Veiled teacher is facing the sack.

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
Yes, I see what you mean, but it isn't about you, it is about those who have already expressed that they are not comfortable.

Why should we have to live in a society that has a religion imposed on us, why should we have to live in fear of not knowing if a terrorist is hiding under the veil. And before you scoff at this consider that it has indeed been done already.

And already the Muslims community has been caught aiding terrorists and these terrorists were Canadian citicizens and plotting to murder innocent people, similar to 9/11.

From your posts, l am gathering that perhaps you think that we are not at war and that there is no terrorist support network in Canada?
 
Last edited:

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Yes, I see what you mean, but it isn't about you, it is about those who have already expressed that they are not comfortable.

Why should we have to live in a society that has a religion imposed on us, why should we have to live in fear of not knowing if a terrorist is hiding under the veil. And before you scoff at this consider that it has indeed been done already.

And already the Muslims community has been caught aiding terrorists and these terrorists were Canadian citicizens and plotting to murder innocent people, similar to 9/11.

From your posts, l am gathering that perhaps you think that we are not at war and that there is no terrorist support network in Canada?

You are not having a religion imposed on you by someone else practicing theirs. I don't like all the Christian talk. It sometimes makes me very uncomforable. That doesn't mean I get to ban priests from wearing their collars or people from wearing a cross. I'm an adult. I have no right to not be offended in this country and neither do you. People offend eachother all the time, it isn't against the law.

A terrorist could be hiding under a veil or not. How many of the planners of 9/11 were wearing veils? This has nothing to do with it. A terrorist could go out in drag wearing makeup, a wig and a dress. Are we going to ban makeup, wigs and dresses?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It's not the religion, but the many sects that degridate it into factions and manipulate the Quran to their will.


This answers Wally's question.

And it is the same for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's hate filled "Christian" cults. All distort the Bible as radical Islam distorts the Koran.

If Mohammed can openly work for and with a professional business woman, if Spain can have woman professionals over the course of centuries when most of Europe still couldn't read, and if Shiia Iran can have 65 % of its college student body female and in training for professions that require contact with members of both genders, it means that it's time for people to take a more thorough reading of what the Koran actually says.

Contrary to certain Sunni teachings, the Koran does not state that you cannot cheer at a football match, or that genders need to be separated in weddings, or that women cannot be doctors. Just read the book and see that it says nothing like any of this. Moreover, it specifies that there is to be no compulsion in religion meaning that people are free to use as liberal (woops, I used the L word!) an interpretation, rather than rigged interpretation such as those demanded by radicalist Islam, as society sees fit.

Therefore, this young lady needs to re-read the Koran and to apply it properly.

I couldn't agree more. But like I said before, somewhere in here, "Why bring the baggage", we got enough with the Evanglists here.

And again, I do not blame Islam, I blame Imam, with corrupting the Quran to their Ideologies, not the true meanings, and teachings.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
Tracy,

And now, the echo of the same argument is being held here,in a second thread, kind of like if you whine about your opinion enough, you will magically become right.

Well you have nothing to back up you opinion and these examples have no revelance to the issue...

I'm an adult. I have no right to not be offended in this country and neither do you.

Thank-you for re-assuring me of your adulthood I was indeed wondering, and if you want to impose your rights in order to have "no right to be.." then go ahead.

But make no mistake--I am not included in your group in choosing to give up your right in order to have "no rights" .

I, and all canadians HAVE EVERY RIGHT to all of our Charter of promised liberties and freedoms.

So you can stop trying to impose your silly values on someone else.
 
Last edited:

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
You're being ridiculous now. You can't give up a right you never had to begin with. You've never had the right to not be offended. A woman wearing whatever she chooses doesn't take away any rights of yours.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
You're being ridiculous now. You can't give up a right you never had to begin with. You've never had the right to not be offended. A woman wearing whatever she chooses doesn't take away any rights of yours.

okay miss california, l didn't realise you were also a Canadian Attorney. Your personal attack just shows a desperation to win an argument even if you don't have the faintest clue about the subject. i have never uttered the word 'offended' , this is about the CANADIAN right to have there freedoms and liberties to a society free of discrimination.

