Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/canadas-liberal-leader-backs-muslim-face-coverings-opposes-calling-honor-killings-barbaric/

Quick review:

1. He was uncomfortable describing (Islamic/ist) practices such as child marriage, child rape, polygamy, honor killings, and stonings as "barbaric".

2. His first instinct, within hours of the Boston Marathon bombing by the Islamic/ist terrorist Tsarnaev Brothers, was to make sure to walk on eggshells around Islam/Muslims and seek the "roots causes" (presumably economic isolation, social marginalization, and insufficient funding for "safe injection sites").

3. He regularly describes Harper and Conservatives as bigoted and "Islamophobic".

4. He pushes the neo-Marxist narrative of Muslims-As-Victims, which works out well for his electoral fortunes with Muslim voters because so many Muslims perceive politics through a similar lens of grievance.

5. He joked about attending a Wahhabi mosque.

6. He actually attended a Wahhabi mosque to pander.

7. That mosque was associated with Saudi-funded radicalism, and belonged to an Islamic umbrella group which subsequently lost its charitable status due questionable ties with extremism/terrorism.

8. He draws weird parallels between the Jewish experience in the 30s and 40s and the Muslim experience today (grievance narrative).

9. He fits in perfectly after Dion and Ignatieff.

Edited by kraychik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. He was uncomfortable describing (Islamic/ist) practices such as child marriage, child rape, polygamy, honor killings, and stonings as "barbaric".

- the actual clause reads as, "barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence"... how telling is it that you've taken liberty to fabricate your own summary list with little resemblance to the clause itself?

- how telling is it that you've chosen to isolate those practices to... exclusively to... "Islamic/ist" practices? And, of course, yours is a blanket attachment to "Islamic/ist" without regard to the actual adopted extent of practice within respective communities, notwithstanding you've effectively grouped all practices as a collective without regard to their individual application within respective communities. That's quite the broad-brush you have there!

- in his capacity as immigration critic at the time, the actual salient part of the Trudeau comment reads, "There’s nothing that the word “barbaric” achieves that the words “absolutely unacceptable” would not have achieved. We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That’s not the debate." The word/phrase choice is divisive and misleading... unnecessarily so.

the Canadian Bar Association took a similar stance in analyzing the same "barbaric cultural practices" wording: (it) "suggests that violence against women and children is a cultural issue limited to certain communities. This is divisive and misleading and oversimplifies the factors that contribute to discrimination and violence against women and children"

the very divisiveness and misleading potential is front and center in how you've personally chosen to leverage the issue wording... to twist and fabricate your purposeful misinformation.

clearly, you've found the right publication for your writings!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because using the word barbaric is the only thing stopping people from approving of these cultural practices. :rolleyes:

As if using more sanitized language is going to make a difference to people that think these practices are cool.

It should be divisive language, people who believe these practices are OK shouldn't be accepted in Canadian culture. It should be made perfectly clear that this behaviour is not welcome in this country.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because using the word barbaric is the only thing stopping people from approving of these cultural practices. :rolleyes:

As if using more sanitized language is going to make a difference to people that think these practices are cool.

It should be divisive language, people who believe these practices are OK shouldn't be accepted in Canadian culture. It should be made perfectly clear that this behaviour is not welcome in this country.

What he said, except as it pertains to our extra-judicial killings, funding dictators/warlords, rendition, torture etc...approved cultural practices apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said, except as it pertains to our extra-judicial killings, funding dictators/warlords, rendition, torture etc...approved cultural practices apparently.

And I'm sure the likes of JT would approve of not doing business or having diplomatic relations with these nations as well. :rolleyes: Talk about Divisive.

Heck I'm sure these practices go on in Palestine, which is much of the Left's cause of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm sure the likes of JT would approve of not doing business or having diplomatic relations with these nations as well. :rolleyes: Talk about Divisive.

Heck I'm sure these practices go on in Palestine, which is much of the Left's cause of choice.

