[ShepherdsDog]

excuse me? BC and WORshington residents come from all over Canada and the States. The only accent I've ever heard is on the Island when some of the old farts use to put on the fake wardroom accent..a poor impersonation of a mild British accent.

[kenmore]

You are correct EyeBrock and its the same with French accents throughout Canada. I remember travelling in New Brunswick and I sent my son ( who was 13 at the time) in to buy some drinks at a gas station while I filled up. He speaks fluent french and he came out of the station to inform us that the man spoke french, but my son didn't understand all that he said. My accent is french/english mix, but I have been asked if I was from New York many times.

[EyeBrock]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

excuse me? BC and WORshington residents come from all over Canada and the States. The only accent I've ever heard is on the Island when some of the old farts use to put on the fake wardroom accent..a poor impersonation of a mild British accent.

I did back-to-back NATO posts, one with a Yank from Seattle and one from Vancouver. Both said 'eh'......

[CanadianJeff]

desertdude desertdude:

Right Jeff, I'll go step by step in case you start complaining again.

Nigerian Women : So its ok because it colourfull has has printed patterns ? So a colourfull burqa with pink flowers is alright with you..... Riiight. So now the state should also hand out fashion regulations. Iran and Saudia anyone ?

Security : Bombers in disguise blowing up troops etc etc Seriously mate. A burqa ia the only thing that can be used for such purposes. That's the lamest argument I've heard till now, unfortunately not for the first time though.

Like I said earlier if banning the burqa seems legitimate to you then so should be Nuns, priests, rabbis, monks, skull caps, crucifixes, stars of david etc etc should all be banned. Right ? How can you compare wanting to dress a certain a way and asking for drugs. And also mentioned by others aswell. The burqa is not "Islamic" its a cultural thing and not religious at all.

I also never suggested that they should be given any special treatment or have any laws bypassed to accommodate them.

Issues of Identity for securitity, what about transvestites for example. They are walking about in the open among you and you don't even know there correct gender. Oh what will you do ! There a million ways to conceal ones identity if one wants to without having to go to such extremes, and do you seriously think if someone was planing to carry out an attack or crime in a western society or country what would they go as. A woman clad in head to toe in black standing out like a sore thumb and attracting everyone's attention or try to blend in. Think about it. And like I said the burqa does not conceal the face, gender or ones identity anyways.

The one example you gave was of a war zone where norms of everyday hardly apply and the niqaab/face veil and not the burqa.

$1:

Namely that the whole reason you ban something is not at all for religious reasoning in civilized society. It's because you have sound logical evidence that shows the danger the item causes.

Care to share that evidence with us mate. How many robberies, murders, kidnappings, car jacking, assualts, terror attacks etc etc have taken place in Europe or North America. Or how studies have show that burqa wearing individuals are more likely to have such criminal tendencies.

If that was the case why not ban alcohol ( Oh boy now I've done it, opened up a can of worms ) There is more evidence and stats that more violent crime is done under the influence of alcohol than the burqa !

In a nutshell just not comfortable having to share the same space with someone not like you and most of all the stigma attached to it. And grasping at straws to make it sound like a legitimate argument for its banning. Just like when all of a sudden a mentally or physically handicapped person walks into the room. All of a sudden majority of the people are not at ease anymore and some darn right extremely uncomfortable.

Nobody said you have to like it, and your entitled to your opinion. But that does not mean that's sufficient ground to outlaw it on your personal choice.

Like I said and you agreed, you'd be better off and sound more logical by canvassing for liberation of the brutal and physically damaging treatment of women in western society trying to fit in the norms of what they think female beauty is by wearing high heels.

Cheers

how absolutely arrogant and idiotic are you. I told you to stop trying to represent my points as straw-man points that they are not.

I did not in any way argue for:

1) For the state to be in charge of fashion

2) That we are banning the burqa because it is in any way religious. I can see a nuns face, or a jews face under his cap. You somehow conveniently skipped the very key part where I stated I had no issue with the hijab or other clothing.

