Quebec tramples religious freedoms as Canadian freemen dither

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

But "...Hasidic Jews, Buddhist monks, the Amish or the Quakers. . .but who has seen it?" That's a good question. Who has seen Jews, Buddhists, Amish or Quakers going around with their faces entirely covered by a cloth bag? Because that's what this is about, right? Face covering, not modes of dress. If you've got this far without realising that then heaven help us.

The long way around the barn to argue that all religions are free, but some religions are more free than others

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)

"Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler…" (An-Nisaa’ 4:36)

I have done the research. . . .

If you want a quote battle I suggest you gather a few more before we start. I wouldn't want you to be disadvantaged right from the off.

[arayder]

So, are you saying that the Bible and the Quran don't teach us to welcome the stranger?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

So, are you saying that the Bible and the Quran don't teach us to welcome the stranger?

I never mentioned the Bible. The Koran? Absolutely not. The idea of the non-believer who must convert, be enslaved or die is entrenched in the religion.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

I never mentioned the Bible. The Koran? Absolutely not. The idea of the non-believer who must convert, be enslaved or die is entrenched in the religion.

The tact is clear. . . go through the cultures and religions of “the other” until you find something frightening and then use that scary stuff to justify the religious oppression of individuals who have never harmed anyone.

When it is pointed outed that the teachings of the vilified religions and cultures don’t support the conspiracy theory it is pretended that no one was talking about religion in the first place.

The sad truth is that it’s the same tryanical ruse used since the beginning of time. You are free to give it up, brother. Freedom is a good thang, ole son.

The gambit you have adopted is uncovered by asking the question, which you have studiously avoided: What harm do Muslim women cause by covering their faces?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

The tact is clear. . . go through the cultures and religions of “the other” until you find something frightening and then use that scary stuff to justify the religious oppression of individuals who have never harmed anyone.

When it is pointed outed that the teachings of the vilified religions and cultures don’t support the conspiracy theory it is pretended that no one was talking about religion in the first place.

'Tactic', not 'tact', unless you were complimenting me and I very much doubt that.

I don't really know what you're ranting about. It's certainly not related to what I wrote, so I'll put it down to undirected apologetics.

Originally Posted by arayder

The sad truth is that it’s the same tryanical ruse used since the beginning of time. You are free to give it up, brother. Freedom is a good thang, ole son.

What are you talking about? Do you know?

Originally Posted by arayder

The gambit you have adopted is uncovered by asking the question, which you have studiously avoided: What harm do Muslim women cause by covering their faces?

I won't be spending time answering your questions because you are guaranteed to ignore what I post and go off on some unbalanced rant about tyrants and conspiracy theories.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

I won't be spending time answering your questions because you are guaranteed to ignore what I post and go off on some unbalanced rant about tyrants and conspiracy theories.

You are derailing the thread.

The thread is about the hypocrisy of freemen-on-the-land who call for the oppression of others. The thread is not about your purely personal aversion to Muslim women who wear “black bags over their heads”.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

You are derailing the thread.

The thread is about the hypocrisy of freemen-on-the-land who call for the oppression of others. The thread is not about your purely personal aversion to Muslim women who wear “black bags over their heads”.

I'm derailing the thread? Right. And why are you going on about freemen on the land? Do you even know what the term means? You can't have a freeman on the land involved in legislation, FFS, it's diametrically opposed to what they stand for.

And the oppression that the Muslim woman undoubtedly experiences comes primarily not from the demonic white man, but from the Muslim man who treats her as property and wraps her up in a bag in case a glimpse of bare flesh causes him to rape her (in which case it's her fault, of course).

Your apologetics, in ignorance of every pertinent fact, are derailing this thread, not me.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

And why are you going on about freemen on the land? Do you even know what the term means? You can't have a freeman on the land involved in legislation, FFS, it's diametrically opposed to what they stand for.

Wow. You obviously didn't read the OP and haven't been keeping up with the updates showing freemen speaking against the religious freedoms of Muslim women.

And the idea that so many freemen hypocritically support this sort of tyranny which is "diametrically opposed to what they [say they] stand for" is exactly the point of the thread. Duh?

