ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:03 AM   #1
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,654
Quebec tramples religious freedoms as Canadian freemen dither

Freemen on the land don’t seem to know what to do as the province of Quebec effectively tramples the religious freedom of Muslim women.

The newly passed Bill 62 which forbids anyone from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered wearing face coverings. Effectively making impossible for Muslim women wearing face coverings to serve as doctors, nurses, teachers or even ride a city bus.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/18...ceive-services

Anyone channeling Rosa Parks yet?

Yet the freeman crowd seems confused about the freedoms they have yammered about for years.

To their credit some freemen (even when convenient the double talking Robert Menard) see Bill 62 for the tyranny it is. But some of the freeman crowd can’t stop whining that the law should be applied to police officers wearing masks.

Quote:
Paul Fiola: IMO, at least they believe what they believe enough to fight for it.
Robert Menard: But not enough to allow others to fight against it in an equal manner.
Quote:
Robert Menard: . . .these masks are religious garb that provide no tactical benefits or increased safety. Their sole purpose is to hide the identity of the 'priests'. . . .I am personally far more concerned about [the law’s] armed and dangerous enforcers than I am a humus loving niqāb wearer.
Quote:
Pawel Fryga: **** everybody's religion. Braindead.
Quote:
Chris Carter: first of all **** islam. it's a piece of **** doctrine, intentions, claims and practices wise.

wearing niqab isn't an indication of a free society.

unintended consequences=wanna bet that many many hundreds of non-muslim females and perhaps even males r gunna flood into Quebec, wear niqab and force the police and courts to put up or shut up.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard.52


So where were freemen and the freeman brain trust when this law was proposed years ago?

Do freemen have any idea that their decades long trashing of constitutional law as fantasy negates their calls that Muslim women to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights?

Why is Menard allowing his Facebook page to be used as a forum for anti-Muslim hate speech?

Last edited by arayder; 22nd October 2017 at 11:06 AM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 03:12 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,507
It is a longstanding western tradition that masked citizens are no citizens at all, but rather enemies of society.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:19 PM   #3
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,933
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It is a longstanding western tradition that masked citizens are no citizens at all, but rather enemies of society.
Well, aside from the Lone Ranger. Duh.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:25 PM   #4
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
Freemen on the land don’t seem to know what to do as the province of Quebec effectively tramples the religious freedom of Muslim women.

The newly passed Bill 62 which forbids anyone from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered wearing face coverings. Effectively making impossible for Muslim women wearing face coverings to serve as doctors, nurses, teachers or even ride a city bus.
Strange. I understand the ID picture rule, as we need to be able to recognise people from their pictures, but not this.


...on the other hand I wonder how "free" Muslim women are to wear the veil, but that's a different discussion.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 04:35 PM   #5
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,828
Just to play devil's advocate, what is the police officer to do when they pull over a person whose face is completely covered and the license picture is the same? How is a clerk supposed to check if you are the person presenting the credit card and you are asked for your driver's license?

There are going to be times when two peoples' rights conflict and both cannot be accommodated.

Maybe the law goes too far, maybe not. There might be some area for debate. But the idea this is a clear cut case of religious freedom is debatable.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 05:47 AM   #6
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,095
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
... and the license picture is the same?


The point is, that doesn't happen. They show their face for the picture, and if they actually need to establish their ID for a legitimate purpose. Claims to the contrary are just right-wing propaganda. Read any of the articles about this issue, and you'll see Muslim women saying exactly this.

This law and its ilk are nothing more than racist pandering to the racist parts of our society.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:34 AM   #7
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
The point is, that doesn't happen. They show their face for the picture, and if they actually need to establish their ID for a legitimate purpose. Claims to the contrary are just right-wing propaganda. Read any of the articles about this issue, and you'll see Muslim women saying exactly this.

This law and its ilk are nothing more than racist pandering to the racist parts of our society.
This.

And why this law needs to be struck down - by the courts.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 03:26 PM   #8
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
This.

And why this law needs to be struck down - by the courts.
My guess is advocacy groups will find a legal test case in which a sympathetic Muslim woman loses a job or is denied a bus ride in the cold and trot the case before the public who will say "What were we thinking? This is sweet kid trying to do good in the world."

