- join a peace group
- give to charities
- volunteer to assist youth and the elderly
- welcome the stranger
- give to charities
- volunteer to assist youth and the elderly
- welcome the stranger
Expand burka ban, says Muslim group
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
According to this URL, it can mean anything, usually negative though. "Your girlfriend's burka is durka, Dirk." For eg.
Urban Dictionary: durka
I didn't know either until I googled it.
It's durka that Canada has honour killings. Caused by our durka immigration system.
There has been one honour killing per year since 1999, compared to three in total from 1953-1984. They're trying to blame it on mental illness or create a new category in the criminal code to reduce the problem. Just reduce immigration by 75% and make it dependent on the economy.
Honour killings on the rise in Canada: Study | Canada | News | Toronto Sun
I take it that you must be direct and full blooded First Nations. Or you are descended from immigrants.
You are one of those people who think, "If he does/says this, it means that." And only that. There is no alternative. You people get such a reflexive reaction to a policy that is supposed to generate glorious praise and are confused when someone reacts differently to the norm. I'm guessing you break out into a cold sweat quite a bit recently.
Our immigration policy has been foolish for 20 years, yet it is exalted as multicultural piety to make up for past sins of colonialsim and racism. And now we're taking in immigrants from durka countries like Afghanistan were women are traded for sheep. Canada is going durka brained.
I was born here, one parent was an immigrant, but I am not.
Immigration is on Harpers agenda for reform. We all know there are problems with the system, but lowering immigration when we are facing a demographic change of taxpayers to people who draw govt pensions is ludicrous.
It's a fallacy that we need immigration to keep us young, it won't work. We have won the race by getting rich before we get old. Here's an item I posted a while back.
We need to drastically cut the number of immigrants who are seniors because they are getting pensions and they haven't paid into them for decades. We have to worry about Canadians first, not Asia or Africa.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/102402-news-canada-cannot-reverse-population.html
Not only is there no longer an economic argument for immigration, but immigration will not reverse population aging, what are called dependency ratios. Meaning more young people to pay for older people's pensions etc.
Mythbuster: The aging population
Mythbuster: The aging population
By Sam Cooper, The Province October 16, 2011
The confidential federal government report “Canada’s Changing Demographics: The Impacts of Population Aging” listed several myths that need to be shot down in order to understand the changes that have just started to be unleashed in Canada and across the world.
Myth: Population aging is just about people getting older.
Fact: It is a change in population age structure, so that the share of older persons grows while the share of younger persons shrinks. Longer lifespans contribute, but lower fertility is the main driver.
Myth: In Canada, aging will end with the passing of the baby boom.
Fact: While the baby boom will contribute to the rapid speed of population aging over the next 20 years, population aging is likely to continue. In 2061, when the youngest surviving boomers will be 95, Canada will still have 25 per cent seniors, compared to 14 per cent in 2009.
Myth: Canada can reverse population aging through immigration.
Fact: Immigration rates would need to more than double and potentially quintuple to maintain current age-population “dependency ratios.”
Myth: Aging is just a trend in developed countries.
Fact: By 2050, populations in developing countries will be aging so rapidly they are likely to have the same proportion of seniors as developed countries do today. These trends will impact geopolitics, the global economy and trade, and immigration, meaning a race will be on for countries to “get rich before getting old.”
© Copyright (c) The Province
By Sam Cooper, The Province October 16, 2011
The confidential federal government report “Canada’s Changing Demographics: The Impacts of Population Aging” listed several myths that need to be shot down in order to understand the changes that have just started to be unleashed in Canada and across the world.
Myth: Population aging is just about people getting older.
Fact: It is a change in population age structure, so that the share of older persons grows while the share of younger persons shrinks. Longer lifespans contribute, but lower fertility is the main driver.
Myth: In Canada, aging will end with the passing of the baby boom.
Fact: While the baby boom will contribute to the rapid speed of population aging over the next 20 years, population aging is likely to continue. In 2061, when the youngest surviving boomers will be 95, Canada will still have 25 per cent seniors, compared to 14 per cent in 2009.
Myth: Canada can reverse population aging through immigration.
Fact: Immigration rates would need to more than double and potentially quintuple to maintain current age-population “dependency ratios.”
Myth: Aging is just a trend in developed countries.
Fact: By 2050, populations in developing countries will be aging so rapidly they are likely to have the same proportion of seniors as developed countries do today. These trends will impact geopolitics, the global economy and trade, and immigration, meaning a race will be on for countries to “get rich before getting old.”
© Copyright (c) The Province
Personally I believe the burka is completely cultural and not religious in nature. I do think it is a tool of oppression and is used to subjugate women.
Having said that I fail to see how telling a woman what she cannot wear is any better than telling her what she has to wear. Banning it for those reasons is just as oppressive, imo. To say nothing of the fact that I would resent the hell out of Jason Kenney or any government official telling me what I can or cannot wear on my body.
Having said that I fail to see how telling a woman what she cannot wear is any better than telling her what she has to wear. Banning it for those reasons is just as oppressive, imo. To say nothing of the fact that I would resent the hell out of Jason Kenney or any government official telling me what I can or cannot wear on my body.
Well you are already being told what you have to wear, you can't walk around in the nude. It's against the law!! Try walking into a bank with a bag over your head!!!
You ever see those signs,,,must have shoes and a shirt to enter!!!
Wake up, the world is full of rules and laws inspire of your dream world ideology!!!
I go back and forth on whether burkas and niqabs should be banned from publically funded places (I don't think there can be an alright ban). On the one hand, I don't think the gov't should be passing laws that dictate what people can or cannot wear. On the other hand the burka is a cloth prison, a symbol of Islamism in many ways, and it is related to horrible inhumanity and human rights abuses against women in countries where women are killed and oppressed. And I think it can be a safety issue, although in most cases it won't be. I find it a very difficult issue to make up my mind on. I'd like to see the end of the burka and niqab worldwide but I think education and exposure to freedom and women's rights is what will ultimately bring that about rather than legislation.
This is true too! It's a good point. Argh... my internal debate on this continues...
This is true too! It's a good point. Argh... my internal debate on this continues...