debate where one side is arguing something different.

[The Unknown Poster]

Yeah wonderful treatment of women in Muslim culture and we should embrace it because....it's their culture? Because the women are either fearful, manipulated or brought up to accept that they are not equal? Sorry I disagree strongly.

This isn't the issue in question but clearly we must explain how women are viewed in that culture before some people here will understand why "it's their beliefs so it's ok" doesn't fly.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/the-truth-about-women-in-the-middle-east/

In 2012, Mona Eltahawy published an essay in Foreign Policy magazine, ‘Why Do They Hate Us?,’ that drew attention to the unequal and precarious position of women in the Middle East and North Africa. Eltahawy argued that in the Muslim world women are treated like animals by men who disdain and fear them. In the wake of the Arab Spring, she called for a shift in focus from political leaders who oppress their citizens to the men who oppress women in the streets and at home. Her words prompted angry responses from many on the Left who are loath to blame one religion or culture for this miserable state of affairs.

Eltahawy’s new book, Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution, expands this theme. The book more thoroughly addresses the reality of women’s lives in the Muslim world and advocates for a sexual revolution there. Combining her own experiences growing up in Egypt with examples of injustices across numerous countries in the region, Eltahawy paints a picture of a world that is dangerous and unjust for women, and covers issues such as veiling, virginity, rape, harassment, domestic abuse, and equal representation before the law.

Veiling has received the most attention in the West, and especially France, where it has been hotly debated. The policy of laïcité has led to the banning of veiling in government buildings there, including schools. Eltahawy’s own decision to veil came as a teenager, when, while on the hajj, she was repeatedly groped by strangers. Her shock and horror led her to believe that if she covered herself she would be protected from sexual harassment. As she got older she convinced herself she was expressing her feminist right to choose the veil.

Today she sees this logic for what it is: “To claim that the wearing of the niqab is a feminist issue is to turn feminism on its head.” She points out that for many women throughout the world, veiling is not a real choice because of pressure and threats from family, friends, regimes and strangers on the streets.

But the issue of veiling in the Muslim world often overshadows the far more serious problems of harassment, rape, and domestic abuse. According to a UN report, 99.3 percent of Egyptian women reported being sexually harassed, with 96.5 percent saying the harassment included physical contact. Eltahawy calls the public space “uniquely dangerous” for women in the Middle East. This was demonstrated during the Arab Spring protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square when numerous women, including Eltahawy, reported being sexually assaulted both by military officials as well as by fellow protestors.

In this way, women are pushed from public spaces into the home, allegedly for their own protection. But it is here that they often face the most danger. More than 40 percent of women from Egypt, Tunisia and Lebanon—purportedly the most progressive states in the region—have reported being victims of violence in the home. Because personal status laws tend to be based on sharia in these countries, women often face difficulties having charges brought against their spouses. At the time of this writing, only Jordan, Mauritania, and Tunisia have laws that address domestic violence, although Eltahawy argues that they are rarely enforced.

Eltahawy describes the horrifying reality in the Middle East, where rape victims are often more stigmatized than rapists, and where women can be punished as “fornicators” under the zina, the part of Islamic law that has to do with unlawful sexual intercourse. Perhaps most upsetting is the prevalence of rape victims who are persuaded to marry their rapist. This is done so the rapist avoids facing charges, and the woman can restore honor to her family by keeping the loss of her virginity linked to only one man. This puts women in the often dangerous position of either marrying the man who attacked them or facing honor crimes, possibly murder, at the hands of family members.

[bb1]

Yeah wonderful treatment of women in Muslim culture and we should embrace it because....it's their culture? Because the women are either fearful, manipulated or brought up to accept that they are not equal? Sorry I disagree strongly.

