The unimportant news thread

[greg]

     Greg, do you have a favorite immigration restriction? Go back and look at them. Evaluate each one and please report back.

   

That might be something to check out.

I may be wrong on this, but I suspect that if there were way less illegal immigration then legal immigration would be much easier.

The point is (at least to me) to control population. So less illegals means that legals would have better odds of being selected to come here. And those legal people include friends and coworkers. So yeah, if a wall helps, then great.

[Karl Henning]

Caught faking.
https://reason.com/2019/09/26/canadian-green-party-edits-image-of-party-leader-to-show-her-using-a-metal-straw/

Note her response is to lie about always using a reusable cup.

Oof!

[drogulus]

The point is (at least to me) to control population. So less illegals means that legals would have better odds of being selected to come here. And those legal people include friends and coworkers. So yeah, if a wall helps, then great.

     It is to control populations on both sides. There is still the question of the justification in each case.

     

[Ken B]

Mr Mansur is a candidate for a party whose platform is explicitly anti-immigrant and implicitly anti-Moslem.  One usually expects a candidate  to agree with the public positions of his party. Hence it is fair and logical to think that Mr Mansur is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim.  It is fair and logical to think that every PPC candidate is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, unless they have explicitly disassociated themselves from that part of the PPC platform. 

You after all offered Mr. Mansur as an example of a Muslim who supports PPC.  But being a Muslim does not mean a person does not think there are too many of his fellow Muslims in Canada.

This is just name calling. nowhere do you provide evidence of your claim that Mansur wants to reduce the number of muslims in Canada. That for one thing would require removing those already here, so even if your claim that he wants fewer Muslim immigrants were true it would still obviously not support your smear. Even if he wanted zero immigration that would not reduce the number of Canadians of any sort who are already here.

What Mansur actually wants, and has argued for for decades, is Immigrants who reject sharia. He is opposed to the official multicultural policy of Canada (which btw is also expressly overridden in Quebec because it discourages learning French). His writings are available online.

[JBS]

This is just name calling. nowhere do you provide evidence of your claim that Mansur wants to reduce the number of muslims in Canada. That for one thing would require removing those already here, so even if your claim that he wants fewer Muslim immigrants were true it would still obviously not support your smear. Even if he wanted zero immigration that would not reduce the number of Canadians of any sort who are already here.

What Mansur actually wants, and has argued for for decades, is Immigrants who reject sharia. He is opposed to the official multicultural policy of Canada (which btw is also expressly overridden in Quebec because it discourages learning French). His writings are available online.

My evidence is the platform of his party, and your statement that I bolded. Rejecting sharia is rejecting Islam. Therefore ipso facto he doesn't want Muslims. (Of course, what anti-Muslim ideologues usually mean by sharia is actually just a caricature of sharia.)

[drogulus]

My evidence is the platform of his party, and your statement that I bolded. Rejecting sharia is rejecting Islam. Therefore ipso facto he doesn't want Muslims. (Of course, what anti-Muslim ideologues usually mean by sharia is actually just a caricature of sharia.)

     Isn't sharia in open societies a means of dispute resolution between consenting parties? Not that I buy that no coercion exists, I'm just asking.

[JBS]

     Isn't sharia in open societies a means of dispute resolution between consenting parties? Not that I buy that no coercion exists, I'm just asking.

It is. But that's not what antiMuslim advocates mean by it. For at least some of them it's just a code word.

[Ken B]

     Isn't sharia in open societies a means of dispute resolution between consenting parties? Not that I buy that no coercion exists, I'm just asking.

It is.

Rejecting sharia is rejecting Islam

These are contradictory statements.  Either that or you missed drogulus's point, which is that in open societies we have already ipso facto rejected sharia and what people call sharia is just a wee part of the real thing. Deathfor homosexuals or apostates isn't part of voluntary dispute resolution.


Your argument is this. I announce I will buy fewer CDs, and the only Mozart I will buy is HIP. Your conclusion is that I want to reduce my CD collection, and especially have less Mozart. Actually it's worse than that.

[JBS]

These are contradictory statements.  Either that or you missed drogulus's point, which is that in open societies we have already ipso facto rejected sharia and what people call sharia is just a wee part of the real thing. Deathfor homosexuals or apostates isn't part of voluntary dispute resolution.


Your argument is this. I announce I will buy fewer CDs, and the only Mozart I will buy is HIP. Your conclusion is that I want to reduce my CD collection, and especially have less Mozart. Actually it's worse than that.

Islamaphobes misrepresent what Sharia is. But Sharia is integral to Islam. And you can be for sharia without being for executing apostates.

You are so wrong about my argument concerning Mr. Mansur. It's actually a simple one: that he supports the platform of the party for which he is a candidate. That platform is explicitly anti-immigrant  and implicitly anti-Moslem. He supports the platform, therefore he is anti-immigrant and anti-Moslem.

[Florestan]

     Isn't sharia in open societies a means of dispute resolution between consenting parties? Not that I buy that no coercion exists, I'm just asking.

Sharia and open societies are mutually exclusive, and so are Sharia and consenting parties. Heck, you are a bloody effing atheist (please excuse my Arab French). Would you ever consent to being put to death for not believing in Allah?

[Florestan]

Islamaphobes misrepresent what Sharia is. But Sharia is integral to Islam. And you can be for sharia without being for executing apostates.

