GRRRRRR!!!!!
1. Quebec because 49.5% voted for some type of separation
2. Islamofascism. It threatens the foundation of Western society.
What is the biggest threat to Canadian society?
- Thread starter Researcher87
- Start date
GRRRRRR!!!!!
1. Quebec because 49.5% voted for some type of separation
2. Islamofascism. It threatens the foundation of Western society.
So we will protect our void culture?? is it worth it?..To be honest I would not want the southern American culture but at the border with Canada I don't see what that great difference is? In may area I can only tell which side I am one by which flag is flying...Yes I actually live in an area where people DO fly the Canadain flag..honest..really...
OttawaBill
If someone can define "American or South American" culture - I hope they will let me know.
Other than my own knowledge of where I happen to live - I exist as I did in Canada - with few minor exceptions.
I think it is good there is a difference between the two nations - but I don't like it defined in hate for Americans and "their foreign policy" - I would prefer to see respect and idea sharing.
Europe has never advanced as it should because of the insular "not in my backyard" kind of protective shroud.
We could build a great canal separating the two - sea lanes to benefit both nations - and then we could have our fights with water balloons on holidays. Nobody would have to plow up to the Arctic to move
trade.
If someone can define "American or South American" culture - I hope they will let me know.
Other than my own knowledge of where I happen to live - I exist as I did in Canada - with few minor exceptions.
I think it is good there is a difference between the two nations - but I don't like it defined in hate for Americans and "their foreign policy" - I would prefer to see respect and idea sharing.
Europe has never advanced as it should because of the insular "not in my backyard" kind of protective shroud.
We could build a great canal separating the two - sea lanes to benefit both nations - and then we could have our fights with water balloons on holidays. Nobody would have to plow up to the Arctic to move
trade.
I find it to be the case everywhere, societies and nations very similar to each other are the ones with the major problems with each other..i.e Ireland/England.Canada/U.S. Pakistan/Indian.
Most other nations in the world consider the U.S. and Canada to be basically the same place...similar outlook, similar reaction to things...It's us that take same nuances of differences and turn them into giant concerns. The we go back to our T.V's whatch a U.S. sitcom, while eating McDonalds burgers on trays we got at Wal-mart while saying we hate Americans duh!
Islamic extremists are scarey not Vermont!!
Most other nations in the world consider the U.S. and Canada to be basically the same place...similar outlook, similar reaction to things...It's us that take same nuances of differences and turn them into giant concerns. The we go back to our T.V's whatch a U.S. sitcom, while eating McDonalds burgers on trays we got at Wal-mart while saying we hate Americans duh!
Islamic extremists are scarey not Vermont!!
Ah this "elusive" set of "real" Canadian values and indentity. I have always found it puzzling (from afar) why Canadians are continuously looking for something that is right under their noses. I have a theory, bare with me on this.
Let's begin with your history and the myths extracted from it (all socieites have it, I'm not knocking Canadians). On July 1st 1867, The Dominion of Canada came to be, a carving of political boundaries affirming Canada's allegiance to the British Crown. A hundred years later and them some, Dominion Day was renamed Canada Day (first mistake from my point of view). All you did was change the name, not the meaning of it. You continue to celebrate "Canada Day" as your country's birth, but in reality, you are celebrating the country's allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles away. What you should be celebrating (again in my view) is December 11th 1931 (date?) when the Statute of Westminster came to be.
If there is any single defining moment in Canadian history (as difficult as it may be considering Canada evolved into indepedence) it would be that date in which Canada begins to detach itself from the British Empire. If you don't believe me, ask Canadians (I have) what Canada Day represents, and in most cases you will get a different answer. Some will tell you it was merely a tactic of compromise and consent to delay independence for another 100 years. Others will tell you its the day Canada was "born" etc... The bottom line is everybody has a different understanding of it. Even historians (Canadian) are hard pressed to find the definitive moment when the British Empire ceased to exert influence and the Canadian indentity emerged.
