News   Mar 28, 2024
 42     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 213     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 2.2K     1 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Let's consider, instead of segregating by gender, my church says black people must sit in another room, with clear understanding that the non-black room is the better place to be. Then, PM Trudeau arrives, and greats the congregation, seeing a see of white faces in the pews, and then peering up to the balcony and back rooms sees all the black people isolated.

I'd like to think the PM would have refused to attend, or not if expecting this segregation, would have made note of it. And then, the public would have questioned by gov't funding (via tax exemptions) would support such segregation.

The question isn't whether the PM should visit - but whether any black person would be at a church like that voluntarily.

AoD
 
Places of worship receive significant tax exemptions. https://www.thestar.com/life/2012/05/18/are_tax_breaks_for_places_of_worship_outdated.html My church, for example, pays no property tax and its income from donations and space rental are considered charity, and taxed as non-profit rates.

Let's consider, instead of segregating by gender, my church says black people must sit in another room, with clear understanding that the non-black room is the better place to be. Then, PM Trudeau arrives, and meets the congregation, seeing a see of white faces in the pews, and then peering up to the balcony and back rooms sees all the black people isolated. I'd like to think the PM would have refused to attend, or not if expecting this segregation, would have made note of it. And then, the public would have questioned by gov't funding (via tax exemptions) would support such segregation.

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say with your hypothetical.
 
Oh, God, yes (pardon the pun). Secularism doesn't mean the absence of religion. The social conservative nonsense about the "War on Christmas" is complete garbage, of course, but every once in a while there is a bureaucrat who makes a stupid decision ("let's call it a holiday tree" or "let's call it a festive candelabra") which delights the so-cons because they can feed on it for years.

Speaking of so-cons feeding - can't beat this:


And yes, it's a Hanukkah cake in the background.

AoD
 
Our PM should not honour places that promote gender inequality and segregation, and gov't at all levels should not financially support those that do, through tax breaks. If it's 2016, after all.

Because of a hypothetical of yours about a church that makes non-whites sit in the balcony?

If the PM cancelled a visit, tour, etc. everytime there was a suggestion of inequality and segregation, gender or otherwise, in respect of a location, event or group, he'd never be able to meet with any Canadians.

We don't encourage people to engage with, and become part of, modern civic society by shunning them. Just look at the banlieus in Paris to see what that kind result that asinine approach to secularism creates.
 
A mosque whose Iman is a member of a terror group as well

And this a day after so 9/11 ceremonies. The first PM to do so. Despite the 26 Canadians who died, and the 159 who died in Afghanistan (where the Liberals sent them).

A member of a terror group? I wonder why the last government didn't arrest him then?

AoD
 
If the PM cancelled a visit, tour, etc. everytime there was a suggestion of inequality and segregation, gender or otherwise, in respect of a location, event or group, he'd never be able to meet with any Canadians.
Fair enough. I suppose we must accept that inequality and segregation are here to stay. Certainly, within my parents' lifetimes we had organizations that banned indigenous and other "non-preferred" people, and we still have male-only clubs, such as golf courses, and the catholics reserving clergy for men only.

Though, IMO, the optics would have been better had he intentionally located a mosque without gender inequality, apparently that encompasses about half of them.
 
and the 159 who died in Afghanistan (where the Liberals sent them).
159 over a 12 year campaign, or 13 dead a year? I do not mean to disrespect our war dead, but that's a very low number. In the First World War we lost 60,000 dead, for an average of 39 dead a day, or 273 a week. In the Second World War we lost 45,400 dead, or 144 a week.

You're going to lose soldiers, they're job is to kill people, of which some are expected to resist and shoot back. That said, today, with no sizable combat deployments, we lose on average 20 soldiers a year in peacetime accidents and suicides.
 
FFS, National Post, what the heck is he supposed to do?
What is supposed to do? Act like a feminist and stand up for gender equality instead of doing photo-ops. That is if being a feminism still represents gender equality...

Frankly, I want the PM to be reaching out to all communities in Canada.
Even to misogynists and homophobes? Gee I wonder how that would look if it came from Stephen Harper...
 
Just look at the banlieus in Paris to see what that kind result that asinine approach to secularism creates.
The banlieues in Paris are a result of decades of horrible policies by the French government not a so-called asinine approach to secularism.

1. The French and European immigration system is very weak compared to the Canadian one. For decades Europe has pretty much had an "everybody stays" policy. Compare that to what my parents had to go through in the 1980s and my wife later on to get to Canada. And then when I immigrated to Germany all I needed was my passport and marriage certificate. In Canada you have a point system that assesses your potential: language skills, education, age, health, criminal history but in Europe none of those things are taken into consideration. In short France and Europe in general took many immigrants with performing very checks on them.

The French Republic is secular and anybody who immigrates there should know and accept that. France should not have to give up its secular values in order to accommodate newcomers. I know many people on this forum will disagree with me but please know that I have lived in both the Middle East and Europe.

2. Most of the North African immigration occurred in France right after the Algerian war of independence, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Algerians dead. This war was brutal on both ends but was it really wise for France to take in so many Algerians after they killed 5 percent of the country? Would not quite a few of them bear a grudge against France?
 
Even to misogynists and homophobes?
The evidence speaks for itself, so yes. Trudeau's just another politician, and pragmatism always trumps what's right.
Gee I wonder how that would look if it came from Stephen Harper...
But that wasn't 2016 :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
159 over a 12 year campaign, or 13 dead a year? I do not mean to disrespect our war dead, but that's a very low number. In the First World War we lost 60,000 dead, for an average of 39 dead a day, or 273 a week. In the Second World War we lost 45,400 dead, or 144 a week.

You're going to lose soldiers, they're job is to kill people, of which some are expected to resist and shoot back. That said, today, with no sizable combat deployments, we lose on average 20 soldiers a year in peacetime accidents and suicides.

But the lives lost weren't spread out evenly. They mostly occurred after the Liberal PM (Martin) put the troops into a much more danger get out area of that country. And it is the latest loss of military lives in the past half century (and in most Canadians lifetime).

True, he must also attend ceremonies for the two great wars. But he should be attending to pay his (and the countries) respects, and not taking the opportunity to smooch and cuddle with his wife.
 
But the lives lost weren't spread out evenly. They mostly occurred after the Liberal PM (Martin) put the troops into a much more danger get out area of that country. And it is the latest loss of military lives in the past half century (and in most Canadians lifetime)..

That's totally bizarre - you can't argue for a muscular foreign policy and talk the tough talk about engaging the Taliban militarily without deploying troops to dangerous areas. If you are going to send them with an eye on safety alone, you might as well keep them home (you know, like sending 6 CF-18s and then talking tough about how Canada will fight ISIL in Syria?)

Like can you imagine if Canada went out and say - we are going to be an active combatant in the Second World War, but we are only going to put the boots down where it is safe? That sure is convincing.

AoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top