That is what the thread is about, not your personal unease with being around Muslim women who have covered their faces.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Wow. You obviously didn't read the OP and haven't been keeping up with the updates showing freemen speaking against the religious freedoms of Muslim women.

And the idea that so many freemen hypocritically support this sort of tyranny which is "diametrically opposed to what they [say they] stand for" is exactly the point of the thread. Duh?

That is what the thread is about, not your personal unease with being around Muslim women who have covered their faces.

The thread's about whatever happens to pop into your head when you post, it seems. You still don't understand what the term 'freeman' means, much like all the other terms you use.

Nobody cares what freemen think. They are a fringe group of lunatics and conspiracy theorists who do not have, and indeed who cannot possibly have, any input into the laws of any country. They have nothing to do with the story you link to in your OP.

Your OP link is not in any way related to freemen and your obsession with them suggests you're buying into some loony conspiracy theory you haven't yet defined. This thread needs to be moved to CT.

[arayder]

Well, bless your heart, baron. I know you are doing the very best you can to keep up.

When the freeman movement took a nose dive a few years ago some freemen, in a search for relevance, started aping the views of white nationalists, the alt.right and nazi apologists. I realize that this seems odd, but freemen have never made much sense or shied away from hypocrisy.

As we see in the OP, this "wing" of freemanism is still at it.

Quote:

This thread needs to be moved to CT.

Awwww, you're confused. It is in the conspiracy theory section, baron.

[Whip]

it wasn't all that long ago the Steaming Pile of BM™ was lauding nazis if I remember correctly.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Well, bless your heart, baron. I know you are doing the very best you can to keep up.

When the freeman movement took a nose dive a few years ago some freemen, in a search for relevance, started aping the views of white nationalists, the alt.right and nazi apologists. I realize that this seems odd, but freemen have never made much sense or shied away from hypocrisy.

As we see in the OP, this "wing" of freemanism is still at it.

We don't see it at all in the OP. Who are these freemen? Name some, and tell us all (a) how they are integral in creating legislation when the movement doesn't recognise the rule of law and (b) why anybody should care what a fringe movement of nutters think, and how it could possibly affect anyone else.

Originally Posted by arayder

Awwww, you're confused. It is in the conspiracy theory section, baron.

For once you're right. You got me there. At least we can say I fully agree with your forum choice.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Whip

it wasn't all that long ago the Steaming Pile of BM™ was lauding nazis if I remember correctly.

Yeah, you are right. A while back Bobby Menard and his mod, Patrick, made the World Freeman Society forum and site into a gateway for Nazi apologetic materials.

Now that WFS is defunct Bobby's sharing his friend's xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-muslim Facebook posts.

I am astounded that Bobby doesn't seem to realize that he's trashing all his no-government, personal freedom jive from the last two decades.

[epeeist]

Originally Posted by arayder

The tact is clear. . . go through the cultures and religions of “the other” until you find something frightening and then use that scary stuff to justify the religious oppression of individuals who have never harmed anyone.

When it is pointed outed that the teachings of the vilified religions and cultures don’t support the conspiracy theory it is pretended that no one was talking about religion in the first place.

The sad truth is that it’s the same tryanical ruse used since the beginning of time. You are free to give it up, brother. Freedom is a good thang, ole son.

The gambit you have adopted is uncovered by asking the question, which you have studiously avoided: What harm do Muslim women cause by covering their faces?

Re your last sentence, a few possible thoughts:

1. The expectation that Muslim women cover their faces is harmful, in the sense that women who don't want to (and who don't personally feel a religious need to) may feel compelled because of cultural or familial pressures to do so even if in a country where there are no legal pressures or requirements to do so.

2. It depersonalizes women and entrenches sexist attitudes.

3. In some situations (security, identification purposes, etc.) seeing faces is valuable.

4. If exceptions to otherwise applicable laws or rules are granted only for religious purposes and not for other purposes, that's a bad thing because it's unequal treatment (e.g. if a Muslim woman doesn't have to show her face when testifying, or uncover her face to prove identity when writing a test or buying something sold only to adults or those over 21, why should anyone else have to?)

Having said all that, I'm generally supportive of consenting adults choosing to conceal their faces or otherwise do things I disagree with, but that's despite possible harms, not because there are no harms.

