The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet
Does he wear it in a place of worship ? Which I said is respectful . I have no issue with jagmeet wearing his sword or knife . .
So your view is any time a male political leader wears, say, a yarmulke outside a place of worship you’ve come to this thread and gotten mad about it? It’s not just when a female politician does it for Islam?
So your view is any time a male political leader wears, say, a yarmulke outside a place of worship you’ve come to this thread and gotten mad about it? It’s not just when a female politician does it for Islam?
I never got mad about it all I just commented on Dunyain's opinion . Canada is a melting pot and I have no issue with it. I agree with him women in Canada in government should not be required or pander to a religious faith that requires women to cover up . Lets also be honest we know in that group she will not be meeting with a women leader as women are not permitted in a leadership role . Like I said if you enter their place of worship and they require it fine
I agree with him women in Canada in government should not be required or pander to a religious faith
You must be so angry at your dear leader pandering to a religious faith with a head scarf here:
You must be so angry at your dear leader pandering to a religious faith with a head scarf here:
Why would I be angry ? My guess he is in a religious place of worship. Just as I had said Jagmeet and his dagger do not bother me. I think bowing down to a custom that demeans women in a country like Canada I am not for. If Chow wants to do it all the power to her
Right so when Poilievre wears a head scarf out of respect for a religious tradition you scoff at even the idea of this being problematic. But when Chow wears a head scarf out of respect for a religious tradition, you get all twisted up in knots.
Hypocrite.
You should be upset with your leader as when asked
Carney received a question from a Juno News reporter who said his campaign is based on putting the Liberal leader in front and "hiding" people that were close to former prime minister Justin Trudeau.
In his reply, Carney called the question "rather odd" but said his team includes both new and experienced candidates.
Carney also received a question from a representative from True North, a conservative media outlet. The reporter asked him how many genders there are, to which he responded that "in terms of sex, there are two." The reporter then asked if Carney believed that biological women have the right to their own spaces. Carney said that "as a general objective, yes,' and that his government values all Canadians.
Yes, it was sad that the debate commission allowed the circus of Ezra Levant far right political agitators to take over the post debate event. Not surprised to see their political activism has hooked you as it was intended to do though.
You don’t have to, but doing so isn’t remotely a threat to secularism. Being able to engage with faith leaders in their cultural context - which can include wearing religious clothing - is just obviously not the same as endorsing that religion froma political office. When secularists get mad over stuff like this it just hurts secularism and makes it look inflexible and unwelcom
Well today I am identifying myself as a female gender and I feel it’s a slap to my face for a political Canadian woman supposedly representing me , agree to accommodate portion of rigorist religious beliefs that are as well promoting discrimination against women.
We women fought hard to gain equality in this country and now we are seeking returning backward just to gain votes .
It’s pretty hypocritical since we all know she is not a believer in it .
To believe standing up for secularism hurts the secularism view is a nice try ….
It’s Canada , no woman should be force to do anything in a political office to abide to religious group and she makes it even more worst by showing she actually most do it ….
I think when you present secularism as this militantly rigid perspective that can't accept even politicians respectfully interacting with faith communities they represent that you do a disservice to secularism. I'm a secularist too. But my secularism can't be hurt or eroded by such things, and I think if yours can then your version of secularism is brittle.
And I think the flippant pretending to identify as a woman bit just adds a whole other layer that is rather repugnant.
I think when you present secularism as this militantly rigid perspective that can't accept even politicians respectfully interacting with faith communities they represent that you do a disservice to secularism. I'm a secularist too. But my secularism can't be hurt or eroded by such things, and I think if yours can then your version of secularism is brittle.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-into...
-This is a concept Taleb has written about in various forms, especially as it pertains to religion; but it is exactly due to its rigid intolerance that Islam has been able to spread demographically and culturally as well as it has. And early Christianity had this same extremely intolerant dynamic and also spread vociferously.
I think when you present secularism as this militantly rigid perspective that can't accept even politicians respectfully interacting with faith communities they represent that you do a disservice to secularism. I'm a secularist too. But my secularism can't be hurt or eroded by such things, and I think if yours can then your version of secularism is brittle. And I think the flip
Again.
You conflicting respect with adhering to religious behaviour from government institutions / political officials is wrong in a secular country .
Especially during an official act .
If she was just expressing her faith during her personal time has a citizen I couldn’t care less ….
Secularism is a principle that promotes separating religion from public life, governance, and civil affairs. It generally emphasizes the importance of non-religious considerations in shaping society and emphasizes the separation of church and state.
Has a mayor, her action is not a representation of being secular .