This isn't the issue in question but clearly we must explain how women are viewed in that culture before some people here will understand why "it's their beliefs so it's ok" doesn't fly.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/the-truth-about-women-in-the-middle-east/

In 2012, Mona Eltahawy published an essay in Foreign Policy magazine, ‘Why Do They Hate Us?,’ that drew attention to the unequal and precarious position of women in the Middle East and North Africa. Eltahawy argued that in the Muslim world women are treated like animals by men who disdain and fear them. In the wake of the Arab Spring, she called for a shift in focus from political leaders who oppress their citizens to the men who oppress women in the streets and at home. Her words prompted angry responses from many on the Left who are loath to blame one religion or culture for this miserable state of affairs.

Eltahawy’s new book, Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution, expands this theme. The book more thoroughly addresses the reality of women’s lives in the Muslim world and advocates for a sexual revolution there. Combining her own experiences growing up in Egypt with examples of injustices across numerous countries in the region, Eltahawy paints a picture of a world that is dangerous and unjust for women, and covers issues such as veiling, virginity, rape, harassment, domestic abuse, and equal representation before the law.

Veiling has received the most attention in the West, and especially France, where it has been hotly debated. The policy of laïcité has led to the banning of veiling in government buildings there, including schools. Eltahawy’s own decision to veil came as a teenager, when, while on the hajj, she was repeatedly groped by strangers. Her shock and horror led her to believe that if she covered herself she would be protected from sexual harassment. As she got older she convinced herself she was expressing her feminist right to choose the veil.

Today she sees this logic for what it is: “To claim that the wearing of the niqab is a feminist issue is to turn feminism on its head.” She points out that for many women throughout the world, veiling is not a real choice because of pressure and threats from family, friends, regimes and strangers on the streets.

But the issue of veiling in the Muslim world often overshadows the far more serious problems of harassment, rape, and domestic abuse. According to a UN report, 99.3 percent of Egyptian women reported being sexually harassed, with 96.5 percent saying the harassment included physical contact. Eltahawy calls the public space “uniquely dangerous” for women in the Middle East. This was demonstrated during the Arab Spring protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square when numerous women, including Eltahawy, reported being sexually assaulted both by military officials as well as by fellow protestors.

In this way, women are pushed from public spaces into the home, allegedly for their own protection. But it is here that they often face the most danger. More than 40 percent of women from Egypt, Tunisia and Lebanon—purportedly the most progressive states in the region—have reported being victims of violence in the home. Because personal status laws tend to be based on sharia in these countries, women often face difficulties having charges brought against their spouses. At the time of this writing, only Jordan, Mauritania, and Tunisia have laws that address domestic violence, although Eltahawy argues that they are rarely enforced.

Eltahawy describes the horrifying reality in the Middle East, where rape victims are often more stigmatized than rapists, and where women can be punished as “fornicators” under the zina, the part of Islamic law that has to do with unlawful sexual intercourse. Perhaps most upsetting is the prevalence of rape victims who are persuaded to marry their rapist. This is done so the rapist avoids facing charges, and the woman can restore honor to her family by keeping the loss of her virginity linked to only one man. This puts women in the often dangerous position of either marrying the man who attacked them or facing honor crimes, possibly murder, at the hands of family members.

Yeah your right this is what Harper was worried about.

[The Unknown Poster]

You don't like Harper so you know his reasoning? That's the problem with you. You think everyone else is clouded by bias but you. Except you're the worse because you don't engage in reasonable discussion. Mainly insults.

You don't have to agree.

[Fatty Liver]

Yeah wonderful treatment of women in Muslim culture and we should embrace it because....it's their culture? Because the women are either fearful, manipulated or brought up to accept that they are not equal? Sorry I disagree strongly.

This isn't the issue in question but clearly we must explain how women are viewed in that culture before some people here will understand why "it's their beliefs so it's ok" doesn't fly.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/the-truth-about-women-in-the-middle-east/

 

 

Why pick on Muslims exclusively when the same situation exists for most women in 3rd world countries?  Canada itself did not consider women to be "persons" until 1929 so the root of this attitude is in male dominated culture, not strictly in religious beliefs.

[The Unknown Poster]

Well oddly Rich's post disappeared. But the reason I think this is "silly" is because we're dealing in facts.

