[N_Fiddledog]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Hang on a sec here. This is what this is all about...

$1:

A Muslim woman says she and her family were verbally assaulted, her son was spit on and they were told to "change your religion” while on a recent trip at a Quebec City shopping centre.

Badia Senouci and her family are blaming the incident on the current controversy over the province's proposed charter of values.

Senouci was shopping two weeks ago in Ste-Foy with her son and husband when an older woman approached them and began insulting their religion.

So basically we have the CBC going, "Muslim claims victim status. Film at 11" again.

I don't like the head covering laws in Quebec for my own reasons, but I'm not sure why this particular story is even about that. The only thing we know for sure is an older woman was knocked down by a woman, her son and husband. The police were called.

Why didn't you interview the old woman, cracker-jack CBC journalists?

Apparently there's security footage to this, and after the police saw it they released the three. Very well, let's see the video that shows why the 3 that knocked down the old woman are the victims here.

And why exactly is this news, anyway? If you need to try so hard to make a tenuous connection to a policy you don't like, do you even have a story CBC?

To be fair, spitting on someone in Canada is assault, IIRC. If they had simply been told to "change their religion", well they'd have to suck it up like everyone else. But spitting on someone is a disgusting, vulgar act. If you're not going to charge the spitter, you can't really charge the shover. This isn't the NHL.
Personally, if anyone ever spit on my son, I wouldn't care how old they were or what gender they were, they'd be getting dusted off with more than just a shove to the ground.

Why are you sure the old woman spit on somebody? I remember that accusation was made in Washington one time, and when the video came out it turned out to be false. They only thing we know for sure, based on the verifiable facts is an old woman was knocked to the ground and the police were called. Still waiting for that interview with the old woman, CBC.

[GreenTiger]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It really doesn't have much to do with beliefs. People can believe whatever they want. It's more to do with the funny hats. I just get a kick out of people getting all upset about funny hats in this day and age.

Me, too.

Everyday is Hallowe'en in Alabama

Some folks down south think this is a fine institution. My grand mother lived in a place in Virginia where this was the case. I made the mistake of revealing that I was from New Jersey. That made me rather unpopular.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

To Fiddledog: Maybe the ol' woman doesn't want to be interviewed. Why assume the CBC is being backhanded about his?

[N_Fiddledog]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

To Fiddledog: Maybe the ol' woman doesn't want to be interviewed. Why assume the CBC is being backhanded about his?

I didn't see anything like "Mrs. MacDougall refused comment". Isn't that what you would expect from a journalist if there was an actual story to investigate and he or she was actually doing their job?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

To Fiddledog: Maybe the ol' woman doesn't want to be interviewed. Why assume the CBC is being backhanded about his?

I didn't see anything like "Mrs. MacDougall refused comment". Isn't that what you would expect from a journalist if there was an actual story to investigate and he or she was actually doing their job?

No, I don't really expect that in a case like this. Not that I'm a fan of the CBC by any means but most media in cases like this don't normally interview the instigator.
Then again, maybe they just don't want to interview an obvious bigot.

[martin14]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

To Fiddledog: Maybe the ol' woman doesn't want to be interviewed. Why assume the CBC is being backhanded about his?

I didn't see anything like "Mrs. MacDougall refused comment". Isn't that what you would expect from a journalist if there was an actual story to investigate and he or she was actually doing their job?

The CBC hasn't done their job since the 70's.

[ShepherdsDog]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Some folks down south think this is a fine institution. My grand mother lived in a place in Virginia where this was the case. I made the mistake of revealing that I was from New Jersey. That made me rather unpopular.

it isn't the KKK it's Opus Dei, a Catholic society

[N_Fiddledog]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Some folks down south think this is a fine institution. My grand mother lived in a place in Virginia where this was the case. I made the mistake of revealing that I was from New Jersey. That made me rather unpopular.

it isn't the KKK it's Opus Dei, a Catholic society

Is it really? OK, let's look at it again.



Now let's wonder if it would be necessary for the CBC to tell some unsupported story of people being spit at in order to convince you it's advisable to allow this sort of Opus Dei dress for the clerk checking your parcels at the post office, and why the CBC would like you to believe if you don't allow it you're victimizing them.

[N_Fiddledog]

I wonder what sort of story the CBC would be willing to fabricate in order to convince you this is necessary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2fGHbVB2Z

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

xerxes xerxes:

Just because the state is secular doesn't give it the right to force people to deny their religious beliefs for their job.