So you approve our barbaric practices...

I'm pretty sure the likes of JT would have us eating cake out of both sides of our mouth too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because using the word barbaric is the only thing stopping people from approving of these cultural practices. :rolleyes:

oh my! ... as you, yourself, use the word 'cultural'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm sure the likes of JT would approve of not doing business or having diplomatic relations with these nations as well. :rolleyes: Talk about Divisive.

Heck I'm sure these practices go on in Palestine, which is much of the Left's cause of choice.

how are Canada's existing Harper Conservative trade and diplomatic relations with, oh... say... UAE, Saudi Arabia... are they, as you say, "causes of choice"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my! ... as you, yourself, use the word 'cultural'

Sure this type of subjugation of women has little to do with the tenants of the actual faith. Purely cultural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how are Canada's existing Harper Conservative trade and diplomatic relations with, oh... say... UAE, Saudi Arabia... are they, as you say, "causes of choice"?

Those aren't causes those are trade deals with sovereign nations. Kind of like the ones we have with China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure this type of subjugation of women has little to do with the tenants of the actual faith. Purely cultural.

bingo! Your own goal... well done, Boges! Well done. Does 'spirituality' itself constitute the full extent of a culture... is culture nothing but your stated 'faith'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't causes those are trade deals with sovereign nations. Kind of like the ones we have with China.

huh! You were the one, as I quoted you, who just spoke of, "approval of business and diplomatic relations". Why is your favoured Harper Conservative government engaged so, engaged in those relations where said practices have occurred... are occurring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh! You were the one, as I quoted you, who just spoke of, "approval of business and diplomatic relations". Why is your favoured Harper Conservative government engaged so, engaged in those relations where said practices have occurred... are occurring?

Because it is. Not doing business with nations that approve of such behaviour is most certainly a debate that can be had. Harper is not alone in doing business with these countries. Everyone's favourite president Obama does too.

It, of course, is unrelated to the behaviour we'd like to see from new Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh! You were the one, as I quoted you, who just spoke of, "approval of business and diplomatic relations". Why is your favoured Harper Conservative government engaged so, engaged in those relations where said practices have occurred... are occurring?

I never brought up the issue of religion. It just so happens that a great deal of people that do these things also hold that faith.

But I can say for sure that I'd be equally as appalled of anyone of any faith thinking honour killings, female circumcision etc. are acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is. Not doing business with nations that approve of such behaviour is most certainly a debate that can be had. Harper is not alone in doing business with these countries. Everyone's favourite president Obama does too.

It, of course, is unrelated to the behaviour we'd like to see from new Canadians.

if unrelated... why did you bring it up/forward? How fast can you back-peddle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if unrelated... why did you bring it up/forward? How fast can you back-peddle?

I just responded to member eyeballs post. Perhaps I should have accused him of thread drift. But I'm nicer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never brought up the issue of religion. It just so happens that a great deal of people that do these things also hold that faith.

But I can say for sure that I'd be equally as appalled of anyone of any faith thinking honour killings, female circumcision etc. are acceptable.

sure you did... you attempted to play it off against culture! Your comment is there... I quoted it... and replied to it. Would you like me to re-quote it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just responded to member eyeballs post. Perhaps I should have accused him of thread drift. But I'm nicer than that.

don't pack-peddle tooooo hard/fast! You certainly had no reservations in your reply... and the wording you used in your reply, did you? You presumed to take a good swipe... and now you're putting that reply of yours off as simply you responding to another guy! :lol: I believe that's another own goal for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure you did... you attempted to play it off against culture! Your comment is there... I quoted it... and replied to it. Would you like me to re-quote it?

Sure, show me where I brought up Islam exclusively.

It is culture. I've been steadfast about that for awhile.

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't pack-peddle tooooo hard/fast! You certainly had no reservations in your reply... and the wording you used in your reply, did you? You presumed to take a good swipe... and now you're putting that reply of yours off as simply you responding to another guy! :lol: I believe that's another own goal for you!