Another issue (again in my opinion) is the attachment many in Canada have to the monarchy. The monarchy is part of Canada's history, yes I agree, history as I mentioned is an integral part of a country's indentity. That doesn't mean you have to hang on to it, you have to look forward, not dwell on the past. I have often heard the argument of swapping the monarchy with a President like GWB. My answer is, there in lies another key problem. Canadians are stuck in the past. Their options (apparently) are limited to either a monarch or a Constitutional Republic like the US. Well you don't need either, make something up that is uniquely Canadian. Perhaps a mixture of both systems?
I'm not going to continue blabbing, but in short, your institutions are fundamentally British and your day to day lives are fundamentally similar to Americans. But that in itself is not a problem, the problem is you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. You just won't let go of the past. Cherish and know your history and be proud of it, you don't have to hang on to it.
All these little and subtle nuances is what makes an indentity. The US war born of blood and battle, Canada was born through compromise and consent. You have to tweak the defining moment when Canada came to be, because you were part of the New World. You weren't hanging around Canada for thousands of years like the Greeks, Italians the French and so forth. So you need your "moment in time".
In conclusion, my view of the Canadian "indentity" is that you are a new country struggling to define itself. It took the US clear over a century to do so. You're not out the woods yet. And if I may be so bold, stop being obsessed with what the world thinks about you, just be yourselves, the world doesn't give a phuck about anybody except themselves.
Allright, I'll show my true colours. It's green. I think our society can withstand any of the aforementioned options. We've dealt with these issues time and again, Islamic fundamentalism I will just lump in with other hate groups. They are just a tad more extreme. Whats an issue gaining notoriety but not on this list...hmmm.
The environemnt. It's dividing us now because of silly politics and misinformation. Our new government has basically turned our backs on the issue. A recent survey of the political parties asked questions on the environment. Only one party refused to repond. They said that they had allready answered a Sierra club questionaire. When you look at that questionaire, a few of the answers were "not without US action". What kind of answer is that for someone who proposes "made in Canada plans"? Politics is so fickle. They deal in language of absolutes. It's not here yet, might not even happen.
Our "plan" is so woefully inept, it's laughable if it weren't so damned sad.
The technology is allready available to cut our emmisions. Our health would be inevitably better because of it. We are supposed to be a world leader, one of the G8 or whatever number they're using now. You lead by setting example, not following the broken policies of another government. Tony Blair is set to back a report in the UK where they would levy taxes as a way to implement change. Not only taxing pollution, but providing tax breaks for reducing output. This is all part of economist Sir David Sterns report on the consequences of allowing runaway emmisions to continue. The UK seems so far ahead of North America in their understanding, more than likely due to their impecible research capacity.
Anyone who hasn't seen Gore's movie should. I do caution against believing it all, just like with any other message from some prominent figure. If you ask Europeans they will tell you that none of what he says is news. I have heard of these studies and findings as well, but it is one of my keen interests. All I ask is you think critically of what you see.
The environemnt. It's dividing us now because of silly politics and misinformation. Our new government has basically turned our backs on the issue. A recent survey of the political parties asked questions on the environment. Only one party refused to repond. They said that they had allready answered a Sierra club questionaire. When you look at that questionaire, a few of the answers were "not without US action". What kind of answer is that for someone who proposes "made in Canada plans"? Politics is so fickle. They deal in language of absolutes. It's not here yet, might not even happen.
Our "plan" is so woefully inept, it's laughable if it weren't so damned sad.
The technology is allready available to cut our emmisions. Our health would be inevitably better because of it. We are supposed to be a world leader, one of the G8 or whatever number they're using now. You lead by setting example, not following the broken policies of another government. Tony Blair is set to back a report in the UK where they would levy taxes as a way to implement change. Not only taxing pollution, but providing tax breaks for reducing output. This is all part of economist Sir David Sterns report on the consequences of allowing runaway emmisions to continue. The UK seems so far ahead of North America in their understanding, more than likely due to their impecible research capacity.
