Standing up against bigotry.

So, The other day Baroness Warsi appeared and delivered a speech that went something like: “If we treated any other ethnic minorities the way we treat Muslims, we’d be prosecuted, so: Knock it the fuck off.”

There was more to it that that, including the now oft-parroted soundbyte: “Dinner Party Threshold” whatever the shit that is.

So... Baroness Warsi is 1, A Muslim. 2, A Muslim that doesn’t fit into the Mail’s definition of what a Muslim should be 3, A Woman. 4, A woman who speaks her mind. 5, A woman who doesn’t wear a bikini, which means when she speaks her mind they can’t throw in some saucy pics of her in a bikini taken. 6, Speaking out about the overt racism the Mail encourages.

BUT they have to at least try to keep up the pretence that they’re not racist themselves. This involves some clever writing. Presenting: The wonders of the inverted comma!

Links through Itsyotsy, so no plusses to Mail Traffic.

Quote :

Muslim baroness warns the 'bigots': Dinner party Islamophobia is rife, says Warsi

And:

Quote :

Baroness Warsi triggers backlash over 'Islamophobia'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The articles are filled with them, ther purpose, of course, is to imply that these topics are mis-represented or mis-understood by the person using them. 'Islamophobia is a catch-all smear, after all, dreamed up by liberals in order to belittle people with true British heart and pride. Just like how the term 'racist’ after all was invented by a gay Russain Marxist, and is only used by liberals when they can’t debate the facts, don’t cha know.

So, my quick google search turned up four articles. Two news pieces and two columnists. See if you can guess who one of the columnists is...

Quote :

Muslim baroness warns the 'bigots': Dinner party Islamophobia is rife, says Warsi

‘Bigots’.

This one was printed the day before her speech was delivered, and speculates on the potential contents and implications.

Quote :

Her high-profile intervention

It’s a speech at a university. It’s not exactly being delivered at the fucking Hague!

Quote :

Lady Warsi’s controversial speech will lay her open to the charge that she has sided with her own community at a time when Christian leaders are also concerned that public respect for their faith has diminished.

Yeah! Fuck those oppressed and near-segregated Muslims! There’s proper Christian folk wringing their hands over here! But what do you expect? She’s one of them.

The article gets a little bogged down in the middle, so to spice it up, it throws in a little fear that they’re taking over:

Quote :

There are around 2.9million Muslims in Britain today, up from 1.6million in 2001.

The country has seen ten years of rapid growth in its Muslim population.

This took a little going into. The 1.6 Million figure does represent the number of Muslims living in Britain as per the 2001 Census. The 2.9 Million Figure is an estimate of the number of Muslims living in the United Kingdom. Done by these guys as far as I can tell.


On their own, those figures are scary, not so much when listed alongside the actual population of the UK, which is 58.8 million, as of 2001. This is why this figure is never mentioned.

Quote :

To temper Lady Warsi’s argument, she will also acknowledge that Britain has a long history of diversity and tolerance.

This is a bizarre turn of phrase. Usually, when one tempers an argument, the provide an opposing viewpoint. Tempering an argument is like balancing it, right?
So, Baroness Warsi is saying: “We should stop being so overtly racist towards Muslims. On the other hand, the UK has a long history of being accepting of diversity.”

I don’t get it.

Unless my definition of tempering an arguement is wrong.

Anyway, onto an article written after she delivered her speech:

Quote :

Baroness Warsi triggers backlash over 'Islamophobia'

Well, I listened to the news last night, I listened to the news this morning... I follow quite a few news outlets on the internet, and so far, this Daily Mail article is the only one presenting any form of ‘Backlash’.

Oh, wait... There is a backlash, from Norman Tebbit. You know, the guy who supports UKIP, or the posh BNP as I call it. He takes the Mail’s stance that them poor (78.1% of the UK population at last count) Christians have it just as hard.

So, there is a backlash, but only from dipsticks.

Quote :

But former Tory MP Paul Goodman said: ‘She’s right about Muslims because some of what’s broadcast and written about them is dangerous. Try swapping the word “Muslim” when you see it in a newspaper headline with the word “Jewish”.’

