curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Liberalism and progressiveness should be about TOLERANCE. Tolerance means to be willing to endure the existence of, and exposure to, what you dislike.
I agree wholeheartedly. I notice you posted a list of resources you followed earlier and I note many of them seem to have a distinct anti-liberal bend. Which distinctly liberal sources do you expose yourself to?
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
hissy fit? well if thats how you like to play this...
In my view, politicians everywhere should work to combat FGM.
Is that answer acceptable to you?
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
yes I do, and is Saint Trudie highlighting this problem?
If (as you suggest) UKs problem is in the judicial and not legislative branch, and you think Canada has the same problem as the UK, then that implies canadas problem recide in the legislative branch which is not the one "Saint Trudie" is in charge off.
(to avoid any misunderstandings: I'd tend to blame the parliment rather than the courts. So I'd blame Trudou/May. But that's just me).
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
look, buddy, how about scaling back the mindreading a bit?
I got absolutely no problem sharing my views on FGM/MGM so ask away. but don't put views in my mouth and respond to your own false beliefs as if they are true.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
the laws are fine, the problem is they aren't being properly enforced.
Do you think Canada could have the same problem?
You could not be more wrong.BTW going from your last two posts, you don't seem particularly bothered about FGM ...
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
But Saint Trudie is in charge now. Him and his ministers can make a difference, not previous administrations.
Yep, thats how parliment works!
I'm not a Canadian citizen and I don't even have a daughter of my own but I'm as mad as hell about it.
I take it you are from the UK, and you seem to also suffer under deficient laws. I would suggest you put your anger to good use and write Ms. May's government and demand they fix the laws!
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
LoveUniHateExams, well, we seem to have roughly the same standards for limits of free speech then, or perhaps you are a bit more restrictive than I am because I would stress a "clear and present danger" element.
Regarding your comment on page 9: I don't see your point. I hope Trudau is not in charge of the judicial branch in Canada, and if the law against FGM is to week I suppose you could blame any administration from 1997 onwards for that.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
cofty, you wrote: I'm suggesting you go back to square one and try to clarify.
Clarify what, exactly?
Lets take an example: Simon came to the conclusion that I felt speech should be limited on a criteria of emotional harm. The example I brought up where I most clearly illustratted my attitudes towards banned speech was that of the hate-preacher who incited to terrorism and it singled out the danger of violence very clearly. Do you feel that example was too ambigious, or do you feel it was clear to understand?
You prefer ambiguity. Duly noted.
nah.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
cofty, here is an example of what I mean: Where in this thread did the concept of feelings and critique (as relating to free speech) enter the conversation? I was very, very clear about my examples and they had absolutely nothing to do with feelings or a general critique.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
cofty, you are attempting argumentumt ad populum. This would be more convincing if the responses to me had not largely consisted of cartoons (sorry: visual aids), obvious misreadings, a confusion about the definition of "speech" and what appears to be a teenage girl having some sort of a breakdown.