Anyone who hasn't seen Gore's movie should. I do caution against believing it all, just like with any other message from some prominent figure. If you ask Europeans they will tell you that none of what he says is news. I have heard of these studies and findings as well, but it is one of my keen interests. All I ask is you think critically of what you see.
This is turning into an informative offering here... and ITN - well done!
Ahem what's wrong with Vermont? lol
Ahem what's wrong with Vermont? lol
I think the biggest threat to our country is general is the USA. Too long we sit on their border complacent, believing in our good neighbour to the south. slowly our culture erodes as theirs advance. One day, we might find their flag atop Parliament hill.
You forgot those who support America/harper/bush policy,they are the real threath to canadian society,
then why is it that on another post you say there is no difference between Canada and the U.S..only between North america and Quebec?? huh huh
I would say the biggest threat to Canada is Extreme Islam, I came across this article and it sums up how I feel about the Extremist and the term multiculture society.
"Two Million Terrorists" for Britain
By Carol Gould
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 30, 2006
In the past two weeks Britain has been gripped by a public debate about the niqab, or black head-to-toe veil worn by some Muslim women. The debate was sparked by an article written by Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw for the Lancashire Telegraph, the newspaper of his Blackburn constituency, in which he reflected that it would be appropriate for Muslim women to reveal their faces when seeing him in his surgery (local Parliamentary office.)
He embellished his comments by adding, in a television sound byte, that he would not mind the whole garment being abandoned altogether. In the same time period of this statement, Aishah Azmi, a teacher’s aide at Headfield Church of England School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire decided to take her school to a tribunal for asking her to remove her veil when talking to pupils.
The issue was brought to a head when Muhammed Abdul Bari, Director of the Muslim Council, was quoted in the current issue of The Jewish Chronicle warning that Britons would wake up to “two million terrorists and 700,000 in London alone” if the “demonisation of Muslims” did not cease. If one actually takes this statement apart, it suggests that an open and honest discussion about the pros and cons of the long black garment in British life means British people are “demonising” Muslims. No one has said Muslims are dangerous because they wear the veil. But Dr Abdul-Bari uttered something counterproductive by telling us all that, yes, all 100 percent of British Muslims actually do want to blow us all up – because a very British discussion is enough to create mayhem in our streets from Penzance to John ‘o’ Groats.
This discussion has proliferated across the nation and has become even more heated since Salman Rushdie joined the fray and said, “The veil sucks.” People made jokes about “veil” also spelling “evil.” Angry young women are appearing on various British television and radio programmes expressing their determination to remain covered. The atmosphere on last week’s BBC “Question Time” was incendiary. On “Any Questions” an intimidating Inayat Bungalawala, deputy head of the Muslim Council of Britain, complained about MPs and other discussing the veil issue at all, but was reminded by Anne McElvoy, Editor of The Evening Standard, that Britain is a dynamic democracy.
On “Question Time” a very angry young Muslim woman shouted at an audience member not to tell her how to dress in Britain. No one on the panel bothered to remind this lady that if any of us walked into a Muslim country with a Christian or Jewish Bible, or with a passport with an Israeli stamp, we would be expelled or arrested (or worse). Daniel Pearl, the Islamophile journalist who only wanted to find out what motivated shoe-bomber Richard Reid was beheaded because the Pakistani kidnappers found out he had an Israeli father. Most Muslim countries are Judenrein (Jew-free) – and not too nice to Christians, either. The journalist Ann Leslie remarked on BBC News 24 that in Muslim countries she respected the dress codes even though she loathed walking in blistering heat in the highly impractical “bin liner.”
When the Danish cartoon demonstrations occurred in London in February
(one demonstrator wore a full suicide belt), the slogans on posters were threatening to the extreme. Inasmuch as the British media portray Israel, Zionists, and Jews with daily disdain and caricature them in grotesque cartoons, one would expect to see Jews threatening mayhem. It just doesn’t happen. Frankly, if four Jewish men had blown up tube stations and a bus and four more had been apprehended a fortnight later with unexploded bombs, one cannot imagine the Jewish community by the wildest stretches of anyone’s imagination proliferating on television and radio demanding that “demonisation” be curtailed. Nor could one imagine the British government going into paroxyms of hand-wringing, as it did after July 7, 2005, and bending over backwards to create “bridges to an alienated community” had Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, or Christians perpetrated carnage in London's streets.
