It's just the stupidest thing you could possibly do. You can't get rid of a religion or a culture by banning it. You'd think that people in Quebec would realize that all that does is drive it underground, romanticize it and make it stronger.
But the Quebec government is going to ban the niqab on government premises. It's the worst possible thing.
First of all, the women who wear these things are supposedly the victims of the a male-dominated religion. Let's just grant that for the sake of argument. So what are you doing to these victims? You're forcing them to choose between government services and the wraths of their evil husbands. Brilliant!
Second, it's a cultural thing. These women are acclimatized to feel naked if they don't cover their faces. I can't speak on their behalves directly, but it might just be like walking around topless for them. Do you know what the cure is for that feeling? Education. It may in fact be the case that certain women will never, despite everything our society offers, get used to the idea of baring their faces in public. So what? I doubt their daughters will feel the same.
What is logically necessary?
If a woman wants a government service that requires identification, she must be able to prove her identity. That's it. If that means showing your face, temporarily, then that's what they'll have to do.
Women who want a credit for a course involving public speaking must be willing to engage in public speaking. Otherwise they don't get the credit.
But to tell a woman to drop her culture and walk around naked (from her point of view) is simply ridiculous. I don't care how frightened you are of Muslims or brown people or people with funny accents, you don't get to run their lives like that. It's just not how we do things here.
I'll be perfectly honest. As an atheist, I feel that pretty much every religion is a curse on the human race. The subject of enlightening people is always a matter of concern. But this isn't the way. This just won't work and we should know better than to try.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Coulter: Confusing Dissent and Censorship
So the bile-spewing Ann Coulter arrived in Ottawa yesterday and got so frightened by people who were legally disagreeing with her that she ran away and is filing a human rights complaint.
There's nothing in what I've read that suggests anyone threatened violence. Okay, nothing except a quote from Ezra Levant that protesters were "swarming", whatever that means. Since there's no sign that the police arrested anyone, as they are wont to do at the least provocation, I'm going to ignore Ezra and wait for a less biased report.
Here's how it works, Ann. I know that, in your Fox News Bubble, you don't often encounter disagreement. You, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck spew all the hatred and nonsense you want and nobody talks back. Canada isn't that big on protesting either, really, but we're a little better than the sheep you're used to.
Here in Canada, we have free speech. So you're permitted to come here and, as you did, tell a Muslim girl to "Take a camel" because "Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes". Ignorant, but you can say it. You weren't arrested, were you? No, didn't think so.
But here's the thing. Free speech isn't just for you. It's also for all of the people who disagree with you. Get it? People are allowed to disagree with you. They're allowed to hold up signs and chant nasty things about you. They're allowed to be quite loud and vocal in disagreeing with you. That's part of free speech. It's called dissent.
I know. I know. You're not used to it. That circle jerk thing you have going inside Fox just reinforces your notion that nobody ever thinks you're wrong. But you came to Canada and were shocked to find people loudly disagreeing with you.
Oh noes!
So you and Ezra decided, instead of facing a disagreeable crowd who would shout down your ignorance and laugh at your stupidity, to make a big deal out of filing a human rights complaint. Good luck with that. When I see protesters arrested for threatening violence, you might have a case.
Until then, I'm going to just assume you're another cowardly, right wing blowhard.
There's nothing in what I've read that suggests anyone threatened violence. Okay, nothing except a quote from Ezra Levant that protesters were "swarming", whatever that means. Since there's no sign that the police arrested anyone, as they are wont to do at the least provocation, I'm going to ignore Ezra and wait for a less biased report.
Here's how it works, Ann. I know that, in your Fox News Bubble, you don't often encounter disagreement. You, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck spew all the hatred and nonsense you want and nobody talks back. Canada isn't that big on protesting either, really, but we're a little better than the sheep you're used to.
Here in Canada, we have free speech. So you're permitted to come here and, as you did, tell a Muslim girl to "Take a camel" because "Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes". Ignorant, but you can say it. You weren't arrested, were you? No, didn't think so.
But here's the thing. Free speech isn't just for you. It's also for all of the people who disagree with you. Get it? People are allowed to disagree with you. They're allowed to hold up signs and chant nasty things about you. They're allowed to be quite loud and vocal in disagreeing with you. That's part of free speech. It's called dissent.
I know. I know. You're not used to it. That circle jerk thing you have going inside Fox just reinforces your notion that nobody ever thinks you're wrong. But you came to Canada and were shocked to find people loudly disagreeing with you.
Oh noes!