I could have give it a pass if she was in a foreign country but here , in Canada ?
wtf ! No !
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-into...-This is a concept Taleb has written about in various forms, especially as it pertains to religion; but it is exactly due to its rigid intolerance that Islam has been able to spread demographically and culturally as well as it has. And early Christianity had this same extreme
One post back and you were still ignorantly interpreting shoe wearing through a western not Muslim lens. You don’t get to pretend to be anything but profoundly ignorant of Islamic culture now buddy.
Lol Kelhus!
Her action does not contradict secularism. It wouldn't contradict secularism if she was muslim and wanted to wear the hijab for her own religious beliefs every day, and it certainly doesn't contradict it if she doesn't even believe in islam and is just doing this as outreach for one hour.
I'm a secularist because I don't want religious viewpoints imposed from those with political power as we see so often in the US. I believe 100% in the principles of secularism. However, secularism doesn't need to be extreme and rigid and maximalist itself. It can recognize that in situations like this, there is no threat to secularist principles by people being religious being welcome into the community and allowed to wear their religious garb. If the government tried to impose that religious garb, of course I would object. But wearing it for one hour while welcoming religious leaders? Totally innocent.
One post back and you were still ignorantly interpreting shoe wearing through a western not Muslim lens. You don’t get to pretend to be anything but profoundly ignorant of Islamic culture now buddy.
Lol Kelhus!
No I wasn't. I was very aware. That is my point. She was being tolerant and inclusive, and the Islamist guy wasn't. And will never bend an inch. In the long run, the most intolerant wins (all else being equal).
This dynamic goes on long enough with enough people and you wake up one day and you have a nation where all women are compelled to wear Hijab.
That being said, cultures/religions/ideologies aren't static through time. They do change. Islam, as generally practiced in Western nations, wasn't always as intolerant as it currently is. So we can all hope for a future where it becomes more tolerant. But I don't think every one else bending over backward for Islamists while they make zero concessions is how you get there.
Conversely at some point non Muslims will push back and start practicing some intolerance themselves, and that is another way the dynamic changes. For example, Singapore has very strict rules for how many Islamic people are allowed in the nation, and how they associate and behave. And it has worked very well to create a diverse, tolerant society without all the ethnic/religious strife we see in pretty much every other nation with an Islamic minority population.
Canada has COMPLETELY disappeared off the news cycle... thanks to the MS13 gang.
-you know how I know that your news is bullshyte.
Liberals promise 130 billion in new spending over 4 years and balanced budget in three years i think is what he said at the debate
How? Budgets balance themselves
That will add over 250 billion to the deficit
No I wasn't. I was very aware. That is my point. She was being tolerant and inclusive, and the Islamist guy wasn't. And will never bend an inch. In the long run, the most intolerant wins (all else being equal). This dynamic goes on long enough with enough people and you wake up one day and you have a nation where all women are compelled to wear Hijab.That being said, cul
I tend to agree with that and for all religions .
The only defence is matching laws with them .
To achieve a neutral and fair common /diversified society , Secularism is a societal schema that respect everyone .
Theocracies/ religion , not so much ….
Her action does not contradict secularism. It wouldn't contradict secularism if she was muslim and wanted to wear the hijab for her own religious beliefs every day, and it certainly doesn't contradict it if she doesn't even believe in islam and is just doing this as outreach for one hour.
It’s your opinion .
And yet the bolded part says the contrary with an individual in a political official act ….
Reread the definition of secularism ….many times .
The second bolded part -> nice strawman .
It got nothing with this .
In a true secular country , there shouldn’t even be the notion of respect being highlighted by wearing a religious symbols for political purpose .
Actually it offense those that are truly secular .
ESPECIALLY when that person isn’t even belonging to that religious group !
Liberals promise 130 billion in new spending over 4 years and balanced budget in three years i think is what he said at the debate
How? Budgets balance themselves
It's hilarious how much you and poilievre desperately wish you were running against Trudeau. Like the decade old quoting out of context Trudeau quips are still your go to defense for a platform you haven't actually read.
And yet the bolded part says the contrary with an individual in a political official act ….!
Not at all. I'm a secularist because I don't want the religious views of one group imposed on me through the political power of the state. This doesn't do that. Not even close. Engaging with community leaders is part of a politician's job, and if being respectful in engaging with those cultural traditions for a wide range of different cultures and faiths is all a totally normal and benign thing to do. That helps bring a diverse community into civic life - a good thing!
If Chow was saying everyone has to wear the hijab then this would absolutely violate religious freedom. But wearing a hijab for one hour of one day to be able to engage with a particular community just isn't remotely that.