We Can disagree about whether the Niqab should be allowed for Citizenship oaths. But to suggest we shouldn't care bexajse it's their "beliefs" or culture so it should be allowed is sort of silly given the facts of how women fit into the more fundamental Muslim culture.

Personally as I hve said numerous times, the issue is pretty low on my give a crap meter. But I think the government is correct in making the point that oppressive examples of any cultre shouldn't have a place at the moment someone is taking an oath to the values of Canada.

Women deserve better.

[The Unknown Poster]

Yeah wonderful treatment of women in Muslim culture and we should embrace it because....it's their culture? Because the women are either fearful, manipulated or brought up to accept that they are not equal? Sorry I disagree strongly.

This isn't the issue in question but clearly we must explain how women are viewed in that culture before some people here will understand why "it's their beliefs so it's ok" doesn't fly.

http://freebeacon.com/culture/the-truth-about-women-in-the-middle-east/

Why pick on Muslims exclusively when the same situation exists for most women in 3rd world countries? Canada itself did not consider women to be "persons" until 1929 so the root of this attitude is in male dominated culture, not strictly in religious beliefs.

I agree. But remember we're not talking about foreign policy here. Those other countries are not insisting on using a symbol of their oppression of women while taking the oath. So it's moot. And really, it's practically moot anyway since it's only two women in question here.

And also remember we aren't talking about banning the Niqab. You can walk down the street wearing it if you choose.

[The Unknown Poster]

I have a female Muslim friend. She just took the oath. No Niqab. As much as she engages in her religion she would never allow herself to be treated less than equal to a man.

Last time I saw her I asked her about how Her family is religiously and what they would do if she brought home a non Muslim boyfriend. Her brother is actually very strict about her having guy friends. But she said she would date whomever she wanted (and she has) and her parents would support her even if they were disappointed. "They love me and want me to be happy".

I'm glad she has that option here.

[Fatty Liver]

A lighter moment in the hair battle...

 

 

 

 

Over the years I have read a lot of opinions that Harper actually wears a toupee but have not seen any definitive evidence of this fact.  There is a helluva lot of horizontal going on in this picture but nothing more to substantiate the claims other than the fact that his hair looks really weird. 

[The Unknown Poster]

A lighter moment in the hair battle...

Over the years I have read a lot of opinions that Harper actually wears a toupee but have not seen any definitive evidence of this fact. There is a helluva lot of horizontal going on in this picture but nothing more to substantiate the claims other than the fact that his hair looks really weird.

I never thought of that. But it's possible. It always surprised me he didn't sort of make himself over. It's not a big deal but it's a weird hair design. That for sure.

[bigg jay]

It's very weird when you consider he's the 1st PM that employs a full-time stylist.

[Mark H.]

The fact that people can walk down the street wearing a niqab if they choose - the fact that people are identified before the citizenship ceremony - makes the entire issue irrelevant. Harper was trying to create a political wedge - it backfired.

In fact, this kind of political strategy is called a dead cat. Take an issue that doesn't matter and use it to create a wedge. Throw a dead cat on the table...

[The Unknown Poster]

It's very weird when you consider he's the 1st PM that employs a full-time stylist.

Really??? Well compared to JT he's out of style. But I don't recall any PM's who were ever cutting edge of style. Harper generally looks fine though, put together. Just a dated hair cut.

[kelownabomberfan]

It's very weird when you consider he's the 1st PM that employs a full-time stylist.

 

And William Lyon Mackenzie King employed a full time psychic so he could talk to his dead mother and dead dog.  Lots of weird stuff goes on in Ottawa.

[bigg jay]

 

It's very weird when you consider he's the 1st PM that employs a full-time stylist.

Really??? Well compared to JT he's out of style. But I don't recall any PM's who were ever cutting edge of style. Harper generally looks fine though, put together. Just a dated hair cut.

 

 

Yeah I don't expect the PM to be on the front cover of GQ or anything but you'd think that the stylist would have done something with that hair.  It's ironic since they made JT's hair such a focal point of their campaign.