Public option will turn and the politicians will buckle.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 05:24 PM   #9
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,651
I agree the state should not promote religion, period,but it seems to me this bill is going way too far in the other direction and is de facto discriminating against religious believers.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 05:43 PM   #10
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,828
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
The point is, that doesn't happen. They show their face for the picture, and if they actually need to establish their ID for a legitimate purpose. Claims to the contrary are just right-wing propaganda. Read any of the articles about this issue, and you'll see Muslim women saying exactly this.

This law and its ilk are nothing more than racist pandering to the racist parts of our society.
I don't see a reference to the current exception in the OP link.

A link would be nice.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 06:00 PM   #11
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,507
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, aside from the Lone Ranger. Duh.
Him, too. But masked vigilantism is another longstanding American tradition.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 06:32 PM   #12
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,828
Why is this thread in the CT forum? I had trouble finding it.

Here is a link to some pros and cons about banning burkas and according to the site, pro and con are running 50:50 as opinions.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-burkas-be-banned

I have mixed feelings from, surely we should allow religious freedom, to, if banning burkas (just the full face covering) helps advance women's rights, maybe we shouldn't take these women's word for it they freely choose to act like slaves. After all, like indoctrination in many religious groups, there are sometimes when it goes too far. In this case girls are indoctrinated to believe they are owned by men. That is not religious freedom, it is oppression.

Don't attack me for posting the adversarial opinion here, I am on the fence. There are pros and cons. I just want to make it clear this is not necessarily some right wing oppression of Muslims.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 07:12 PM   #13
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
 
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nederland - Sol III
Posts: 315
PurdahWP is complex issue.
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -- Don Marquis
Join the Illuminati
Halcyon Dayz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 07:35 PM   #14
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,828
Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz View Post
PurdahWP is complex issue.
Indeed.
Quote:
Purdah was rigorously observed under the Taliban in Afghanistan, where women had to observe complete purdah at all times when they were in public.
There is clearly a line, in Western culture it would be with the woman saying she freely chooses Purdah (or whatever name you want to give it).

Suppose that woman were brainwashed since early childhood? Too bad, tough luck, we are all about freedom to choose so indoctrinated choice counts as choice?

How about the woman who would choose not to wear a burka but she can't go against her source of support, her husband and/or parents?

How do you sift through the chaff and assure you aren't ignoring the wheat?

It's not possible.

So to comes down to deciding, impose on religious freedom or sacrifice the indoctrinated and overpowered?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 10:59 PM   #15
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,269
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Indeed.

There is clearly a line, in Western culture it would be with the woman saying she freely chooses Purdah (or whatever name you want to give it).

Suppose that woman were brainwashed since early childhood? Too bad, tough luck, we are all about freedom to choose so indoctrinated choice counts as choice?

How about the woman who would choose not to wear a burka but she can't go against her source of support, her husband and/or parents?

How do you sift through the chaff and assure you aren't ignoring the wheat?

It's not possible.

So to comes down to deciding, impose on religious freedom or sacrifice the indoctrinated and overpowered?
A) can we test a choice to tell the difference between indoctrinated or based on life experiences?

B) the idea of support is really weird. This make a government role in maintaining a veil of ignorance over parties so one party doesn't revoke support.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 03:56 AM   #16
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,095
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Suppose that woman were brainwashed since early childhood? Too bad, tough luck, we are all about freedom to choose so indoctrinated choice counts as choice?


Well, if we're going to legislate religious beliefs and practices based on whether or not the person was "brainwashed since early childhood", then we might as well ban religion outright. Because, frankly, while mainstream Christian brainwashing may be milder than Islamic brainwashing, it's far more prevalent in our society, and thus far more likely to end up becoming the law of the land in Canada.

A few dozen Muslim women in Quebec who wear a veil simply cannot have the same impact as, say, thousands of anti-abortion Christians.

And that's why we want to keep the state out of it.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 04:17 AM   #17
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why is this thread in the CT forum? I had trouble finding it.
My idea was to point out that the self-proclaimed freedom loving freemen who have backed conspiracy theories from the birth bond to societies of conspiratorial judges and more are now in league with Muslim haters in Quebec to destroy the religious liberties of Muslim women.

