Moving to Canada?

[hammer2010]

Another three paragraphs full of nothing substantial, where you managed to contradict your own points yet AGAIN. Thanks for playing.

Show me one 'substantial' point you made. Oh wait, you can't you would rather come back with some smug bs that may make you come across as cool on the internet. Your focus should be bettering yourself in real life friend.

[johndeeregreen]

Quite frankly, if you've been unable to gather any legitimate points from the posts I've made, you're a mental infant. Which, really, is unsurprising, considering you did a much better job dismantling your own credibility by unwittingly contradicting your own points than I ever could. Your complete lack of original thought is only bolstered by using such an overused and cliched picture.

[hammer2010]

Quite frankly, if you've been unable to gather any legitimate points from the posts I've made, you're a mental infant. Which, really, is unsurprising, considering you did a much better job dismantling your own credibility by unwittingly contradicting your own points than I ever could. Your complete lack of original thought is only bolstered by using such an overused and cliched picture.

No no no! I'm not gonna let you off the hook. Go back and quote yourself. Don't leave it up to me. Hahaha Go back and show me one 'legitimate point' you made. Just one!

You must really enjoy getting raped, otherwise you would've stopped posting in this thread.

[johndeeregreen]

No no no! I'm not gonna let you off the hook. Go back and quote yourself. Don't leave it up to me. Hahaha Go back and show me one 'legitimate point' you made. Just one!

It's obvious you don't want to have an actual discussion about this, but sure, I'll humor you.

Explain why Canadian laws and customs should be altered for specific religions, despite the obvious nonsensical nature of doing so. For example: why should a Sikh be allowed to carry a blade to school, regardless of his intentions? It is in clear violation of school policy, and yet the exception is made due to political correctness. Nobody else, even those with the same intentions (or lack thereof), can bring weapons to school. Up to what point is religious freedom allowed to be practiced, in your opinion? Because by your posts in this tread, it's obvious that you feel that an individual's right to religious freedom supersedes the law. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, for reasons I've stated. Provide a rebuttal of why you feel an immigrant's religion is more important than long-established Canadian laws and customs.

[lilbill]

Canadians fighting! Cool! I thought they were too nice and friendly.

[RidonKs]

jdg ripping the sikhs a new asshole. i never heard of that but it is f*cking retarded. it's downright silly to let religious tolerance override basic safety procedure. kids are morons who don't know right and wrong. how is letting a kid carry a knife in anybody's best interest but his?

[johndeeregreen]

jdg ripping the sikhs a new asshole. i never heard of that but it is f*cking retarded. it's downright silly to let religious tolerance override basic safety procedure. kids are morons who don't know right and wrong. how is letting a kid carry a knife in anybody's best interest but his?

They also are exempted from wearing motorcycle helmets in some provinces. If you don't have an objection to a helmet on religious grounds, however, you unfortunately have to, you know, actually obey the law.

[Dave3]

They also are exempted from wearing motorcycle helmets in some provinces. If you don't have an objection to a helmet on religious grounds, however, you unfortunately have to, you know, actually obey the law.

That one's a little more bendable though. I mean, if you don't put other people in danger, you should be able to follow whatever beliefs you want. The no helmet thing doesn't harm anyone else.

[johndeeregreen]

That one's a little more bendable though. I mean, if you don't put other people in danger, you should be able to follow whatever beliefs you want. The no helmet thing doesn't harm anyone else.

OK, I disagree under the pretense that we should ALL be equal under the law, and laws aren't subject to which ones are convenient for us to follow. It's the duty of the state to put into place rules that we ALL must follow and enforce them for our safety.

And, technically, since we taxpayers would be bearing the brunt of putting said rider back together, it is our concern and it is hurting us. Just the same way guys that smoke for 40 years eat up our tax dollars every second they breathe in a hospital. But all right, we'll move along:

So how about them not wanting their kids to wear bike helmets? Some kid takes a header off his bike and cracks his skull wide open. Kids don't know better. That's why we have specific laws in place for those under 18. So is it okay for a 10-year-old to not have to wear his bicycle helmet?

[hammer2010]

It's obvious you don't want to have an actual discussion about this, but sure, I'll humor you.

Explain why Canadian laws and customs should be altered for specific religions, despite the obvious nonsensical nature of doing so. For example: why should a Sikh be allowed to carry a blade to school, regardless of his intentions? It is in clear violation of school policy, and yet the exception is made due to political correctness. Nobody else, even those with the same intentions (or lack thereof), can bring weapons to school. Up to what point is religious freedom allowed to be practiced, in your opinion? Because by your posts in this tread, it's obvious that you feel that an individual's right to religious freedom supersedes the law. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, for reasons I've stated. Provide a rebuttal of why you feel an immigrant's religion is more important than long-established Canadian laws and customs.

Well it turns out that the supreme court ruled in favor of the sikhs unanimously 8-0 in seeing the dagger as a religious symbol as opposed to a dangerous weapon. You are welcome to whine and b*tch about it all you want tho, doesn't change facts. If it's ever used as a weapon in a school then I will adamently oppose it. As for right now I don't see a problem with it. The point is that once we start telling people what parts of their religion is ok to practice and what parts are not then we are heading down a very slipperry slope. Especially when they are not hurting anyone. Now if it was a religious practice of the sikhs to take their daggers to school and stab whomever they saw fit then I would have a problem with it.

[johndeeregreen]

Well it turns out that the supreme court ruled in favor of the sikhs unanimously 8-0 in seeing the dagger as a religious symbol as opposed to a dangerous weapon.

That's your response? I ask you for your opinion on it and you come back with "well the Supreme Courts says so you're wrong." Come on.