Okay, now onto the real tossers: The Mail Columnists.

Fisrt up: Anne Shooter, writing the day before Warsi’s speech.

This column is bizarre, I can only assume that Ms Shooter either hasn’t read the details of Warsi’s speech and her intention, or simply doesn’t understand it.
I’ll just break through the opening:

Quote :

I don't like being told what I can and can't talk about - or think about - in this way.

Urm.. You are not being told what to think, nor are any rules being put in place over what you say. It is simply being called to attention that we wouldn’t allow for, say, Jews to be treated as we treat Muslims, so maybe we should check ourselves for bigotry before we spot a load of inflammatory nonsense... Like, say, we do when speaking about any other minority group.

Quote :

Until we have more strong, positive Muslim role models, what Baroness Warsi describes is, indeed, the kind of way many people will think.

Yes... This is what Warsi is saying... You are correct... Have a fucking lollipop.

Quote :

We don't have people in this country in senior positions in any field that I know of who wear a burka, and talk about it.

We don’t have anyone in senior positions who wear sackcloth and talk about it either... What’s your fucking point?

Quote :

So yes, to many of us it is something that will make us think that the woman wearing it is a very religious Muslim, and we are not quite sure what that means.

It means... that they may be a Muslim... If you’re making a point, I’m really not getting it.

I know a guy who wears those orange Buddhist robes... It’s odd to me, but it signifies that he’s a Buddhist. Why, then is the burka such a problem...

Hell, I went to a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury once, and you should have seen some of the daft things folks there were wearing...

Quote :

Is ultra-religious the same as fundamentalist? Does the woman want to be covering her face? What is her husband like? Does it make us racists that we don't know the answers to these questions?

No. Presumably. Ask her. No, it just makes you ignorant. You can fix this yourself.

Does this woman really get paid for being this daft? Is being stupid a skill?

Quote :

The main threat to Western, democratic society at the moment is from fundamentalist Muslims.

Citation needed.

Quote :

Baroness Warsi should be looking to change our views and allay our concerns by showing us other members of the Muslim community who, like her, are positive role models, integrated into British society and really valued members of our communities.

USE GOOGLE YOU IGNORANT WOMAN! There really are plenty of them! But as they, as pointed out earlier, only mare up less than 5% of the population, they’re quite rare, not because of refusal to integrate and contribute, but because of statistics!

Quote :

Criticising us for what is behaviour which is largely based on fear is not the way forward.

But pointing out that the behaviour is fear-based, and pointing out that papers, LIKE THE FUCKING MAIL, contribute the majority of misinformation that feeds this fear IS the way forward.

Okay... Now the big one... The cloaca himself. Richard Littlejohn.

Quote :

What kind of dinner parties do you go to, Baroness?

And this is why I hated that soundbyte... Because dickheads like Littlejohn would deliberately misinterpret it.

Onwards...

Quote :

why has she chosen now to claim that prejudice and bigotry against Muslims is widespread in Britain?

In politics, as in comedy, timing is everything. With the inquiry into the London Transport terrorist attack reminding us daily of the atrocities committed in the name of Allah, not to mention the recent revelations about gangs of Muslim men targeting and raping filthy infidel whores on the streets of British cities, Sayeeda Warsi has hardly picked the most opportune moment to accuse the rest of us of raging ‘Islamophobia’.

First: Inverted commas.

Second: Pointing out that fear towards all Muslims is irrational at a time when papers are highlighting the horrific actions of a bunch of bastards who claim to be Muslims is, I don’t know, EXCELLENT timing!

Do you think it would be better if she allowed harmful myths to settle before speaking out against them?

...

Oh, of course you do... Forgot who I was talking about for a second there.

Quote :

She alleges that anti-Muslim bigotry has crossed the dinner party threshold and is socially acceptable.

I don’t know what kind of dinner parties Sayeeda goes to. The last time we had a few friends round for a meal was over Christmas.

READ YOUR OWN FUCKING ARTICLES, DICKHEAD!