So you and Ezra decided, instead of facing a disagreeable crowd who would shout down your ignorance and laugh at your stupidity, to make a big deal out of filing a human rights complaint. Good luck with that. When I see protesters arrested for threatening violence, you might have a case.
Until then, I'm going to just assume you're another cowardly, right wing blowhard.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
He said what?
"Canada condemns Israeli settlement expansion"
Did we really say that? Did a Conservative really condemn Israel for anything? I didn't think that was possible. The last time anything like it happened, it was very accidental. Peter McKay said that Canada would continue to work with whatever government the Palestinians elected. Because, you know, that's democracy for you. Peter McKay was swiftly corrected and reminded of the Harper government's staunch pro-Israel stance.
But then, did "Canada", in the person of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, really "condemn" Israel?
Hm.
The article quotes the words “regret” and “concern”, but I don't see any language that would actually bend me to think that "condemnation" was the order of the day.
Still, why would the Tories do this? Makes me wonder.
Ah, wait.
Ah. America Lite it is, then, huh? At least the Conservatives are consistent.
Did we really say that? Did a Conservative really condemn Israel for anything? I didn't think that was possible. The last time anything like it happened, it was very accidental. Peter McKay said that Canada would continue to work with whatever government the Palestinians elected. Because, you know, that's democracy for you. Peter McKay was swiftly corrected and reminded of the Harper government's staunch pro-Israel stance.
But then, did "Canada", in the person of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, really "condemn" Israel?
Hm.
The article quotes the words “regret” and “concern”, but I don't see any language that would actually bend me to think that "condemnation" was the order of the day.
Still, why would the Tories do this? Makes me wonder.
Ah, wait.
The Obama administration immediately criticized the settlements in the toughest language possible — it issued its condemnation on the plan, in contrast to the softer language in Cannon's statement last week.
Ah. America Lite it is, then, huh? At least the Conservatives are consistent.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Child Saved From Catholic Education
That's what I would have titled this article, which 9news in Denver chose to label: "Gay couple's child denied re-enrollment at Catholic school".
I mean, seriously, why would you want your kid to be raised in a school where they would teach him that his loving parents are terrible sinners who deserve to burn in hell if they don't repent from their love for each other?
No. The hazards of being raised Catholic are numerous and awful. It makes me happy to hear that one more child has been saved the misery.
I mean, seriously, why would you want your kid to be raised in a school where they would teach him that his loving parents are terrible sinners who deserve to burn in hell if they don't repent from their love for each other?
No. The hazards of being raised Catholic are numerous and awful. It makes me happy to hear that one more child has been saved the misery.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Blaming The Troops Again
I guess the Prime Minister is hoping that we've forgotten all of his earlier evasions and excuses.
There he goes again. Second verse, same as the first. Stephen Harper wants to shuffle the blame off his own shoulders on to those of the soldiers who were the unwitting recipients of illegal orders.
Every time we go through this, he and his ministers keep acting as if the question is a matter of the behaviour of the soldiers. It's not. It's about the behaviour of the goverment - Harper's government - in giving orders to the soldiers.
It was the government that told the soldiers that the Afghan authorities were moral.
It was the government that told the soldiers to hand over prisoners to the Afghan authorities.
It is the government that should be punished.
Stop blaming the troops, Mr. Harper.
“He shut it down to avoid legitimate questions about the Afghan detainee scandal,” Mr. Ignatieff charged as he asked that the Prime Minister release non-redacted documents the opposition says are essential to the story.
No. The Prime Minister said thousands of documents have already been released and show the Canadian Forces have conducted themselves honourably.
There he goes again. Second verse, same as the first. Stephen Harper wants to shuffle the blame off his own shoulders on to those of the soldiers who were the unwitting recipients of illegal orders.
Every time we go through this, he and his ministers keep acting as if the question is a matter of the behaviour of the soldiers. It's not. It's about the behaviour of the goverment - Harper's government - in giving orders to the soldiers.
It was the government that told the soldiers that the Afghan authorities were moral.
It was the government that told the soldiers to hand over prisoners to the Afghan authorities.
It is the government that should be punished.
Stop blaming the troops, Mr. Harper.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Was It Rape?
What are you? Insane?
Of course it was rape. What kind of a stupid question is that?
Assuming the events went down as chronicled (the usual disclaimer), there's no other name for it.
In summary: a woman excuses herself from a party and goes to sleep in the bed of her sometimes-lover. The lover's identical twin sneaks in to the room and has sex with her. Something seems wrong. Some subtle cue throws her off. She turns on the light and realizes what happened.
