[Fiverings]

The whole thing is appalling.
http://www.cp24.com/world/nigeria-s-neighbours-consider-sending-troops-against-boko-haram-1.2190828#ixzz3OvLTfHH2



1500 issues of Charlie Hebdo will be distributed in Canada tomorrow (most already pre-bought and sold out.) They're usually only available in Toronto and Quebec, but they will be spread out to the east and west coast of Canada this time.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/charlie-hebdo-cover-new-edition-on-sale-friday-at-select-canadian-locations-1.2900122

They're selling for hundreds of dollars on e-bay, and t-shirts are being made.

   I do wonder what's really driving all this. It's like we're all part of some crazy game that makes no sense.

[Caz]

I know what you mean because I feel the same way, and it's a bit scary.

Aye....it's scary alright!

[Iluvandy]

These arguments never make sense to me.

You argue that you want to be better, ~freer~, than those countries that force you to be clothed a certain way and then go on to say that the government and you should ALSO be able to tell others to be clothed a certain way. 

Screams of hypocrisy. Just say it outright - you're intolerant of a culture that you don't agree with.  That makes you no different than the same people who force women to cover themselves, in terms of intolerance.

Your argument doesn't make much sense to me.    I would say if you don't conform to the culture of the country you are in, either permanently or temporarily, you are showing intolerance of that culture.   How can anyone argue against "when in Rome".   

[scotnadian]

These arguments never make sense to me.

You argue that you want to be better, ~freer~, than those countries that force you to be clothed a certain way and then go on to say that the government and you should ALSO be able to tell others to be clothed a certain way.

Screams of hypocrisy. Just say it outright - you're intolerant of a culture that you don't agree with.  That makes you no different than the same people who force women to cover themselves, in terms of intolerance.

I have missed you, Ms. V. Hope all is well with you.

Did you know I had 2 Muslim twin lads straight from Riyadh living in my house for almost 3 years. I was their Mamma while they were studying here. They came with few words of English. "Yes..No.. and Thank You."
Their (many) pals came over here with them to study, and my house was often full.
We had a blast together, and even though they've flown the nest, they still come to visit.

[tennis_girl]

I have missed you, Ms. V. Hope all is well with you.

Did you know I had 2 Muslim twin lads straight from Riyhad living in my house for almost 3 years. I was their Mamma while they were studying here. They came with 2 words of English. "Yes..No.. and Thank You."
Their (many) pals came over here with them to study, and my house was often full.
We had a blast together, and even though they've flown the nest, they still come to visit.

Great? Come talk to me when that anecdote is relevant. I'm pretty sure the boys weren't wearing headscarves or niqabs so that doesn't prove as a counterpoint. You still haven't explained how your decision to allow the government to dictate what women can and cannot wear in Canada is any different than the governments that dictate what women can and cannot wear in Muslim majority countries (not all, mind you). So - do you wish to say you're better than those countries who impose such harsh rules on women or do you want to say you're just as intolerant?

Your argument doesn't make much sense to me.    I would say if you don't conform to the culture of the country you are in, either permanently or temporarily, you are showing intolerance of that culture.   How can anyone argue against "when in Rome".    

I can easily argue against "when in Rome".  People bring culture to wherever they emigrate and hold steadfast to it.   No one was complaining when Europeans brought their culture to North America, killed millions, and kept their own cultures (except the Native Americans, who were really too dead or enslaved to complain).  Western countries constantly boast about how they're better than those "backwards, dictator-like" countries of the Middle East, but then argue for similar laws to be enacted - just in the opposite direction.

[scotnadian]

Great? Come talk to me when that anecdote is relevant. I'm pretty sure the boys weren't wearing headscarves or niqabs so that doesn't prove as a counterpoint. You still haven't explained how your decision to allow the government to dictate what women can and cannot wear in Canada is any different than the governments that dictate what women can and cannot wear in Muslim majority countries (not all, mind you). So - do you wish to say you're better than those countries who impose such harsh rules on women or do you want to say you're just as intolerant?

Erm.. yeah. They often wore their ghutra and thobe. I've loads of pics of them.
What usually happens when the kids come here is they do all the stuff they're not allowed to do back home. Like.. smoke, drink alcohol, girlfriends, do REAL internet surfing (not the restricted access they are used to.) It's like they've been living in a bubble. It never ceased to amaze me the lack of knowledge they had of what was/had been going on in the world.

The burqua has been banned here for swearing-in citizen ceremonies. This is common sense. The Muslim Canadian Congress had asked the Canadian Immigration Minister to introduce legislation requiring any face coverings be removed to work in the public sector or do business with government officials. I'm honestly not sure what has happened about that, but I could check.

Why do you think I am being intolerant?

[Aileen]

All I can say is that thank goodness the days of the British Empire are well and truly over.  Having ridden rough-shod over native Americans and done the same in Australia and NZ, this tiny, arrogant island of ours then proceeded to colonise India, Canada, the West Indies, along with parts of Africa and Asia.  How anyone can sing 'Land of hope and glory' and 'Rule Britannia' these days is a mystery to me because these songs are archaic and meaningless.  In fact I find them downright cringe-worthy.

[Fiverings]

I'm appalled at this news.  Whilst I feel very sorry for these families - and there are only 2,500 of them in the UK after all - it's time (a) scientists stopped trying to improve on nature with interference like this because nature will always kick back in an unpleasant way, and (b) how long will it be before 'designer babies' become the norm?  We already have GM crops, so I guess it was only a matter of time before GM embryos were on the agenda, even although MPs are saying this doesn't amount to GM, so once again it would seem that parliament is treating the electorate like we're a bunch of naïve idiots.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/mps-vote-in-favour-of-three-person-embryo-law/ar-AA8Wb11?ocid=iehp

  This has been presented to the public in a very unfortunate way. The talk of three parents may be technically accurate but it's very misleading. What happens is the the embryo nucleus created by the "real parents" is removed from the defective egg cell of the "real" mother and inserted into a healthy egg from a donor. All this supplies is the somatic support to the genetic material. There are bacteria like bodies called mitochondria with their own primitive DNA that provide the power in the cell. They are passed down the generations through the mother's egg, but have no impact on the genetic variability of the nucleus. So once this is fixed, it's a permanent fix. So it's kind of like if you were powered by faulty batteries, if you changed them you would be cured but it wouldn't affect your looks or personality etc. Of all the minefield of genetic ethics, this is at the non-controversial end in my view.