To spell it out one last time, we will not be discriminated against by the Muslim's intolerance to our dress codes and the security of our country and our freedoms. If you don't understand then read through my posts again, because l am simply repeating myself.


Since you are insisting on carrying on the same old argument on both posts l must agree with your self-admitted 'obsessive-compulsive' pathology.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
okay miss california, l didn't realise you were also a Canadian Attorney. Your personal attack just shows a desperation to win an argument even if you don't have the faintest clue about the subject. i have never uttered the word 'offended' , this is about the CANADIAN right to have there freedoms and liberties to a society free of discrimination.

To spell it out one last time, we will not be discriminated against by the Muslim's intolerance to our dress codes and the security of our country and our freedoms. If you don't understand then read through my posts again, because l am simply repeating myself.


Since you are insisting on carrying on the same old argument on both posts l must agree with your self-admitted 'obsessive-compulsive' pathology.

Just so you know, I am a Canadian. I just live down here on a work permit (I don't have citizenship or even a greencard). The obsessive compulsive thing is something that you just get on this board after a certain number of posts, it's meant as a joke. I've never said I was obsessive-compulsive before.
 
Last edited:

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
oh, well terribly sorry, next time you should start personally attacking people because they don't agree with you.
 

Hotshot

Electoral Member
May 31, 2006
330
0
16
He was joking. I thought it was funny. His mom explained simply that they
were from elsewhere and that's how people dressed where they were from. No biggie.

Well why don't you post the entire tale and truth so you don't leave a false impression???? Funny how you changed your tune.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Well why don't you post the entire tale and truth so you don't leave a false impression???? Funny how you changed your tune.

My tune didn't change. Chandler thought they were the grim reaper. Dad said they were ninjas. Chandler thought that was super cool. His mom told him they just dressed that way where they were from. It gave us all a laugh at work when she told the story. It wasn't a big event or anything.
 

Hotshot

Electoral Member
May 31, 2006
330
0
16
Yes you did, the last 3 sentences which you failed to post originally, change the whole complexion of the post.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Yes you did, the last 3 sentences which you failed to post originally, change the whole complexion of the post.

The only part of the story I thought was relevant in my response to Chuckcha was the part about the child not being harmed by seeing a woman in a veil because that's what we were discussing. She feels her child is terrified by women in veils. I know some kids aren't. I think it's probably because of their parent's reaction. I could have continued on and told you all that how his mom explained it, you're right. I just didn't think it was important to what we were discussing anymore than mentionning what they had for lunch while there or their favorite part of the park. I just didn't think that part was important. Sorry.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I do not blame Islam, I blame Imam, with corrupting the Quran to their Ideologies, not the true meanings, and teachings.


It's the same with me blaming radical right wing evangelical Christianity. This extremism is the Western version of radical Islam, only worse. True, Westerners have died because of Islamic radicalism. But FAR more Muslims have died as a result of Christian radicalism. We now have proof that over 655,000 Muslims have died because of Bush's war. And as has been proven on this forum before, Bush claimed that he was ordered by the Christian God to attack Iraq:


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians... [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

George Bush believes he is on a mission from God, according to the politician Nabil Shaath. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The revelation comes after Mr Bush launched an impassioned attack yesterday in Washington on Islamic militants, likening their ideology to that of Communism, and accusing them of seeking to "enslave whole nations"... "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."[/FONT]







[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This should end the controversy over whether Western Christians have killed any Muslims in recent times as it has been alleged on another thread.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fact remains that there has been an ongoing pattern of attacks, exploitation, and genocide imposed upon Muslims by Western Christians for over 150 years and it has gone on unabated. I have given you numerous links to prove that history and those current events.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Like you, I condemn fanaticism from all sides. But to say that only one side in this continued controversy is exclusively at fault while the other is ever so benevolent when it has been exploiting and killing in a manner that parallels Hitler's actions in Europe is a total absurdity.
[/FONT]
 

Chukcha

Electoral Member
Sep 19, 2006
215
1
18
I have never had a muslim try to oppress me. It doesn't oppress me for her to wear a veil.