During the IRA atrocities, the voice of Jerry Adams was actually muted out on British television. Irish Catholics were not storming onto the airwaves demanding that criticism cease. If anything, I remember Irish workers in my locale being utterly appalled by the IRA and desperately trying to maintain a low and respectable profile.
I have been thinking long and hard about the “veil” issue. Britain is a nation steeped in tradition. All one has to do is watch Trooping the Colour, or sit through the Royal British Legion Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph and Royal Albert Hall to realise that this is a culture built on centuries of a common cultural heritage. That British people criticised my dress sense when I first came to these shores because I wore garish American t-shirts is a signpost of this adherence to tradition. Conversely, the Britain I came to in 1976 was also a swinging, rocking country with a fashion and popular music industry that was dazzling the world. The nation that brought the rest of us the Beatles, Mary Quant, Twiggy, the Rolling Stones, and The Who did not seem to me a future home for burkhas and mad mullahs.
My own tradition and upbringing would place the niqab in the realm of bizarre. Imagine growing up in a big American city in the 1960s and 70s, where the only image of a person dressed from head to toe with slits for their eyes was that of the terrifying Ku Klux Klansmen and women. In postwar city centres, the only people who wore black head coverings with slits for their eyes were violent criminals. In the opening sequence of Woody Allen’s “Radio Day,s” two robbers are raiding a house wearing balaclavas.
Imprinted on my psyche and on that of millions of people who lived through the agony of the Munich Olympics siege was the image of the PLO terrorists in black hoods with slits for their eyes. They butchered the Israeli Olympic athletes in a manner I am too decent to describe here, but for years I would jump if I saw a person in even a simple black scarf or woolly hat.
This is not to be interpreted as “the veil is like a KKK gown,” or that women in niqab are about to slit one’s throat. Notwithstanding a slight tremor in my stomach because of past new reports of suicide bombers disguised as women, I have often had pleasant chats with veiled women in my heavily Muslim London neighbourhood and on our buses. However, Muslims have to appreciate that some of us who have grown up in swinging, dazzling Western environments are taken aback by the sight of women in what we see as “demeaning” garments. A neighbour told me she will never forget her goddaughter hiding behind her in terror and whimpering when she tried to take her up Edgware Road to Burger King. They were surrounded by literally hundreds of women in niqab. It was summer, when the exodus from the Middle East occurs, and the little child was merely reacting to a sight that was utterly alien to her short life experience.
Today a London website administered by a Muslim public affairs organisation is running a page about the poor treatment of some 300 Palestinian children in Israeli jails. As an enlightened Westerner it is appalling to me that any child should be incarcerated without care and rehabilitation. However, the website compares the situation to the Nazi genocide of Jewish children in the Holocaust. I was incandescent with rage and profoundly hurt when I saw this obscene comparison. I thought of the 1.5 million little stars at Yad Vashem representing every Jewish child exterminated in Nazi camps. But I go on with my life and I do not threaten to blow up the perpetrators of that scurrilous webpage.
The clash of Western and non-Western values and imagery may be witnessed by the statement this week by an Australian cleric that scantily-clad women are akin to fresh meat ripe for beasts of prey. Australian outrage rapidly followed, led by Prime Minister John Howard, who rightly interpreted this to mean that rape should be expected by women in revealing clothes.
When I was an executive with ITV I had lunch one day with a colleague who informed me that the Hasidic Jews who lived in her neighbourhood in North London made her blood boil. I asked her what they had done to cause her ire, and she said, “Oh, nothing, I just cannot bear the sight of them. They make my skin crawl.” I decided to pursue this, reminding her that those men would never lay a finger on her and that because of this, she lived in one of the safest areas of Britain. I asked her what on earth could be so bad about them and she sai,d “It is in my blood; I really think I hate Jews because it is in my genes.” I went on to get into a heated discussion and never had lunch with her again. However, it became part of my memory. I did not think about killing her.