Since the OP a segment of the freeman subculture has gone on a vicious anti-Muslim rant.

I thought it was/is an interesting and telling hypocrisy.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 04:19 AM   #18
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Well, if we're going to legislate religious beliefs and practices based on whether or not the person was "brainwashed since early childhood", then we might as well ban religion outright. Because, frankly, while mainstream Christian brainwashing may be milder than Islamic brainwashing, it's far more prevalent in our society, and thus far more likely to end up becoming the law of the land in Canada.
Not only religion, but secular beliefs and traditions as well.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 01:41 PM   #19
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,095
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not only religion, but secular beliefs and traditions as well.


Yeah, but I don't want to ban those, and since we seem to have decided that basing our laws on our own pet prejudices is acceptable, I'm gonna say, screw the Christians, I want to be in charge!

Hey, they started it!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2017, 12:17 PM   #20
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,324
Delete - nevermind, answered.

Last edited by isissxn; 31st October 2017 at 12:18 PM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 01:04 AM   #21
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,127
In France this was about freedom not to wear. Or at least that was how it was framed.

I'm on the fence. what we don't want is a sub culture that oppresses women's rights. There are many other issues similar to this. For example in the UK faith based schools must teach evolution to ensure the rights of children to get a good education. Then there is the issue of forced marriages and genital mutilation. To suggest this is all far right propaganda smells a bit of left wing apologetics as it does happen.

As for banning face coverings to protect freedoms for Muslim women, I feel it probably would backfire. Perhaps there should be a law whereby men can be prosecuted for forcing women to wear them.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 1st November 2017 at 01:06 AM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 08:09 AM   #22
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
In France this was about freedom not to wear. Or at least that was how it was framed.

I'm on the fence. what we don't want is a sub culture that oppresses women's rights. There are many other issues similar to this. For example in the UK faith based schools must teach evolution to ensure the rights of children to get a good education. Then there is the issue of forced marriages and genital mutilation. To suggest this is all far right propaganda smells a bit of left wing apologetics as it does happen.

As for banning face coverings to protect freedoms for Muslim women, I feel it probably would backfire. Perhaps there should be a law whereby men can be prosecuted for forcing women to wear them.
If people have freedom and the free will to choose their religion then it follows they have the right to choose systems of belief some of us might not see as proper or even fair.

Individuals are also free to reject previous beliefs and move on to new ways of thinking and believing which might be even more strange to the mainstream.

But either way, I think, it's none of the state's business.

What I find hypocritical (and so pointed out in the OP) are the freemen on the land who claim the state has no authority over non-consenting individuals and then sit on their hands while the province of Quebec tramples the religious liberties Muslim women. Women who never once gave the province the authority to prescribe religious practices.

If you visit Rob Menard's Facebook page and scroll down you can be treated to Bobby and his freemen buddies parroting alt. right BS about preserving Canadian culture and heaping grade school insults on Muslim women.

They are hypocrites, pure and simple.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 02:02 AM   #23
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,127
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
If people have freedom and the free will to choose their religion then it follows they have the right to choose systems of belief some of us might not see as proper or even fair.

Individuals are also free to reject previous beliefs and move on to new ways of thinking and believing which might be even more strange to the mainstream.

But either way, I think, it's none of the state's business.

What I find hypocritical (and so pointed out in the OP) are the freemen on the land who claim the state has no authority over non-consenting individuals and then sit on their hands while the province of Quebec tramples the religious liberties Muslim women. Women who never once gave the province the authority to prescribe religious practices.

If you visit Rob Menard's Facebook page and scroll down you can be treated to Bobby and his freemen buddies parroting alt. right BS about preserving Canadian culture and heaping grade school insults on Muslim women.

They are hypocrites, pure and simple.
I think if Muslim women want to wear them then that's fine.

I think there has to be protections though for people who find themselves at the arse end of a bad ideology.

Ordinary working people in the UK have fought and died for centuries for their basic rights. here

The right for an individual to not be forced to wear a Niqab, Hibab or Jibab is just as important for their right to wear one. It is a difficult subject that has no easy answers but individuals must be protected against bad ideological doctrines that takes away from their individual freedoms, and much of the current left I think miss this point due to miss appropriated political correctness with accusing cries of racism. What is worse is the right wing thugs that push the issue but for all the wrong reasons (by wanting to take away freedoms rather than give them) which just muddies the water and makes rational dialog all the more difficult.