Yet precisely that opinion has been stated innumerable times by Canadians on this very site.

Incorrect. No one's called for suppression of religious beliefs. No one, however, should be forced to tolerate any church-going politician trying to force their own particular religious inclinations onto the society at large via the legislative law-making process. I detest these extremist secularists in Quebec that are attacking without justification the religious beliefs of others. Doesn't mean that I'd ever drop my guard against self-righteous religious cranks that want, and constantly agitate, to impose the values and policies of their own church onto everyone else. If I wanted to live like that I'd move to Saudi Arabia. Or Texas.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yet precisely that opinion has been stated innumerable times by Canadians on this very site.

Incorrect. No one's called for suppression of religious beliefs. No one, however, should be forced to tolerate any church-going politician trying to force their own particular religious inclinations onto the society at large via the legislative law-making process.

Thank you for illustrating my point. You're all for excluding church-going politicians from acting on their principles and you want religion and religious people excluded from the public dialogue. I could not have made my point any clearer than you have.

Thanos Thanos:

I detest these extremist secularists in Quebec that are attacking without justification the religious beliefs of others. Doesn't mean that I'd ever drop my guard against self-righteous religious cranks that want, and constantly agitate, to impose the values and policies of their own church onto everyone else. If I wanted to live like that I'd move to Saudi Arabia. Or Texas.

Meanwhile, the religious folks get secularism shoved down their throats at every turn. It's only fair that they get their shot at the ballot box and in Parliament and if their ideas are sound then they'll survive the test of the legislative process.

But just shutting them out of the whole thing because you don't like their ideas or their values opens the door for them to shut you down should they ever come to power. But if they're Christians they probably won't do that because of Luke 6:31.

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

desertdude desertdude:

Even I didn't think you were that stupid dog. Maybe if you search hard enough you'll find a video on YouTube that explains it.

What's with you and the personal attacks lately?

Oh cho chweet you come running to the defense of your buddy. I just tend to focus on the individual rather than an entire group unlike some.

And the reason is when you or dog in this case can't find no fault with an unprovoked hateful verbal assault and then the old hag spitting on her son when he steps in and then whack her husband too with her bag when he tries to diffuse the situation but rather start strawmen-ing about this sweet old innocent lady allegedly being knocked to the ground by these big bad muslims which according to the article was feigned by the old bag and initially both were taken to police cruiser but after viewing CCTV let them go because either it didn't happen or was a result of a scuffle she instigated.

Just shows where dog's moral compass lies and he got called out on it and if that bothers you then tough shit.

[rickc]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/09/anti-m ... ing-video/

This video was taken on a Montreal bus on Aug 28. All the woman did was get on the bus wearing a hijab. That's all it took for this asshole to go off on her. The person who shot this video claimed that the incident lasted from five to ten minutes. Five to ten minutes this guy is going off, and yet no one else on the bus sais a single word about it. Granted the lady is no pushover. She stands up for herself, and gives as good as she gets. The point is: if some other people on the bus would speak up, this incident would not go on for ten minutes. No one is obligated by law to speak up, but basic human decency would dictate that some one say something. I'm pushing 50. My best tough guy days are in the rear view mirror. However I would like to believe that had I been on that bus (and spoke French), I would have said something.

DesertDude it would appear as though you and I have been engaged in a dance of sorts as of late. We keep taking round about shots at each other (without naming names) in various threads. It started in one thread, and spilled into others. Other people have been dragged into it as well. Misunderstandings about the actual message that one is trying to convey have occurred as well. I would like to put an end to that now. You have made your point about the impossibility of speaking out on every single injustice in the world. I will concede that point at this time. I would like this video that I posted to convey the point I was trying to make. Edmund Burke said it best: "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing". That's the point I was trying to make. It is exactly what I see in this video, good people doing nothing.

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

Just shows where dog's moral compass lies and he got called out on it and if that bothers you then tough shit.

On the upside it's nice to see that you're now comfortable enough with us to show us your true colors.

[N_Fiddledog]

Pet Peeve: Some people have to learn what a straw man is.

Saying a claim lacks support is not a straw man argument. The anecdotal claims by the CBC are unsupported.

That's not a straw man. This link below is a straw man...(and a good one )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llege.html

See the difference DD? If English is a second language with you I apologize, but it's not just you. A lot of people irritate by not understanding basic definitions of terms.