Which are your main two talking points. I did not argue in favor or either point so until you care to read enough to understand what people are actually saying maybe you should stop posting.

I do however have to apologize for not being more clear on special treatment laws. You are correct in that you never argued for such laws. My point was not that you were arguing for such but rather that sometimes one must pass laws that hold everyone to an equal standard. Such as having to show your face to vote.

Finally your point about transsexuals was in very bad taste and it's disgusting enough I'm amazed you can honestly post such garbage. Seriously think about what your posting before you post it.

In any case I think your blatant leaning on the straw-man fallacy instead of standing up and addressing any of the real points proves that you don't care to really discuss anything. Your just interested in trying to get people to see your point of view then get to the truth.

[desertdude]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Funny how you can accuse someone of homosexual acts as an insult, yet call someone a homophobe for not agreeing with homosexuality.

Thank you Shep.

[desertdude]

Jeff again your confusing the burqa with the face veil. And I 100% agree with you on stuff like visual conformation on stuff like casting ballot, ID pictures etc etc. Even here in the middle east the face veil is hardly seen anymore. So I don't know how much of it you encounter them out in Canada.

And why do you find the transvestite and cross dresser example disgusting, I didn't not insult them, pass negative judgement or anything. You were arguing that the "burqa" hinders gender identification. I merely pointed out there are many more ways to do that than just the burqa and is very acceptable in your society. So I don't get it why it upsets you ?

$1:

In any case I think your blatant leaning on the straw-man fallacy instead of standing up and addressing any of the real points proves that you don't care to really discuss anything. Your just interested in trying to get people to see your point of view then get to the truth.

Jeff I am more than willing to discuss any points, and I think I have. What are the real points. Security etc etc haven't I already addressed those ?

I dunno who it was who said earlier that there is real evidence that shows Burqas are a threat to security. I asked if he/she would like to share such evidence with us. Till now nothing has been brought forward.

I see the real problem or at least pretending to be, is with the face veil and not the burqa. To most here it might be the same thing, but its not If facial identification out in everyday life was crucial to everyday security.

Wouldn't it be more acceptable and fair to make illegal any kind of clothing, instrument or device that hinders that. Why single handly point out the Burqa, which in its essence does not cover the face.

Put out a list like. the face veil, full face helmets, Long pointy masks, balaclavas, Long Hair obscuring the face, oversized, sunglasses, wigs, big hats, unkempt long facial hair etc etc.

Cheers

[desertdude]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Too bad they weren't as tough on pedophiles.

That's a misconception. It is a very very very serious crime here. Infact a Local man has just been handed out capital punishment for the rape and murder of a young child.

Pedophilia is never taken lightly here.

[ShepherdsDog]

Allowing child marriages(although this act is not followed by most Muslims in Western nations)is a way of disguising it. And no, I'm not talking about young girls(13 - 16), I'm talking about prepubescent children. The creator of Islam, Mohammed, was one himself. It is taken far too lightly because marrying off the victim hasn't erased the crime.

[desertdude]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Allowing child marriages(although this act is not followed by most Muslims in Western nations)is a way of disguising it. And no, I'm not talking about young girls(13 - 16), I'm talking about prepubescent children. The creator of Islam, Mohammed, was one himself. It is taken far too lightly because marrying off the victim hasn't erased the crime.

I'm not here to propagate or defend Islam or hold comparative religion discussions, This question has been answered in great detail many times over in many treads in many forums across the world. You just need to look it up.

I cannot crediably answer this without going into detail and quoting scripture, providing examples etc etc and make it long, and I know many won't even bother reading it and then there will be counter question which then will turn in to a full blown religious debate, and thats not my aim, trust me I speak from experience.

BUT if all of you insist I will give it a shot.

[desertdude]

100th post yeahh !!!

