Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Benz

  • Rank
    Full Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. He can't sue. After all he said on Québécois, Europeans, Russians, women... he has no chance to win anything. Even if they fired him for the wrong reasons. If the neo-canadian wearing a puppy is an important subject for him. He can use its popularity to promote it. I am sure many followers would support him. Unless he does not really care it was just another topic where he could say something bad to pass his own frustration of failing to win the cup. In 5 seasons, his team got kicked out of the playoff 3 times out of 5 by the Habs (those damned frenchies).
  2. Cherry should have been fired or forced to appologies to many times before. Sexist, xenophobic, name it. After all he said on the women, russians, europeans, french, Québécois... there are tons of material to blame him for. Now that he is fired on his "you people", I get double mad. Because after all he did wrong, he is fired of something he did nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong by his opinion that immigrants should were a puppy. You may agree or desagree with him, but there is no blame of anything that holds the line. His sanction is not because he lied, statistically, it is true that the immigrants tend less to wear the poppy. The blame on him is because he blames them for not woring it. This is one of many proof that this country is paralysed by the Trudeau's multiculturalism. You can defecate on women, french or any non-english white people but, don't you dare to say anything about immigrants. Even if it is true. This is so sick. -------------------------------------- Now, what I think about the opinion itself? Imagine he says that to an indian from India. I am choosing that specific country because after discussing with few of them, I noticed that many of them (not all) do not know anything about the two world wars. They can't name the countries involved and they know only the original definition of the swatzika which is several thousands of years old. So of course, they know nothing about the poppy as well. Why should blame them? Because what they experienced of the suffering regarding wars and what they still remember, is the bloody religious war they have been through at the time of their independence of a conflict the british purposely put oil on fire and hold a big responsability in it. So who is going to tell them what flower to wear on what day... our british colony? Maybe you prefer to take the example of Rwanda that suffered from a genocide in which Canada among others has its share of responsability as well? What flower on what day shall we dare to tell them to use? Or what about Sudan where a Albertan Oil company paid para military organisation to create civil wars for the beefit of coastal oil company to pump the underswater ground while the mainland is fighting one against each others. We are not the center of the universe and our involvements in wars and foreign conflicts are not always hands clean. This is why Cherry should have been more sensible. It is ok if he invites immigrants to buy a poppy. It's arrogant to blame them for not doing it. But in both cases, there is not even a start to discuss about conditions to fire him. This is clearly an assault against freedom of speech.
  3. Considering that many women are abandonned and have already one or many other kids they barely or can't provide support, abortions is also an effective solution but, I admit it is not necessarly constructive without proper education. What disgusts me is, if you just blow the dust off the surface, you will see the corruption and how the money is redirected into other interests. How much of that money really goes to the ones in need? It's surprising how big is the leak.
  4. Unless your religion says you can. To have any right in this country, you gonna have to adopt or create your own religion. Canada: "You can't ride anymore, not safe". Me: "My godssays I can". Canada: "oh, ok, sorry! I will tax more the other non believers so when you have an accident, they will pay for you. Because obiously, you need a tax break. I do not want to mess up with your god."
  5. I was talking about decisions like forbidding sikh to ride without helmets andother kind of rules like that. You think it's the ROC's taxes that makes us having more intelligent rules?
  6. There is no way Québec will accept such non sense.The only compromise I would do, is to revoke indemnity after a motorcycle accident. Same for public health care. When take the decision to not wear a helmet, it is at your own expense. No helmet, no public hospital. Go private! In Quebec, we have the automobilist insurance and every one are covered. We would do an exception for the sikh not wearing helmet. But we are not like that. We prefer to protect them from themselve and no helmet is not an option.
  7. They did not ask. They took. They give a little bit of money to YMCA to block their own windows. They forbid people to bring non kocher food into the jewish hospital (although it is a public hospital also funded by public money). They did not pay their municipal taxes in few cities. Like in Boisbriand if my memory does not fail me. And so on...
  8. hehe! It must have been a real pain for you to admit the french in Quebec are doing better.
  9. Oh, this one passed under my radar. I knew that some Sikh are asking for that priviledge but, I did not know it was granted. What province and when?
  10. No, not every religious person uses its position to prioritize their religion. But the all of those that cannot give up their symbols, they do. It is a weak fallacy to say that bill 21 is futile just because one religious person can still prioritize its beleif without wearing symbols. It is like saying it is pointless to request a criminal investigation on a candidat that wants to be a teacher, because some pedophiles have not criminal cases yet. Nope, we filter those we are pretty sure that can't distance themselve from religious rules and that is a good start. Regarding the woman's turban, I was pointing out the irony to shake Argus' opinion that the first "victims/targets" were muslim women.
  11. You definitely do not know Québec at all if you think we are ok with a weapon at school or a Turban instead of a helmet (whether it is construction or motorcycle). The religous weapon at school was THE biggest scandal regarding religious symbols. Bill 21 is as much for that than face covering. I challenge you to prove what you are saying.
  12. The biggest scandal in Québec was that Sikh kid that could, with the help of the Supreme Court against Québec, wear his Kirpan inside a public school. That bothers us way more than a bed sheet on one's head. Same for those who would like the right to replace a helmet with a Turban. Bill 21 is not perfect. It is still possible that a person without symbol could use its position to prior its religious rule at the expense of the ones of our society. But at least, we get rid of those who are obviously doing it. It's not true that someone who is ready to sacrifice its job for a religious symbol, will withdraw its beleif when in opposition with our laws.
  13. Based on what delirium do you come to that assumption? The law applies to all religions. So a sikh cannot wear his turban during its functions. Ironically, it is a sikh woman that wanted to wear a man's Turban, who is the first one to refuse the rule and move to BC. Not a muslim. That victimization b***s**t over muslim women is an islamic game that even muslims do not swallow. Get over it.
  14. Look, you are losing the focus on the reality. People are not forbidden to wear symbols in public spaces. They are forbidden to were them while they are operating a function of authority. If you think your religion prevails on the conditions of such position, I totally respect that decision. Just do another kind of job. You can continue to keep your lifestyle according to what your religion orders you do it. You just can't do it in such position. Whether you like it or not, the people in Quebec do seperate the dressing code order by the religion from their faith in that religion. I am ready to fight until death to defend that principle. Do not melt culture and religion into the same jar. 2 persons of the same culture can have 2 different religions. 2 people of the same religion can have different cultures. Although it often happens that the religion has a major impact on one's culture, it is still 2 different things. And if you think keeping a position of authority free from religion is a stomp to the religion, then you have a very weak opinion of the people's faith. If your faith is jeopardised by that, then the problem is your faith. You better start asking yourself if you realy beleive in this. You need a psychologist that will help you to sort out your thoughts and values. You are still totally free to practice the religion of your choice. We do not and will never place the spirituality of an individual on the same level of the political religious rules. The right to beleiver in whatever you want does not grant the religious organizations to make people do whatever they want them to do. Practicing a religion is a right but, it is not absolute. The rules of the society prevail. In your english canadian society, you think it's ok to let religions rule their people without limits (or very few like the criminal code). I have no problem that you manage your society like that. I do not agree but, I respect your decision that affect your society. In return, I expect that you respect our decision for our society.
  15. It's not a big drift and it is still in the topic. It regards the bill 21 and how May wants to attack it. When someone mentions the words communism, socialism or something like that, then it becomes off topic.
  • Create New...