I'm certainly dismissive of the idea that you can't judge behaviour within the borders of this country if you have diplomatic relations with those same countries.

Do you support cutting off diplomatic relations with such countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, show me where I brought up Islam exclusively.

It is culture. I've been steadfast about that for awhile.

other than the OP, and a reference to the OP... no one other than you has directly brought up Islam. I believe that's your own goal #3...

if, as you say, it's just culture... why did you attempt to play off "faith versus culture"? Are you now going to claim that the following wasn't a facetious statement of yours: "Sure this type of subjugation of women has little to do with the tenants of the actual faith. Purely cultural." If so, why haven't you stepped-up... and will you now step-up to admonish the OP for pointedly targeting Islam/Muslim believers? Will you now do that Boges... since you claim it's "only cultural"?

not withstanding, of course, the big picture point that still eludes you. Which, as you say, cultural communities are you speaking to (name them, name examples) and do you include all persons living in those communities as practitioners, on all levels, to the same degree? Care to directly comment on that Canadian Bar Association statement on those same words? Here, let me quote it again:

"the Canadian Bar Association took a similar stance in analyzing the same "barbaric cultural practices" wording: (it) "suggests that violence against women and children is a cultural issue limited to certain communities. This is divisive and misleading and oversimplifies the factors that contribute to discrimination and violence against women and children"

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly dismissive of the idea that you can't judge behaviour within the borders of this country if you have diplomatic relations with those same countries.

Do you support cutting off diplomatic relations with such countries?

but that's my point... you presumed to attempt to 'score points' with your statement, "And I'm sure the likes of JT would approve of not doing business or having diplomatic relations with these nations as well." Reinforcing that Canada, that Harper Conservatives do trade with, do hold diplomatic relations with "those same countries", sets the status quo reference. To you... apparently... not accepting to the "cultural" emphasis on said practices is an opening, your opening, to introduce trade/diplomatic relations into the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

other than the OP, and a reference to the OP... no one other than you has directly brought up Islam. I believe that's your own goal #3...

if, as you say, it's just culture... why did you attempt to play off "faith versus culture"? Are you now going to claim that the following wasn't a facetious statement of yours: "Sure this type of subjugation of women has little to do with the tenants of the actual faith. Purely cultural." If so, why haven't you stepped-up... and will you now step-up to admonish the OP for pointedly targeting Islam/Muslim believers? Will you now do that Boges... since you claim it's "only cultural"?

not withstanding, of course, the big picture point that still eludes you. Which, as you say, cultural communities are you speaking to (name them, name examples) and do you include all persons living in those communities as practitioners, on all levels, to the same degree? Care to directly comment on that Canadian Bar Association statement on those same words? Here, let me quote it again:

"the Canadian Bar Association took a similar stance in analyzing the same "barbaric cultural practices" wording: (it) "suggests that violence against women and children is a cultural issue limited to certain communities. This is divisive and misleading and oversimplifies the factors that contribute to discrimination and violence against women and children"

Yeah I think that statement is ridiculous. I alluded to the idea of divisiveness in my first post. I don't think sanitizing language does anything to bring people that think that way into the fold. I also think being divisive is the goal, these practices are unCanadian and shouldn't be tolerated.

Regarding culture and religion. The OP describes several issues. Regarding the barbaric comments and the subjugating of women (by honour killings, forcing women to cover themselves and at all time and female circumcision) we see practices that don't have any basis in the Quran. So I can separate the tenants of Islam and the backwards practices of people from these nations. I'm sure people of other religions do similar things and it's equally barbaric when done by them.

Now where I can become critical of Islam and JT's support of parts of it is Wahhabism. The sect of Islam that calls for Sharia Law to be adopted by globally. As a Canadian I see it perfectly acceptable to reject this idea. I'd expect politicians to as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...