[ShepherdsDog]

The problem is that most Islamic nations are theocratic, or the clergy has the gov't by the short hairs. Therein lays the problem. This why the issues of pedophilia, homophobia, abuse of women and children are not dealt with. Secular lawyers not clergy need to deal with these issues. As for defending Mohammed's incest, it's something that is indefensible. If you read the news from the West, you'll see that the Church is not allowed to obstruct criminal investigations of its members. The law is supreme not the pulpit in a secular society.

[desertdude]

Ok I see I cannot walk away from this without offering some explination, I'll try to make is as short, less boring and relevant as possible, so here goes.

First of all it might or might not come as a surprise at the age of consent in your western world is in these times which as low as between 12-14 in countries like US, Spain, japan, Mexico and even Canada. Although there is a clause of an age diffrence between the two. But I'm sure that is not strictly followed.

It is very recent that new social and moral sensibilities have appeared. Getting married at a very young age wasn't uncommon at all in almost any culture across the globe. If you look across the globe even today many many non muslim cultures and countries practice it till date, just that we are in the spot light now we get all the attention. Not that I am saying I agree or warrant it.

Just as same as I pointed out the burqa gets way too much undue attention that it deserves, only because we are under the magnifying glass now.

Also going back in time it was a normal practice for the people of that time, As late as 1700 and 1800's European Kings and queens were getting married at ages varying from 9 to 14. These types of marriages were more to establish alliances and politically motivated than anything else.

And that is the case of the prophets marriage and there is still no confirmed evidence of his wife Aisha at what exact age the it took place.

So in conclusion.

It was the norm of the society in 7th century Arabia to allow pubescent marriages. And also not uncommon in Europe as well as many other. Even today, there are non muslim cultures who still allow pubescent marriage for their young women.

Like the Burqa, Opression of women and womens rights and all the other crap out there. These are points and issues raised by the Anti Islam propaganda machine. And unfortunately many accept these without question, checking the source or history.

I'll end with a few excerpts from an article written by Shawqi Abdulraqib Al-Qadhi
Member of the Parliament Committee on Rights and Liberties of Yemen.

$1:

As for the consensus the advocates of early marriage present as proof whenever they fail to produce evidence from the Quran and Hadith, it is false proof because the marriage of underage girls has never been unanimously agreed upon, either in the past or the present.

$1:

A minimum age for marriage

God says, "Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye found sound judgment in them, release their property to them, but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: but all sufficient is God in taking account. [4:6]"

This is a clear proof that there is an age for marriage. And in interpreting this verse, Imam Al-Shafe'i, Abu Yusuf and others said that the proper age is 15 years, while Abu Hanifa said the appropriate age for young men is 18 and 17 for young women.

$1:

The Prophet says, "… and the woman is a custodian in her home and is answerable for those entrusted to her." But how can a child who, herself, is in need for care, be responsible for a house, a husband and children? It would be too much of a burden on her, something that contradicts the principles of sharia meant to make life easier for all people.

You can read the entire article here http://www.yementimes.com/DefaultDET.as ... report&a=1

[kenmore]

No matter how you spin it, twist it, turn it, and try and justify it,, marriage to 6 yr old girls is pedophilia... end of story..perversion is perversion...

[kenmore]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The problem is that most Islamic nations are theocratic, or the clergy has the gov't by the short hairs. Therein lays the problem. This why the issues of pedophilia, homophobia, abuse of women and children are not dealt with. Secular lawyers not clergy need to deal with these issues. As for defending Mohammed's incest, it's something that is indefensible. If you read the news from the West, you'll see that the Church is not allowed to obstruct criminal investigations of its members. The law is supreme not the pulpit in a secular society.

They are also archaic and 1000 yrs behind the rest of the world culturally.

[desertdude]

Sure Ken, we've done, burqa, pedophlia, heathens, grunts, sub humans, 70 virgins, backwards living in 0 BC, what else is left ? Let it all out xenepho..oops I meant Ken.

Like I said mate. Its people like you, we have all these issues in the world. I bet you cried your self to sleep when apartheid ended in S.Africa and die a little every time you see a Muslim in Canada.

I hope you have kids and your daughter gets married to a Muslim, I'd love to see the look on your face that day, priceless !