This is followed by an in-depth investigation of ‘Dinner-Party culture’, wherein Littlejohn proves that Warsi is wrong, because he didn’t remember Muslims being a topic of conversation at his Christmas party.

Moron.

Quote :

‘In the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: “Not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim.” ’
Really?

Yes.

Quote :

‘In the school, the kids say: “The family next door are Muslims, but they’re not too bad.” 
Do they?

Yes.

Quote :

‘And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: “That woman is either oppressed or is making a political statement.” ’
Are you sure?

YOU’VE SAID IT YOURSELF!

Quote :

Most of us just think anyone who wears a burka in Britain is barking mad and wonder why someone who so utterly rejects our society and our liberal values would want to live here. Surely they would be much happier in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Let’s try something: “Most of us just think anyone who wears a Star of David in Britain is barking mad and wonder why someone who so utterly rejects our society and our liberal values would want to live here. Surely they would be much happier in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.”

Has it ever crossed your mind, Richard, that these women wear a burka on the street in the UK because they can? Because out liberal values allow anyone to express themselves in whatever form they wish?

Quote :

The problem is exacerbated by the huge increase in immigration under Labour. There are now almost three million Muslims living in Britain, an increase of 50 per cent since 2001. Who voted for that? It can’t all be explained by a high birthrate.

That figure is an estimate. Even if it is accurate, 3 million, within 60 million, really isn’t that much of an influx, is it?

Blame Labour – Immigration is out of control, oh and insinuate that Muslims are breeding like rabbits.

Fuck off.

Quote :

After 9/11 and 7/7, we were urged to ‘reach out’ to Muslims. Some people thought maybe the ‘reaching out’ should come from the other direction. After all, these attacks were committed in the name of Islam, whoever was responsible.

The attacks were not committed in the name of Islam. No more than the Holocaust was done in the name of Christianity.

Fuck... Did I just Godwin myself?

Quote :

But many people are now genuinely concerned about the past decade of Islamic expansionism. Rightly or wrongly, they fear the transformation of British society in some areas, from the intrusive call to prayer in the inner cities to the ubiquity of halal meat in supermarkets.

We got used to Kosher foods. We got used to Chinese food. We celebrate Chinese New Year without a problem. We got used to Curry & many schools celebrate, or at least observe Diwali.

We did all of that and the British identity was not lost.

Adding another section to Tesco is not going to cause the downfall of our nation.

Quote :

That doesn’t make them racists

Quite right, it doesn’t. It makes them ignorant and fearful. A condition your paper has caused, and one that your paper can remedy if it tried.

You’ll not I cut Littlejohn off mid sentence there... The rest of the sentence, unfortunately, makes me cross:

Quote :

or guilty of the lazy, catch-all smear ‘Islamophobia’.

Inverted Commas.

It is not a ‘lazy catch-all smear’, you cock. No more than ‘Racist’ is a term used only by liberals who can’t debate the facts.

Quote :

I’m sure that Baroness Warsi is genuinely concerned with improving race relations in Britain. ­Traducing her fellow citizens isn’t the best way to go about it.

Kudos for Littlejohn for the use of the word ‘Traducing’. I had to Google it. I guess I’m not as sesquipedalian as I thought.

Can you guess what it means?

Here:

Quote :

ra•duce (tr-ds, -dys)

To cause humiliation or disgrace to by making malicious and false statements.

Fucking...

Fuck.

Quote :

Rightly or wrongly, they fear the transformation of British society in some areas, from the intrusive call to prayer in the inner cities to the ubiquity of halal meat in supermarkets.

Bloody hell, just ignore it. I'm an atheist and I don't feel the need to cover my ears and scream oppression every time I hear church bells. lol at people getting riled up about how the stuff on their plates is killed. They do realise that chickens that make up the oh-so-British Sunday dinner get their throats cut in exactly the same way, right?

Am I supposed to be able to read that text there, or just be looking at the quotes? It's just on the verge of being readable.

You British idiots really take tabloids seriously, don't you? I'm beginning to think declaring independence was the right thing to do.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

You British idiots really take tabloids seriously, don't you?