Likewise, it was interesting that something as banal as the Hasidic black coat would cause such discomfort to a British woman. In her case it was pure, medieval anti-Semitism in its truest form. By the same token my bemusement at the niqab is not, I stress, “Islamophophobia” but a reaction from a woman who grew up in a country that gave the world Margaret Mead, Midge Decter, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Phyllis Chesler, Bella Abzug, and my own mother, one of the most liberated, forward-thinking and “in your face” females one could imagine.
My late mother wore a beautiful uniform as a member of the Women’s Army Corps. I have pictures of my elegant grandmothers from the 1920s. My life experience has never included veils, burkhas and niqabs. This does not make them bad.
As this article goes to press the sentiment across much of the United Kingdom is that Muslims have got to open their hearts and minds to the depth of feeling Britons have about the way we look and dress in daily discourse. The anger and aggression on British Muslim websites and on television and radio programmes is frightening, does not endear the community to the other 58 million Britons, and is completely unlike the behaviour of any minority that has ever made its way to Britain.
Enoch Powell predicted that we would suffer “rivers of blood” if Afro-Caribbean immigration continued. There were indeed the Tottenham and Brixton riots, and racial harmony has not been a comfortable ride, but Caribbean Britons have never blown up tubes and then demanded special privileges in a Christian country steeped in certain inalienable traditions. Today’s Muslim minority should swallow hard, count to ten, and make room for the traditions of Britain with graciousness and dignity.
"Two Million Terrorists" for Britain
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 30, 2006
In the past two weeks Britain has been gripped by a public debate about the niqab, or black head-to-toe veil worn by some Muslim women. The debate was sparked by an article written by Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw for the Lancashire Telegraph, the newspaper of his Blackburn constituency, in which he reflected that it would be appropriate for Muslim women to reveal their faces when seeing him in his surgery (local Parliamentary office.)
He embellished his comments by adding, in a television sound byte, that he would not mind the whole garment being abandoned altogether. In the same time period of this statement, Aishah Azmi, a teacher’s aide at Headfield Church of England School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire decided to take her school to a tribunal for asking her to remove her veil when talking to pupils.
The issue was brought to a head when Muhammed Abdul Bari, Director of the Muslim Council, was quoted in the current issue of The Jewish Chronicle warning that Britons would wake up to “two million terrorists and 700,000 in London alone” if the “demonisation of Muslims” did not cease. If one actually takes this statement apart, it suggests that an open and honest discussion about the pros and cons of the long black garment in British life means British people are “demonising” Muslims. No one has said Muslims are dangerous because they wear the veil. But Dr Abdul-Bari uttered something counterproductive by telling us all that, yes, all 100 percent of British Muslims actually do want to blow us all up – because a very British discussion is enough to create mayhem in our streets from Penzance to John ‘o’ Groats.
This discussion has proliferated across the nation and has become even more heated since Salman Rushdie joined the fray and said, “The veil sucks.” People made jokes about “veil” also spelling “evil.” Angry young women are appearing on various British television and radio programmes expressing their determination to remain covered. The atmosphere on last week’s BBC “Question Time” was incendiary. On “Any Questions” an intimidating Inayat Bungalawala, deputy head of the Muslim Council of Britain, complained about MPs and other discussing the veil issue at all, but was reminded by Anne McElvoy, Editor of The Evening Standard, that Britain is a dynamic democracy.