If it's ever used as a weapon in a school then I will adamently oppose it. As for right now I don't see a problem with it. The point is that once we start telling people what parts of their religion is ok to practice and what parts are not then we are heading down a very slipperry slope.

As opposed to the slippery slope of changing laws for people who don't agree with them?

BTW, there is no 'slippery slope' involved with enforcing already-standing laws. Its not as if the government would be actively infringing their right to religious freedom.

You still haven't addressed why it is okay for a certain group of people to not obey laws and customs we've had in this country for hundreds of years simply because they don't like them.

As I said before, nobody is inhibiting their religious freedom unless it comes into contradiction with the law. Laws aren't subject to individual interpretation and preference. I'd love to be able to carry a pistol, even though I would have no intention of ever using it unless in dire self-defense, but I can't. Why not? It's against the law. Just because you have a strong moral conviction against a law doesn't make it any less valid; the law is the law. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the government should bow to you. Accommodation within reason. Our gov't is extremely accommodating to different cultures/races/religions/dialects, and yet people still want more. It's asinine. If you come to a country, you are subject to the laws of it. If you don't like them - as you said - leave.

[hammer2010]

That's your response? I ask you for your opinion on it and you come back with "well the Supreme Courts says so you're wrong." Come on.


As opposed to the slippery slope of changing laws for people who don't agree with them?

You still haven't addressed why it is okay for a certain group of people to not obey laws and customs we've had in this country for hundreds of years simply because they don't like them.

As I said before, nobody is inhibiting their religious freedom unless it comes into contradiction with the law. Laws aren't subject to individual interpretation and preference. I'd love to be able to carry a pistol, even though I would have no intention of ever using it unless in dire self-defense, but I can't. Why not? It's against the law. Just because you have a strong moral conviction against a law doesn't make it any less valid; the law is the law. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the government should bow to you. Accommodation within reason. Our gov't is extremely accommodating to different cultures/races/religions/dialects, and yet people still want more. It's asinine. If you come to a country, you are subject to the laws of it. If you don't like them - as you said - leave.

The supreme court is the highest court in the land genius! BEING ALLOWED TO CARRY A DAGGER TO SCHOOL IF YOU ARE A SIKH AND YOU WISH TO DO SO, IS THE LAW! Nobody is bending any laws. The highest court in the land says it is. Laws change, and if it is deemed as a danger to other people then this law will also fall. As of right now there is no precedence. So I support the court ruling.

LOL at you saying they should leave because they can't follow the laws when in fact they aren't breaking any laws.

[moaz]

some note about immigrants language skills:

[LIST][*]Skilled worker class, investor/entrepreneur class/ work visa/ province nominee class immigrants have to prove their English/French language skills BEFORE the come to Canada.[*]The only exceptions are family class immigrants and refugees.[*]I've never meet any second generation children, who can't speak English/French. If u are blindfolded u would never distinguish them from any 5th generation Canadians.[*]We NEED these kids by the way to pay our pensions. Not their parents.[*]Thats said, all the studies made about economic impact of immigrants states that they put in our society much more money than they get back. They don't go so often to healthcare facilities, they pay their taxes, they buy homes and so on (exception again refugees in their first 5 years).[/LIST]

I,m also against sharp daggers in schools (they could use plastic things instead) but again we don't hear bout Sikhs running crazy every day.

BTW for clarity: I'm first generation immigrant. And I love this country. I'm proud when my 5 years old son sings Oh Canada whenever he sees a Canadian flag. For gods sake he already knows more about Ice hokey than I do.

[hammer2010]

some note about immigrants language skills:

[LIST][*]Skilled worker class, investor/entrepreneur class/ work visa/ province nominee class immigrants have to prove their English/French language skills BEFORE the come to Canada.[*]The only exceptions are family class immigrants and refugees.[*]I've never meet any second generation children, who can't speak English/French. If u are blindfolded u would never distinguish them from any 5th generation Canadians.[*]We NEED these kids by the way to pay our pensions. Not their parents.[*]Thats said, all the studies made about economic impact of immigrants states that they put in our society much more money than they get back. They don't go so often to healthcare facilities, they pay their taxes, they buy homes and so on (exception again refugees in their first 5 years).[/LIST]

I,m also against sharp daggers in schools (they could use plastic things instead) but again we don't hear bout Sikhs running crazy every day.

BTW for clarity: I'm first generation immigrant. And I love this country. I'm proud when my 5 years old son sings Oh Canada whenever he sees a Canadian flag. For gods sake he already knows more about Ice hokey than I do.

Ya but to these Harper conservative BLOWHARDS all immigrants are freeloading, welfare dead weights who shouldn't be here cus they smell like curry. But they can't say that so they bring out all these other meaningless arguments like our government bends to immigrant wishes without getting anything in return bs. I know this because I live in Alberta and I come across these idiots almost daily. I am a 3rd gen white immigrant so 90% are openly racist anyway unless around other immigrants.

[MMM]

Ya but to these Harper conservative BLOWHARDS all immigrants are freeloading, welfare dead weights who shouldn't be here cus they smell like curry. But they can't say that so they bring out all these other meaningless arguments like our government bends to immigrant wishes without getting anything in return bs. I know this because I live in Alberta and I come across these idiots almost daily. I am a 3rd gen white immigrant so 90% are openly racist anyway unless around other immigrants.

Aren't the Conservatives making inroads in the immigrant communities???? Wasn't the immigration minister given a lot of credit for getting a lot of south west Asian communities in the 905 to switch and south east Asian communities in the lower main land to vote Conservative in the last election resulting in the first Conservative majority since the late 80's/early 90's.