And someone has to ask, "Did the mistaken identity negate her consent?"
Of course it did. Imagine this instead. A man and a woman are having consensual sex like they have on the Discovery Channel. While the woman is facing away, the man pulls out and a second man - hidden until this moment - slips in and penetrates her.
Is that rape? Damn right it is.
The analogy is coherent and obvious. She generally consented to sex with her lover. Drunk people can have sex without it being considered rape when they have such an arrangement. Drunk people with no such prior arrangement don't have that luxury. She consented to sex with her lover and was fine with him slipping in to the room. She did not consent to sex with his brother.
There was a question? Seriously?
Of course it was rape. What kind of a stupid question is that?
Assuming the events went down as chronicled (the usual disclaimer), there's no other name for it.
In summary: a woman excuses herself from a party and goes to sleep in the bed of her sometimes-lover. The lover's identical twin sneaks in to the room and has sex with her. Something seems wrong. Some subtle cue throws her off. She turns on the light and realizes what happened.
And someone has to ask, "Did the mistaken identity negate her consent?"
Of course it did. Imagine this instead. A man and a woman are having consensual sex like they have on the Discovery Channel. While the woman is facing away, the man pulls out and a second man - hidden until this moment - slips in and penetrates her.
Is that rape? Damn right it is.
The analogy is coherent and obvious. She generally consented to sex with her lover. Drunk people can have sex without it being considered rape when they have such an arrangement. Drunk people with no such prior arrangement don't have that luxury. She consented to sex with her lover and was fine with him slipping in to the room. She did not consent to sex with his brother.
There was a question? Seriously?
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Freedom vs Money
The Canadian people, via a majority vote of their Parliament, demanded that the government release all data on the torture of Afghan detainees.
The government, in clear violation of our democracy, ignored this demand. It ignored the will of the people.
That's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship.
On the rare occasions where the Canadian people actually get a government to vote the way they want it to vote, how is it that the guy at the top can simply refuse to comply? How is it that he can then go and shut down the government to avoid more questions?
That's a dictatorship.
But Liberal MP Derek Lee wants to draw a line. He's raising what's called a "point of privilege"; a declaration that a government minister has violated the will of the people and is in contempt of Parliament.
They in fact are in contempt.
But he says that he doesn't want this point of privilege to get in the way of the budget, even though it should if parliamentary procedure is followed.
Mr. Lee., let's break this down. The Harper government doesn't want to deal with parliament. It wants to ignore it. It wants to be free to send people to other countries to have them tortured. It wants to send Afghans off to be tortured. It wants to strand torture victims and child soldiers in other countries. It wants to do a lot of illegal and immoral things.
Mostly it wants to ignore Parliament to get its agenda pushed through. If all those confidence attachments to trivial legislation didn't clue you in, I don't know what will.
The point here is that there is no point continuing with this Parliament if the Harper government continues to treat it with such contempt. There's no use presenting a budget, a throne speech or any other piece of legislation if Harper and his cronies are simply going to ignore the actual legislation and do whatever they please anyway.
The budget isn't that important.
Our freedom is.
Run your point of privilege.
Run it over everything else and get our nation back.
The government, in clear violation of our democracy, ignored this demand. It ignored the will of the people.
That's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship.
On the rare occasions where the Canadian people actually get a government to vote the way they want it to vote, how is it that the guy at the top can simply refuse to comply? How is it that he can then go and shut down the government to avoid more questions?
That's a dictatorship.
But Liberal MP Derek Lee wants to draw a line. He's raising what's called a "point of privilege"; a declaration that a government minister has violated the will of the people and is in contempt of Parliament.
They in fact are in contempt.
But he says that he doesn't want this point of privilege to get in the way of the budget, even though it should if parliamentary procedure is followed.
Mr. Lee., let's break this down. The Harper government doesn't want to deal with parliament. It wants to ignore it. It wants to be free to send people to other countries to have them tortured. It wants to send Afghans off to be tortured. It wants to strand torture victims and child soldiers in other countries. It wants to do a lot of illegal and immoral things.
Mostly it wants to ignore Parliament to get its agenda pushed through. If all those confidence attachments to trivial legislation didn't clue you in, I don't know what will.
The point here is that there is no point continuing with this Parliament if the Harper government continues to treat it with such contempt. There's no use presenting a budget, a throne speech or any other piece of legislation if Harper and his cronies are simply going to ignore the actual legislation and do whatever they please anyway.
The budget isn't that important.
Our freedom is.
Run your point of privilege.
Run it over everything else and get our nation back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)