With all due respect, Jeffrey --- this is bull.

[JBS]

Sharia and open societies are mutually exclusive, and so are Sharia and consenting parties. Heck, you are a bloody effing atheist (please excuse my Arab French). Would you ever consent to being put to death for not believing in Allah?

Sharia (and halacha in Judaism) includes all areas of life, including marriage, business and  real estate deals. As well as what to eat, how to dress, etc etc. And I can adhere to them witnout thinking I have the right to kill all blasphemers and adulterers.

With all due respect, Jeffrey --- this is bull.

As an Orthodox Christian, you adhere to Church canon law, correct?
But you seem to think heretics should not be put to death.

[Florestan]

Sharia (and halacha in Judaism) includes all areas of life, including marriage, business and  real estate deals. As well as what to eat, how to dress, etc etc. And I can adhere to them witnout thinking I have the right to kill all blasphemers and adulterers.

Does halacha view atheism as a crime punishable by death? If yes, your adhering to it is explicit and implicit support for the killing of people who think differently than you.

As an Orthodox Christian, you adhere to Church canon law, correct?
But you seem to think heretics should not be put to death.

Please cite the Orthodox Church's canon law, chapter and verse, regarding atheism.

[SimonNZ]

Are these same people demanding that Christian immigrants explicitly reject the  stoning laws in Leviticus or the anti-this and anti-that prejudices found elsewhere?

[Florestan]

Are these same people demanding that Christian immigrants explicitly reject the  stoning laws in Leviticus

The stoning laws in Leviticus have been implicitly yet strongly rejected by Jesus Christ Himself.

Plus: neither Jews nor Christians have been noted for stoning people in the last millenium, while stoning people is common practice right now as I'm typing this in any number of Islamic states.

[JBS]

Does halacha view atheism as a crime punishable by death? If yes, your adhering to it is explicit and implicit support for the killing of people who think differently than you.

Please cite the Orthodox Church's canon law, chapter and verse, regarding atheism.

You seem to have the standard Christian ignorance of how Sharia in Islam and Halacha in Judaism work...in which case no conversation on the subject is worthwhile (and the required explanations would be far to long for a thread here).

I'll just point out that while halacha and sharia both impose the death penalty for homosexual sex, even the most Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't call for America to allow them to kill gays.

[JBS]

The stoning laws in Leviticus have been implicitly yet strongly rejected by Jesus Christ Himself.

Plus: neither Jews nor Christians have been noted for stoning people in the last millenium, while stoning people is common practice right now as I'm typing this in any number of Islamic states.

Jesus seems to have questioned the right to impose penalties by anyone who was themself not free of sin. The incident involved a potential stoning, but the logic applies to almost all sin. But he didn't really questiin the idea that stoning was an appropriate penalty.  He gave the woman forgiveness, not innocence.

And if Jesus did reject the death penalty, later Christians did not
From Wikipedia

United Kingdom   Edit
From 1533 the capital felony for any person to "commit the detestable and abominable vice of buggery with mankind or beast", was repealed and re-enacted several times, until it was reinstated in 1563 remaining unchanged until 1861.[26] The last execution took place on 27 November 1835 when James Pratt and John Smith were hanged at Newgate.

One source claims the last execution for sodomy in the British Empire happened in the Colony of Tasmania (now part of Australia) in 1867.[27]

United States and colonial America   Edit
See also: Sodomy laws in the United States
Colonial America had the laws of the United Kingdom, and the revolutionary states took many of those laws as the basis of their own, in some cases verbatim.[26] The last law where the death penalty was on the statute books was South Carolina, the old British law was not repealed until 1873, twelve years after the mother country.[26]

The number of times the penalty was carried out is unknown. Records support two executions, and a number of more uncertain convictions, such as "crimes against nature".[26]

The same page says that a man was arrested in 1984 for sodomy in Tasmania.

[Todd]

More ecopropaganda, again in "The Polluters" sections of The Graun: World's top three asset managers oversee $300bn fossil fuel investments

Just how ignorant are lefties?  (That's a rhetorical question: lefties are profoundly ignorant.)  The largest index investment firms manage the most assets in every publicly traded sector.  Assets managed passively on behalf of shareholders should be focused on returns to those shareholders, not the whims of activist investors.  Larger shareholders would and should rightly take legal action if asset managers abrogated their fiduciary duty.

[Florestan]

You seem to have the standard Christian ignorance of how Sharia in Islam and Halacha in Judaism work...in which case no conversation on the subject is worthwhile (and the required explanations would be far to long for a thread here).

Blah blah blah, aka evading the topic.

halacha and sharia both impose the death penalty for homosexual sex

Which means that both halacha and sharia are at odds with, and have no place in, any Western society (Israel included).

even the most Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't call for America to allow them to kill gays.

The most Orthodox Jews are impotent in this respect in Israel proper, as opposed to the most Orthodox Muslims in Iran or Saudi Arabia, which have their way alright. Israel 1- Iran/Saudi Arabia 0.

[JBS]

Blah blah blah, aka evading the topic.


Which means that both halacha and sharia are at odds with, and have no place in, any Western society (Israel included).

So you've upgraded from ignorance to bigotry, since you are saying that both Islam and Judaism "have no place in" Western society.

You remain my friend, but please understand that you seem to know a lot less on this topic than you think you do.