Well, to be fair the Mail is just on that edge. It's slightly too serious to be considered a tabloid (though it's tabloid size, so is the Times), but too crap to be considered real news. It shares that position with the Express.

Oh Daily Fail, you strike again.

And how the fuck does the daily call to prayer and halal meat make your life any more difficult?

Good post, WD. I read Smellyface's article earlier today and spent about two hours incoherently angry. You're coherently angry, which is lovely

I'll just play devil's advocate here for a moment and bring up that when not faced with ridiculous fear-based biggotry, Islam has a particularly hard time dealing with honest criticism of the religion. Everybody Draw Mohammed day was an example of this, where an event was concieved solely to show a religion that they are not above criticism and free speech (which is totally different from shame and terrorism accusations of people and culture). This was a result of previous threats made when islam was criticised or mocked in comic form. The result? Pakistan ragequit the internet.

Even the most stuffed up Christian fundies tend not to threaten death when asked honestly, "Dude, how can you seriously explain the immaculate conception?"

I'm totally down with not targeting middle-eastern-looking people at airports, but I will totally bring up your-old-book-makes-no-sense arguments without feeling a twinge of guilt, and I don't feel like I need to silently accept another person's religious traditions/needs/laws/whatever as my own.

Sakurelf wrote:

I'll just play devil's advocate here for a moment and bring up that when not faced with ridiculous fear-based biggotry, Islam has a particularly hard time dealing with honest criticism of the religion. Everybody Draw Mohammed day was an example of this, where an event was concieved solely to show a religion that they are not above criticism and free speech (which is totally different from shame and terrorism accusations of people and culture). This was a result of previous threats made when islam was criticised or mocked in comic form. The result? Pakistan ragequit the internet.

Even the most stuffed up Christian fundies tend not to threaten death when asked honestly, "Dude, how can you seriously explain the immaculate conception?"

I'm totally down with not targeting middle-eastern-looking people at airports, but I will totally bring up your-old-book-makes-no-sense arguments without feeling a twinge of guilt, and I don't feel like I need to silently accept another person's religious traditions/needs/laws/whatever as my own.

Could the overreactions to criticism not be because of the way Muslims face a lot more bigotry than Christians ever do.

The sad fact is, bigotry against Muslims is, as Baroness Warsi put it, socially acceptable. When people face bigotry, they will fight it. When people feel attacked, they fight it. When a group of people who face a lot of bigotry see a mainstream effort to laugh at their cultural norms, they're probably not going to take that well either.

Quote :

Could the overreactions to criticism not be because of the way Muslims face a lot more bigotry than Christians ever do.

The sad fact is, bigotry against Muslims is, as Baroness Warsi put it, socially acceptable. When people face bigotry, they will fight it. When people feel attacked, they fight it. When a group of people who face a lot of bigotry see a mainstream effort to laugh at their cultural norms, they're probably not going to take that well either.

I think it's the difference between having the right to not be persecuted, which everyone has, and the right to not be offended. Which, as this very website proves, no one has. No one's religion is so sacred as to be above honest criticism. Not hatred or violence, but honest questioning.

Sakurelf wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Could the overreactions to criticism not be because of the way Muslims face a lot more bigotry than Christians ever do.

The sad fact is, bigotry against Muslims is, as Baroness Warsi put it, socially acceptable. When people face bigotry, they will fight it. When people feel attacked, they fight it. When a group of people who face a lot of bigotry see a mainstream effort to laugh at their cultural norms, they're probably not going to take that well either.

I think it's the difference between having the right to not be persecuted, which everyone has, and the right to not be offended. Which, as this very website proves, no one has. No one's religion is so sacred as to be above honest criticism. Not hatred or violence, but honest questioning.

I can see where ZoZo's coming from, but I also see (and agree with, for that matter) Sakurelf's arguments.

