[Saffron]

$1:

I'd like to know who the "we're" are in your post?

Quebecers

[Saffron]

$1:

All pigs are a equal but Quebec pigs are more equal than others? You maybe shouldn't preach to us Anglos about how it's one rule for everyone.

Wow! Any particular reason for the hostility? I merely gave you my opinion of why Quebec takes a harder line towards religeous accomodation. No need to go around calling people pigs.

[ShepherdsDog]

Saffron Saffron:

$1:

All pigs are a equal but Quebec pigs are more equal than others? You maybe shouldn't preach to us Anglos about how it's one rule for everyone.

Wow! Any particular reason for the hostility? I merely gave you my opinion of why Quebec takes a harder line towards religeous accomodation. No need to go around calling people pigs.

Obviously you are fairly young. The offense taken at the comment, reveals you aren't overly familiar with the works of George Orwell.

[kenmore]

raydan raydan:

Saffron Saffron:

Just for the record, I'm an Anglo as well.

I'd like to know who the "we're" are in your post?

$1:

That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.

Not all Québecers are french in case you didn't know. So he is referring to all Québecers when he one rule for everyone. Religion in his opinion should not be present in a secular society.

[Gunnair]

kenmore kenmore:

raydan raydan:

Saffron Saffron:

Just for the record, I'm an Anglo as well.

I'd like to know who the "we're" are in your post?

$1:

That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.

Not all Québecers are french in case you didn't know. So he is referring to all Québecers when he one rule for everyone. Religion in his opinion should not be present in a secular society.

I'm liking that. I suspect that'll shut your nonsense nationalism/bullshit rules to favour nationalism up... since we're for one rule for all.

[Saffron]

$1:

Not all Québecers are french in case you didn't know. So he is referring to all Québecers when he one rule for everyone. Religion in his opinion should not be present in a secular society.

That's exactly right. I'm a girl, by the way.

[Saffron]

$1:

You maybe shouldn't preach to us Anglos about how it's one rule for everyone.

Care to show me where I was preaching? I merely offered my opinion, being in the most "Godless" province.

[raydan]

Saffron Saffron:

$1:

I'd like to know who the "we're" are in your post?

Quebecers

So you're speaking for all Québecers... by the way, I'm from Québec.

[Freakinoldguy]

Devout Sikhs are the problem. Just type in Sikh Temple Violence and see what comes up.

$1:

The Sikh youth group opposing Gill's slate told supporters it wanted to make New Westminster's temple the first in North America run by youth.

"We are working as a collective to avoid an election and persuade the challenging anti-panthic committee to give the responsibility of management at Gurdwara Sahib Sukh Sagar to the youth," the e-mail said.

But Balwant Singh Gill, the moderate president of Surrey's Guru Nanak temple and representative of the Lower Mainland Sikh Societies, said the youth are being used by fundamentalists who are not afraid to flex their muscles.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... fa0a81e179


So a Kirpan may not be by deifinition a weapon but, I'm pretty sure that in the heat of the moment anyone of these "devout Sikhs" wouldn't be adverse to using it as either protection or for aggression.

Technically a Kirpan may be Ceremonial but given the history of these people and their proclivity towards settling their religous disputes with violence, I'm inclined to lean towards ceremonial weapon.

[EyeBrock]

Saffron Saffron:

$1:

All pigs are a equal but Quebec pigs are more equal than others? You maybe shouldn't preach to us Anglos about how it's one rule for everyone.

Wow! Any particular reason for the hostility? I merely gave you my opinion of why Quebec takes a harder line towards religeous accomodation. No need to go around calling people pigs.

Oh dear.

[Saffron]

$1:

I'd like to know who the "we're" are in your post?

Quote:
That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.

So...you're saying that it shouldn't be one rule for everyone? Your opinion is different than mine? You agree that certain religeous groups should have more rights than others? I'm trying to understand your point.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Saffron meet irony. Irony meet Saffron.

[herbie]

Given that with the right angle and velocity one can drive a plastic drinking straw through a human skull, they should ban fast food outlets within driving distance of Ottawa.
Leave this stupid issue for the xenophobes in the Quebec Assembly instead of making it an issue for Parliament.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

Given that with the right angle and velocity one can drive a plastic drinking straw through a human skull, they should ban fast food outlets within driving distance of Ottawa.
Leave this stupid issue for the xenophobes in the Quebec Assembly instead of making it an issue for Parliament.

Have they banned drinking straws for the general population, but made an exemption for the Coca Colaites? Where they have banned knives, they should ban kirpans. Kirpans are a type of dagger, ie knife. If Muslims, Christians and Jews can't be trusted to carry a knife in a venue, neither should be Sikhs. Reasonable alternatives have been proposed that allow them to carry out their religious obligation without carrying an actual knife. That way there is one rule for everyone, no bullshit about what some one believes. Sikhs have shown themselves to be at least as violent as the general population, no more saints than the rest of us. If security requires the banning of knives, then security requires the banning of kirpans that are in fact knives.