What I fear is that when secularist insist on this extremely narrow and rigid perspective of secularism, it makes secularism seems comical and stringent and hard to even defend. It weakens secularism to care about this irrelevant **** instead of focusing on what really matters.
No I wasn't. I was very aware. That is my point. She was being tolerant and inclusive, and the Islamist guy wasn't. And will never bend an inch. In the long run, the most intolerant wins (all else being equal). .
That's just silly. In Islamic culture - as you pretend to be very aware - removing your shoes shows respect to the host, a dedication to keep the host's space clean and holy. That's different from how it is in the west where we are totally fine dragging mud into someone else's office on our shoes and it is considered weird to do otherwise. Neither is objectively right or wrong. But the mistake you make is to demand to impose one cultural perspective in how you are interpreting the actions of someone from another culture.
Glad Kelhus's attempts to bash muslims any chance he gets hasn't gotten better with the new user name.
Not at all. I'm a secularist because I don't want the religious views of one group imposed on me through the political power of the state. This doesn't do that. Not even close. Engaging with community leaders is part of a politician's job, and if being respectful in engaging with those cultural traditions for a wide range of different cultures and faiths is all a totally normal
It’s incredibly how u fail at every turn or u misspoken which I personally do not believe so that u misspoke …
You keep conflicting respect and again use this word as if , if a woman wouldn’t wear a religious symbol it would imply she didn’t respect them ?
Maybe u do believe it and yet further down in your text the second bolded part …
Wearing religious symbol to be ABLE to engage ?
She shouldn’t need at all and her not wearing a hijab shouldn’t change anything at all either …
I do believe you think you are in favour of secularism but your repeatedly missteps in your words saying otherwise .
U always try to tamper its meaning and actions and even in your last paragraph being scared or w.e , going to far .
It’s simple really .
Religion doesn’t take part in politics , especially shouldn’t from our leaders in officials act .
That is what secularism really is …
That's right. In some devout muslim communities, if you want to engage in a respectful dialogue with them then wearing a hijab can be a helpful way to facilitate those dialogues. You can dislike that culture, but that's the cultural tradition. Now if Chow was PUSHING government employees to wear a hijab via the power of her office or something of this nature, that would be a clear violation of secularism. But she wasn't. This was something she wore for an hour of one day to help facilitate a dialogue and is of no threat to secularism at all. Toronto is very diverse with many different faith and non-faith groups, and she engages with many of those communities.
There are two flavours of secularism. In one, you can respect a multi-cultural and diverse population with a range of religious viewpoints, keeping a clear boundary that the government doesn't use its power to push or elevate just one of those religions. In the other, you try to use the power of government to stomp down on religions it doesn't like. I don't really even like calling the latter secularism, but something of this kind is sadly increasingly in vogue in Quebec.
That's right. In some devout muslim communities, if you want to engage in a respectful dialogue with them then wearing a hijab can be a helpful way to facilitate those dialogues. You can dislike that culture, but that's the cultural tradition.
Ho man the amount of bias u believe in to justify this nonsense is amazing lol ….
To promote the ideology of that non believer , especially women, should still adhere to religious decorum or rules to bring respect from the other party in a secular country is despicable .
But hey , you are welcome to promote discrimination vs women and other groups by reducing their equal rights and value through religions.
in a secular society, there is no offence having a neutral stance .
your second point , at that point it’s not even about violating secularism, you are already in a form of theocracy at that point…..
There isn’t 2 flavour of secularism, but since we are today living in a world where words lost their meaning of what is and what isn’t , I understand why everyone cant even have a conversation starting on similar basis .
Ps: Montreal is very diverse too, no worry .
Ho man the amount of bias u believe in to justify this nonsense is amazing lol ….To promote the ideology of that non believer , especially women, should still adhere to religious decorum or rules to bring respect from the other party in a secular country is despicable .But hey , you are welcome to promote discrimination vs women and other groups by reducing their equal rights a
I don't think she is "promoting" them, and certainly not promoting their ideology or promoting discrimination. She is meeting with community faith leaders. That's all.
Perhaps this is a better way to think about it. Can we agree it would be 10x worse to come out and say that people SHOULD wear the hijab? Can we agree it would be 100x worse to make a law that required people to wear the hijab? Like if you want to count this rather innocent thing as "bad", I don't think I can convince you otherwise. But hopefully we can agree it is a vastly more minor thing than the type of stuff that secularism really needs to actually fight against, namely government using its power to force a particular religious viewpoint. This is why I find something like this no threat to secularism.