A few hundred years ago, you had Christians in Europe and the Americas regularly torturing and killing each other over doctrinal differences that to us would seem so incredibly small as to be hardly worth mentioning (the Anabaptists, for example, were one group that got regularly shit on by both Protestants and Catholics when said Protestants and Catholics weren't killing each other). So there, we had Christian fanatics.

Now we have some Muslim fanatics who riot over drawings of Mohammad and threaten people who criticize Islam like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (one of my heroines, btw). We have Jewish fanatics who defend every single comment made by Moses Maimonides, no matter how racist or strange it may seem today, simply because of who Maimonides was. And we have people like Fred Phelps in America.

In short, yes, fanaticism makes people do strange things, sometimes horrible things, and part of growing the fuck up and living with others in a multicultural society is realizing that your sacred cows are not sacred to everyone and that furthermore, other people may say this in no uncertain terms. And they should have that right to say that. I don't really care about things like atheist bus advertisements, artwork like "Piss Christ", or anti-Christian, anti-theist statements I may read on a site like, say, FSTDT. Of course, I may disagree with their message, I may think that that person saying these things or doing these things is wrong, but just because I disagree, that doesn't give me the right to try to change that person's mind through violence or intimidation.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that non-Muslim European need to respect Muslim Europeans' right to be Muslim and live in a manner consistent with their beliefs as long as that doesn't infringe upon everyone else, and Muslim Europeans need to respect non-Muslims' right to be non-Muslim, and that includes everything from drawing Mohammed to criticizing the very philosophical foundations of the Islamic religion, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done. Trying to shut a person up by threatening them, hurting them, or killing them isn't an act of faith, it's an act of fear.

My two cents: Multiculturalism is a fine ideal, but its a lot like communism: A failure in practice. The only way for a country to be strong is through unity. Unity of culture, of language, of values. This does not mean that we must force everyone to be the same, always. However, a certain measure of integration must be expected from immigrants, no matter where they are from. If I moved to Syria or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, you can count on the fact that I would have to adapt and integrate to their cultures. When they are coming to my country, I expect the same from them. I don't mind that they might choose to wear a hijab. What gets my gear is when they live here, expecting all the benefits of Canadian (in my case) citizenship, yet utterly reject our culture, values and style of life.

An anecdote: My mother is a businesswoman. She owns her own art gallery and framing shop. An excellent one, one of the best in our city. One day, I was helping around the store when a gentleman of Middle Eastern descent entered the store, with a woman whom I presume was his wife walking a few steps behind him, eyes to the ground. This man looked at our art for a little bit, quietly browsing, mindling his own business. That is, until my mother exited her office and went out to see if he needed any help. Upon seeing my mother, a woman owning a business and going about with her head uncovered, he became quite angry. He launched into a loud tirade in Arabic interspersed with broken English. The general message of this tirade was: "An inferior heathen woman like you has no right to go about with your head uncovered, and you have even less right to own a business". We threw him out.

It's stuff like that that pisses me off. If you don't like how we do things in this country, then don't let the door hit you on your way out, asshole.

I don't expect them to become identical to old-stock Canadians in a few years. All I want is for them to learn the language and integrate into the culture. Most importantly, I want them to learn to forget the old biases, prejudices and hatreds they inherited from the Old World. Those are the things that make them clash with Western culture, those are the things that most people find so distasteful, and those are the things that should not be carried into the New World.

EricD wrote:

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! HOW DARE THOSE BARBARIC IMMIGRANTS HOLD ON TO THEIR OLD WAYS! THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO PLACE IN POLITE SOCIETY! BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Seriously.

Quote :

The general message of this tirade was: "An inferior heathen woman like you has no right to go about with your head uncovered, and you have even less right to own a business".

This is wrong. But not because it's part of his original culture. Fuck off.

Holding on to the old ways leads to stagnation, stagnation is death, in nature and amongst humanity. Things must continually revive and revitalize themselves, or else they perish. Western civilization is the greatest in the world because it is the best at doing so.