I understand the teacher assistant being fired because she couldn't do her job. But, I don't understand why ALL veils should be banned.
because it is studid, unnessessary and ridiculous, and by showing it on themselves they giving our children wrong ideas. If me and my child saw a man covered in tattoos and my child would have asked me what I think about I would say it's exessive need, ridiculous and stupid, and would try and show my child that it is not to be respected, so that he doesn't turn out to be one of them one day, because it is abnormal. You may say that about gays, but I will object, because gay culture is not excessive or unnatural, it is a psychological natural 'problem' I should say, just like if a person was born with only one leg instead of two. But the islamic stupidity of dressing up codes is simply idiotic.
 

Chukcha

Electoral Member
Sep 19, 2006
215
1
18
Having read your post, Chukcha, it's not only Islamic dress codes that are "simply idiotic"...
this one is the most inane and senseless and in my opinion this code is the most influential as it generates hatefull separatism in human minds.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,956
1,910
113
Blair backs school in veil row

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Matthew Tempest, political correspondent[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Tuesday October 17, 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Guardian Unlimited[/FONT]


[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Tony Blair at his monthly press briefing to journalists inside Downing Street. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA[/FONT]



The prime minister today took sides in the debate over Muslim women's right to wear the veil, saying he backed the school which suspended a teacher for refusing to take off her niqab.

Mr Blair also described the veil as "mark of separation" which made people from outside the Muslim community "uncomfortable".

Speaking at his monthly press conference in Downing Street, the PM refused to be drawn on the detail of the row in Dewsbury, but said he backed the school and the local education authority's handling of the case - which saw them suspend Aishah Azmi.

Mr Blair told reporters: "They [Kirklees council] should be allowed to take that decision."

But he added: "I do support the authority in the way that they have handled this."

Asked whether he specifically backed the teaching assistant's suspension from Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, he added: "I simply say that I back their handling of the case.

"I can see the reason why they came to the decision they did."

Mr Blair said the issue of the veil, and the larger issue of the integration of Muslims in society, was an issue facing almost every country in Europe.

"Difficult though these issues are, they need to be raised and confronted," he said.

Perhaps most controversially, Mr Blair said there was also an issue, which was apparent across Europe, about how Islam "comes to terms and is comfortable with" the modern world.

When asked at the news conference if a Muslim woman wearing a veil could make a contribution to society, he replied: "That's a very difficult question. "It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.

"We have to deal with the debate," he said. "People want to know that the Muslim community in particular, but actually all minority communities, have got the balance right between integration and multiculturalism."

Mr Blair added: "No one wants to say that people don't have the right to do it [wear the veil]. That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society."

The PM did say it was regrettable the way that the debate had come into the public arena.

The row - sparked by an article by Commons Leader Jack Straw in his local newspaper in Blackburn, where he revealed that he asked female constituents to remove their veils - has now lasted more than two weeks and shows no sign of ebbing.

Mr Blair said it was now a debate taking place across "every village, town and city in the British nation". A poll of Daily Express readers today claimed 98% wanted to see the veil banned.

The PM was quizzed on the government's recent decision to force newly founded faith schools to admit 25% of pupils who were not of that faith.

The move has been interpreted by some as being targeted at Muslim schools, as they form the bulk of new schools in the pipeline.

Mr Blair pointed out that it was his decision to end the ban on Muslim faith schools in the first place.

"We would not be having this debate were it not for people's concerns about this question to do with integration and separation of the Muslim community," he added.

guardian.co.uk
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
One thing that has not been noted so far is the fact that while we in the West cherish the concept of freedom of religion, we also cherish the idea of freedom from religion. Therefore, unless a petitioner like this young lady can demonstrate that she has an overriding interest that has been jeopardized by the initial ruling, the state's interest must prevail.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
One thing that has not been noted so far is the fact that while we in the West cherish the concept of freedom of religion, we also cherish the idea of freedom from religion. Therefore, unless a petitioner like this young lady can demonstrate that she has an overriding interest that has been jeopardized by the initial ruling, the state's interest must prevail.


Wow Gopher,,,we agree again.