On “Question Time” a very angry young Muslim woman shouted at an audience member not to tell her how to dress in Britain. No one on the panel bothered to remind this lady that if any of us walked into a Muslim country with a Christian or Jewish Bible, or with a passport with an Israeli stamp, we would be expelled or arrested (or worse). Daniel Pearl, the Islamophile journalist who only wanted to find out what motivated shoe-bomber Richard Reid was beheaded because the Pakistani kidnappers found out he had an Israeli father. Most Muslim countries are Judenrein (Jew-free) – and not too nice to Christians, either. The journalist Ann Leslie remarked on BBC News 24 that in Muslim countries she respected the dress codes even though she loathed walking in blistering heat in the highly impractical “bin liner.”
When the Danish cartoon demonstrations occurred in London in February
(one demonstrator wore a full suicide belt), the slogans on posters were threatening to the extreme. Inasmuch as the British media portray Israel, Zionists, and Jews with daily disdain and caricature them in grotesque cartoons, one would expect to see Jews threatening mayhem. It just doesn’t happen. Frankly, if four Jewish men had blown up tube stations and a bus and four more had been apprehended a fortnight later with unexploded bombs, one cannot imagine the Jewish community by the wildest stretches of anyone’s imagination proliferating on television and radio demanding that “demonisation” be curtailed. Nor could one imagine the British government going into paroxyms of hand-wringing, as it did after July 7, 2005, and bending over backwards to create “bridges to an alienated community” had Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, or Christians perpetrated carnage in London's streets.
During the IRA atrocities, the voice of Jerry Adams was actually muted out on British television. Irish Catholics were not storming onto the airwaves demanding that criticism cease. If anything, I remember Irish workers in my locale being utterly appalled by the IRA and desperately trying to maintain a low and respectable profile.
I have been thinking long and hard about the “veil” issue. Britain is a nation steeped in tradition. All one has to do is watch Trooping the Colour, or sit through the Royal British Legion Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph and Royal Albert Hall to realise that this is a culture built on centuries of a common cultural heritage. That British people criticised my dress sense when I first came to these shores because I wore garish American t-shirts is a signpost of this adherence to tradition. Conversely, the Britain I came to in 1976 was also a swinging, rocking country with a fashion and popular music industry that was dazzling the world. The nation that brought the rest of us the Beatles, Mary Quant, Twiggy, the Rolling Stones, and The Who did not seem to me a future home for burkhas and mad mullahs.
My own tradition and upbringing would place the niqab in the realm of bizarre. Imagine growing up in a big American city in the 1960s and 70s, where the only image of a person dressed from head to toe with slits for their eyes was that of the terrifying Ku Klux Klansmen and women. In postwar city centres, the only people who wore black head coverings with slits for their eyes were violent criminals. In the opening sequence of Woody Allen’s “Radio Day,s” two robbers are raiding a house wearing balaclavas.
Imprinted on my psyche and on that of millions of people who lived through the agony of the Munich Olympics siege was the image of the PLO terrorists in black hoods with slits for their eyes. They butchered the Israeli Olympic athletes in a manner I am too decent to describe here, but for years I would jump if I saw a person in even a simple black scarf or woolly hat.
This is not to be interpreted as “the veil is like a KKK gown,” or that women in niqab are about to slit one’s throat. Notwithstanding a slight tremor in my stomach because of past new reports of suicide bombers disguised as women, I have often had pleasant chats with veiled women in my heavily Muslim London neighbourhood and on our buses. However, Muslims have to appreciate that some of us who have grown up in swinging, dazzling Western environments are taken aback by the sight of women in what we see as “demeaning” garments. A neighbour told me she will never forget her goddaughter hiding behind her in terror and whimpering when she tried to take her up Edgware Road to Burger King. They were surrounded by literally hundreds of women in niqab. It was summer, when the exodus from the Middle East occurs, and the little child was merely reacting to a sight that was utterly alien to her short life experience.
Today a London website administered by a Muslim public affairs organisation is running a page about the poor treatment of some 300 Palestinian children in Israeli jails. As an enlightened Westerner it is appalling to me that any child should be incarcerated without care and rehabilitation. However, the website compares the situation to the Nazi genocide of Jewish children in the Holocaust. I was incandescent with rage and profoundly hurt when I saw this obscene comparison. I thought of the 1.5 million little stars at Yad Vashem representing every Jewish child exterminated in Nazi camps. But I go on with my life and I do not threaten to blow up the perpetrators of that scurrilous webpage.