I have nothing against tradition. My own attachments to the monarchy and the British heritage of Old Canada can attest to that. What I do have something against is when someone carries the feuds and disputes and hatreds of the Old World into the New. Nothing will ever be resolved so long as people cling to such ancient vendettas. Muslim against Jew, Christian against Muslim (and vice versa), Sunni against Shia, Catholic against Protestant. These things must be forgotten, or else our civilization, and all the good it has brought, will crash like a ship against a rocky shore.

It is not a sin to be born to ignorance and hate. It is a terrible sin to stay there.

However, I have a right to my opinion, and you have a right to not listen.

Quote :

Most importantly, I want them to learn to forget the old biases, prejudices and hatreds they inherited from the Old World.

Yes! They should take on the biases, prejudices and hatreds of the New World instead. Instead of forcing women to cover up, they should ogle and hoot at them when they strip off and use their naked bodies to sell everything. As an added bonus, they can continue to think of them as babymakers and blame them when they get raped!

Quote :

Holding on to the old ways leads to stagnation, stagnation is death, in nature and amongst humanity. [...]I have nothing against tradition. My own attachments to the monarchy

AAAAH HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA YOU'RE ATTACHED TO AN OUTDATED MODE OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S NOW LARGELY CEREMONIAL

ps did the colonists adapt to the indigenous culture? yah didn't think so, that's why you're so afraid of immigrants now

holy shit you guys I cracked it, white north americans are scared they'll get wiped out like the injuns

EricD wrote:

Holding on to the old ways leads to stagnation, stagnation is death, in nature and amongst humanity. Things must continually revive and revitalize themselves, or else they perish. Western civilization is the greatest in the world because it is the best at doing so.

So if you're going to stagnate, stagnate in Western culture!

Quote :

I have nothing against tradition. My own attachments to the monarchy and the British heritage of Old Canada can attest to that.

Wait. What the fuck? There are still people who feel attached to the monarchy?

Quote :

Nothing will ever be resolved so long as people cling to such ancient vendettas. Muslim against Jew, Christian against Muslim (and vice versa), Sunni against Shia, Catholic against Protestant. These things must be forgotten, or else our civilization, and all the good it has brought, will crash like a ship against a rocky shore.

That's why everyone should just bend to the will and conform to white, western culture! When we're all the same, everything will be a gleaming utopia. Because we'll all agree with each other all the time!

Quote :

These things must be forgotten, or else our civilization, and all the good it has brought, will crash like a ship against a rocky shore.

By civilization, I'm guessing you mean white, Christian civilization. Because it's the only civilization amongst hordes of uncivilized barbarians!

Quote :

It is not a sin to be born to ignorance and hate. It is a terrible sin to stay there.

All your pretty phrasing can't hide the fact that you're a racist, ethnocentric fuckwit.

Quote :

However, I have a right to my opinion, and you have a right to not listen.

You have the right to be a racist, ethnocentric fuckwit, but we all have the right to spend the next five pages telling you why you're a racist, ethnocentric fuckwit.

Yes, there are still people attached to the Monarchy. We are called monarchists. We have quite extensive arguments about why we prize our Monarchy. You can find them on their own time, for I have neither the time nor the patience to explain it to you. The Monarchist League of Canada can explain it all to you, or the blog The Monarchist can do it as well. An institution does not last for nearly a thousand years without holding some lasting merit.

I am no racist, sir. When have I ever said anything about race here? I couldn't give a damn about the colour of someone's skin, or eyes, or hair, or what continent their forefathers came from.

Cyberwulf: Actually, the original European immigrants DID adapt to the Native way of life. Look to the Coreur de Bois and Voyageurs in Canadian history, or the frontiersmen of American history. They adopted many Native ways because Native ways were simply the best way to survive in their enviroment. Things change, and Europeans became the majority.

Right now, the best way for our immigrants to survive and thrive in their new home is to learn our language and integrate with our culture. This does not mean forget their roots, but keep the good from their culture, leave the bad behind. Honour the past and embrace the future. If Muslims become the majority in Canada and start demanding that I learn Arabic to adapt and integrate with them, well then I suppose I shall have no choice but to do so. That is life. But at this moment in history, we are the majority, and this is our country. Canada does not need to make itself relevant to them, they should make themselves relevant to Canada.