I'm pretty left wing. But I am also an Atheist and a secularist and want to ensure the state I live in is kept apart from religious tentacles that want to keep imposing their values on the rest of us. I support anyone's right to be a Muslim a Christian or anything else, but I also support their right not to be, or to be an ex-Muslim or a Muslim who wants to wear whatever they damn well please.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 2nd November 2017 at 02:08 AM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 10:16 AM   #24
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,095
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
The right for an individual to not be forced to wear a Niqab, Hibab or Jibab is just as important for their right to wear one. It is a difficult subject that has no easy answers but individuals must be protected against bad ideological doctrines that takes away from their individual freedoms, and much of the current left I think miss this point due to miss appropriated political correctness with accusing cries of racism. ....


I'm pretty left wing. But I am also an Atheist and a secularist and want to ensure the state I live in is kept apart from religious tentacles that want to keep imposing their values on the rest of us. I support anyone's right to be a Muslim a Christian or anything else, but I also support their right not to be, or to be an ex-Muslim or a Muslim who wants to wear whatever they damn well please.

Yes, and the point is, in Canada, they already have the right to refuse to wear such things, and at least some protections from the Government should they be subject to abuse by those trying to force them to wear them.

The problem is, like so many other domestic abuse situations, it can be hard to prosecute offenders if the victims aren't willing/able to cooperate, and press charges. However, marginalizing the victims still further by denying them basic services like bus rides doesn't do anything to actually make their lives better, it just makes it that much harder for them to interact with the larger Canadian culture in a sufficient enough manner that they would feel empowered enough to make this choice for themselves.

Imagine the mindset of a recent immigrant woman, being told by her family, "You must wear this, to protect you from the Barbarian Hordes of these unwashed infidels!", and being told by her neighbors, "Hey, this is Canada, you don't have to wear that if you don't want to!" She then sees the provincial government passing a law that requires her to stop wearing it in public lest she be denied every service that all others in the province take for granted, and this law is quite clearly deliberately aimed at Muslims, and not Chritians.

Whose opinion is she most likely to believe then, her family's or her neighbors'?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:24 PM   #25
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Imagine the mindset of a recent immigrant woman, being told by her family, "You must wear this, to protect you from the Barbarian Hordes of these unwashed infidels!", and being told by her neighbors, "Hey, this is Canada, you don't have to wear that if you don't want to!" She then sees the provincial government passing a law that requires her to stop wearing it in public lest she be denied every service that all others in the province take for granted, and this law is quite clearly deliberately aimed at Muslims, and not Chritians.

Whose opinion is she most likely to believe then, her family's or her neighbors'?
In Jefferson's writings on religious freedom he talks about how people being forced into or out of a religious practice will tend to give lip service (my words, not his) to the required practice and then going on to practice their religion as they please be it in private or in some alternate way in public.

In this case i could see Muslim women covering themselves and circumventing the law by, for instance, finding friends and colleagues at work or in the public sector who will cover for them (pun intended) when they break the law. . . as in . . . "No officer, she had her face uncovered when she came into the clinic. I am sure off it."

Maybe they could get cold and flu masks which they use when they are required to uncover and when confronted they pull out a doctor's order they got from sympathetic doctor saying the mask is required for their health.

One could think of a dozen ways around the law.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 02:50 PM   #26
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Quebec tramples religious freedoms as Canadian freemen dither
But, do they dither with her on a zither ?????????
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:49 PM   #27
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,595
There are many business here in the U.S that will deny service to individuals wearing a motorcycle helmet.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 06:23 AM   #28
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,654
It seems Menard and the World Freeman Society have inexplicably gone off on a childish Niqab, immigrant, woman bashing tear.

Scroll down and try not to gag:https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard.52

As if he's lost his last bit of sense the director of the world freeman society is now reposting info-wars propaganda claiming that the Texas church shooter was an antifa member who vowed to start a civil war.

Last edited by arayder; 6th November 2017 at 06:29 AM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.