The clash of Western and non-Western values and imagery may be witnessed by the statement this week by an Australian cleric that scantily-clad women are akin to fresh meat ripe for beasts of prey. Australian outrage rapidly followed, led by Prime Minister John Howard, who rightly interpreted this to mean that rape should be expected by women in revealing clothes.
When I was an executive with ITV I had lunch one day with a colleague who informed me that the Hasidic Jews who lived in her neighbourhood in North London made her blood boil. I asked her what they had done to cause her ire, and she said, “Oh, nothing, I just cannot bear the sight of them. They make my skin crawl.” I decided to pursue this, reminding her that those men would never lay a finger on her and that because of this, she lived in one of the safest areas of Britain. I asked her what on earth could be so bad about them and she sai,d “It is in my blood; I really think I hate Jews because it is in my genes.” I went on to get into a heated discussion and never had lunch with her again. However, it became part of my memory. I did not think about killing her.
Likewise, it was interesting that something as banal as the Hasidic black coat would cause such discomfort to a British woman. In her case it was pure, medieval anti-Semitism in its truest form. By the same token my bemusement at the niqab is not, I stress, “Islamophophobia” but a reaction from a woman who grew up in a country that gave the world Margaret Mead, Midge Decter, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Phyllis Chesler, Bella Abzug, and my own mother, one of the most liberated, forward-thinking and “in your face” females one could imagine.
My late mother wore a beautiful uniform as a member of the Women’s Army Corps. I have pictures of my elegant grandmothers from the 1920s. My life experience has never included veils, burkhas and niqabs. This does not make them bad.
As this article goes to press the sentiment across much of the United Kingdom is that Muslims have got to open their hearts and minds to the depth of feeling Britons have about the way we look and dress in daily discourse. The anger and aggression on British Muslim websites and on television and radio programmes is frightening, does not endear the community to the other 58 million Britons, and is completely unlike the behaviour of any minority that has ever made its way to Britain.
Enoch Powell predicted that we would suffer “rivers of blood” if Afro-Caribbean immigration continued. There were indeed the Tottenham and Brixton riots, and racial harmony has not been a comfortable ride, but Caribbean Britons have never blown up tubes and then demanded special privileges in a Christian country steeped in certain inalienable traditions. Today’s Muslim minority should swallow hard, count to ten, and make room for the traditions of Britain with graciousness and dignity.
we have to be very careful within this country...Britain has let the extremist portion of their population get out of control..we have the same "don't bother the muslims" policies here..the only difference is we have..so far..been away from the action..But if it really starts up here we will have more problems then the Brit's..by far...
The biggest threat to Canada is not America and it is not Islamic Extremism. Not yet anyway. However, at bootcamp you are training that in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and probably now especially in the Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and B.C.
Are hate groups that in some instances especially in rural areas of the Maritimes and Ontario have been known to have formed militia groups.
So that was kind of interesting poll, with the interesting votes and everything.
Are hate groups that in some instances especially in rural areas of the Maritimes and Ontario have been known to have formed militia groups.
So that was kind of interesting poll, with the interesting votes and everything.
Also in the military it has a slant to white hate groups but it could also mean others groups as well. Aboriginal groups that may want all White people off their land, or other and I assume you could argue Islamic extremeism is a Hate group of some sort so you could put that as well.
Care to put your money where your mouth is Researcher? What hate groups in Ontario and NS? You researcher are extremely racist towards white Christians, me thinks you are the pot calling the kettle black sunshine.
Na, just go into the military and look at the program SHARP.
And where have I been racist to Christians, just because I point out information Christians would like to keep in their closets showing them no better then anyone else. That's not racist, that is proving the fact.
And where have I been racist to Christians, just because I point out information Christians would like to keep in their closets showing them no better then anyone else. That's not racist, that is proving the fact.