And if they don't like it that way, they can leave. 'Tis no skin off my nose.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Lady Anne wrote:

Obvious troll is obvious.

This guy has been around awhile and has had no previous trolling record.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Obvious troll is obvious.

This guy has been around awhile and has had no previous trolling record.

He doesn't have many posts. Also, didn't this conversation used to be in another thread?

EricD wrote:

Yes, there are still people attached to the Monarchy. We are called monarchists. We have quite extensive arguments about why we prize our Monarchy. You can find them on their own time[...]

I'm Canadian, too. You do realise that the monarchy doesn't do anything here, much less in their own country, right? I mean, besides pop by for a visit and run up a huge federal bill. They have no political power, solve no problems, balance nothing. They're fancy decorations. We just like mum because she's nice and has cute corgies. Canada has always been a sucker for dogs.

Sakurelf, I refer you to this webpage: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Also, this one [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

EricD wrote:

Sakurelf, I refer you to this webpage: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This website is dumb and full of circular logic.

"We should have a monarchy because monarchists like it that way!"

Quote :

Canadians living in a diverse and mobile society rarely properly describe people as "foreigners". We judge individuals not by the place of their birth, the colour of their skin or their accents, but by their character and their contribution to Canadian society. By this standard our Queen is as Canadian as can be: in her length of service to the country, in her pride in being our Queen and our reciprocal affection for her, in her being the embodiment of citizenship, the source of law and the guardian of the constitution, and in her linking us to the multi-cultural peaceful alliance that is the Commonwealth. When The Queen is not present, a number of our fellow Canadians represent her as Governor General and lieutenant governors.

Why, hello there, circular logic. "We keep the queen around because she contributes so much! She contributes the MOST because she's the queen!"

"We need to respect royals because they're royal!"

Quote :

Just as in our own families, our shared national family, the members of the Royal Family, each have their own personalities, particular interests and quirks. Again as in our own families, the failure of a marriage or the fact we can’t stand certain relatives does not lead us to seek the destruction of the institution of the family.

Dude. (Democratic) Government is not a family. It never has been. When we don't like someone, we boot them out on their ass ASAP. Heck, Canada is even nicer than the US. they don't allow anyone to stay the head of the family for more than 8 years.

Quote :

The Queen and her representatives serve to encourage elements of nationhood which are not so easily accomplished by politicians, to provide a focus on things that unite rather than divide Canadians, to celebrate our ideals, to honour our best efforts and to be the emergency back-up should the system ever break down.

This is just stupid.

1) We're not in WWII. We can stop caring about patriotic BS now.
2) there are a lot of painfully archaic laws still out there. You know how you were bitching about natives being jerks in the other thread? I live near a native reserve. My mother works with those natives on the reserve (who all happen to live well below the poverty line). They are not allowed to develop their land, build a building or even maintain their crumbling buildings unless they recieve written permission from the queen. Yes, a community of about 75 people on a tiny scrap of shitty land who are too poor to go anywhere else can't even do the republican thing of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps unless they get the time and energy of a woman they're never met who lives on the other side of the planet.

Oh, but she's unifying us.


I didn't bother with your other links. I assume they're as redicudumb as this one.

Lady Anne wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Obvious troll is obvious.

This guy has been around awhile and has had no previous trolling record.

He doesn't have many posts. Also, didn't this conversation used to be in another thread?

That's what I was thinking. I swear I've read a variation of what he's saying somewhere before on GAFF, and I'm pretty sure it was posted by him.

Perhaps he keeps it saved in his files for whenever discussions about racial purity come up?

Interestingly, our local clinic has a LOT of doctors from the Middle East, some of whom are Muslim and not a small number of which are women. I've actually gone to two different female doctors who were Muslim. Neither one wore a burquah, though one of them dressed modestly, in longer skirts and long-sleeved blouses, and kept her head covered (which in a town where you regularly encounter Amish and Mennonite women in the grocery store isn't really likely to draw that much attention). The other dressed in a skirt and blouse and the standard white lab coat, but didn't wear a head covering.

Both of them were excellent doctor (better than a lot of male doctors I've gone to). I know the more conservative one only saw female patients, but she was a part of a practice consisting of five other doctors besides her, so it's not like refusing to see male patients meant things weren't evenly divided up. The other one saw patients of both sexes.

I always assumed, given that she'd been to medical school, she dressed the way she dressed because she chose to. It was likely how she was raised, and like most of the Amish and Mennonite women I've known, she would have felt practically naked in what we consider 'normal clothes'. On the other hand, her parents sent her to medical school, which leads me to believe they didn't view woman as inferior beings whose only job was to please their husband and have babies.

The female doctors from the Middle East at Internal Medicine dress no differently from any other women doctor I've encountered. And the male doctors don't treat women patients as if they're 'inferior' in any way (if they did, they wouldn't have me as a patient-I've been known to quite seeing male doctors that I felt were being condescending towards me. And all of them were white males).

Sakurelf, let me begin by commending you on actually taking the time to attempt to refute my points. I do love debate.

Firstly, of course the Monarchists want it that way. That's WHY they're Monarchists.

Now, moving on, I shall try to give you my personal reasons for being a monarchist.

Why do I respect the Royal Family: Their admirable sense of duty to their country. Prince Henry has served in Iraq. Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the Falklands War. The entire Royal Family stayed and endured the Blitz with the rest of the Londoners during the war when they could have been evacuated at a word from the King. That admirable sense of noblesse oblige is something you don't see from politicians these days. They have honour. They are decent people. I respect that more than I respect any sleezy politician who just wants my vote.

Why do I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy: I believe that our system of democratic constitutional monarchy is, quite simply, the best form of democracy in the world. It gives us a politically neutral arbiter of government, in theory the Queen, but in practice our Governor General, who only acts in the name of the Queen. If there is a deadlock in Parliament, the Governor General is there to resolve it. If Government proves unsatisfactory, yet no one will propose a motion of non confidence, the Governor General is there to dissolve it and appoint an interim government until an election can be called. The Governor General must be neutral, so he or she cannot be an elected official, for elections inevitably politicize the office. The Governor General MUST be appointed so that he or she can be a fair, unbiased arbiter. Who is only person with the power to do so, and thus the person who keeps our entire system running smoothly? Her Majesty Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada.

So, I ask you this: If the Monarchy is so obsolete, can you come up with a more beneficial alternative? Bear in mind that any change to the Monarchy's role in Government must be approved by a unanimous federal-provincial decision. So you'll need a proposal that every province in Canada, and the federal government, will all unanimously agree to, and a proposal that works better than constitutional monarchy. I think you shall find that to be a rather tall order, given that constitutional monarchy is the government of choice for many of the most successful democracies on Earth. Britain, Holland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Spain, Japan, all very fine, very successful countries, all with constitutional monarchies.

To reduce it to a single phrase: One does not fix something that isn't broken.

As for that unfortunate native reserve: There is always room for reform. Nothing humanity has ever done is perfect. The Monarchy has not lasted for the better part of a thousand years without changing itself. Like I said, change is life. The monarchy should be reformed, not abolished. Personally, I would give the power to legally authorize developments on the reserve to their band council, but that is not for me to decide. There are many changes I would make to the Monarchy, such as abandoning the male-first succession thing for one, but like I said: That is not for me to decide.

Finally, to reply to your unpatriotic comments: What allegiance should a man hold if not to his homeland? A country that matters is a country that takes itself seriously, and shows pride in itself. The United States does. Britain does. Every nation that matters does. Why should Canada and Canadians not show pride in themselves? Now, I foresee at this point that you shall accuse the Crown of being unCanadian. Know this: From the establishment of New France in 1663 to the modern day, there has been a King or Queen in Canada for three and a half centuries. The Crown passed from the French Royal Family to the British in 1763 by right of conquest, but there has always been someone wearing that Crown. Three and a half centuries, Sakurelf, our first and oldest institution. The Crown was there at our country's birth, and it is there still. What could be more Canadian?