[baron]

Apparently this thread has nothing to do with Muslim women and burqas and is only concerned with the intolerance of the 'freemen' who oppose the practice. I'm still waiting to hear who these freemen actually are.

[NWO Sentryman]

Quebec is nothing compared to an Alberta led secession crisis, considering how they are a major pillar for the Canadian economy.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by epeeist

If exceptions to otherwise applicable laws or rules are granted only for religious purposes and not for other purposes, that's a bad thing because it's unequal treatment (e.g. if a Muslim woman doesn't have to show her face when testifying, or uncover her face to prove identity when writing a test or buying something sold only to adults or those over 21, why should anyone else have to?)

My understanding is that this is not a problem. My understanding is that Muslim women routinely ID themselves as needed by removing their face coverings.

Originally Posted by epeeist

Having said all that, I'm generally supportive of consenting adults choosing to conceal their faces or otherwise do things I disagree with, but that's despite possible harms, not because there are no harms.

I agree.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

W
And the idea that so many freemen hypocritically support this sort of tyranny which is "diametrically opposed to what they [say they] stand for" is exactly the point of the thread. Duh?

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that these freemen, about whom the thread is apparently about, exist. Let's have some names, what's the problem?

[baron]

Here's what happens in Muslim countries when a woman has the temerity to remove the bag from her head.

Actually, that's not true. In many Muslim countries she would be killed.

Still, arayder supports the rights of these women. The right to be oppressed.

[baron]

Here's a few more

Quote:

A Saudi women who posted a picture of herself on social media in public without wearing a hijab faced outrage on social media, including calls for her execution. One man memorably declared: “Kill her and throw her corpse to the dogs.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a7452636.html

Quote:

Militant Islamists in Somalia have shot dead a Muslim woman for refusing to wear a veil, her relatives say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28564984

Here, a good Muslim father murdered his daughter in Canada because she wouldn't walk round with a bag on her head and preferred to dress in Western style.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...lash-1.4002891

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Here's what happens in Muslim countries when a woman has the temerity to remove the bag from her head.

Thanks for an example that defeats your argument, baron. This woman (in Iran, not Canada) faced jail for not wearing a veil.

Your contention, it seems, is that it should be unlawful for her to wear a veil.

It is tyranny either way.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Thanks for an example that defeats your argument, baron. This woman (in Iran, not Canada) faced jail for not wearing a veil.

You're going to have to explain that one. How on earth can an example of a woman being jailed for not wearing a hijab defeat my argument that the hijab (more relevantly, the burqa) is a symbol of oppression that degrades women and marks them as property?

Originally Posted by arayder

Your contention, it seems, is that it should be unlawful for her to wear a veil.

Really? Did you get that from where I said

Originally Posted by baron

I personally do not support a blanket ban (no pun intended) on face coverings but I do reserve the right to speak out about them.

You really love making stuff up.

In any event, let's have some of those freemen names. You repeatedly mocked me for not understanding that was the topic of the thread and now I'm trying to discuss it you refuse. This is odd behaviour.

[arayder]

Considering your glee at governments telling women what to wear and not wear one wonders if you post these examples of government tyranny with one hand.

[baron]

Your refusal to provide any evidence whatsoever of these 'freemen' you were only yesterday so obsessed with proves this thread topic to be entirely fabricated, just like your subsequent assertions.

Ooooh, the mysterious freemen are coming to get us! Watch out!

[arayder]

Re-read the OP and the thread.

[arayder]

What we are seeing, folks, is a form of religious prejudice based on the assumption that a blameless adherent to a religion must suffer a loss of their liberty because someone else, nominally of the same religion, has broken the law or behaved abominably.

I think we would all scream bloody murder if someone tried to so discriminate against Catholics saying they can’t teach young boys because of the sexual abuse done by Catholic priests.

Shall we not let Jews in the banking industry because of Bernie Madoff?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

What we are seeing, folks, is a form of religious prejudice based on the assumption that a blameless adherent to a religion must suffer a loss of their liberty because someone else, nominally of the same religion, has broken the law or behaved abominably.

I think we would all scream bloody murder if someone tried to so discriminate against Catholics saying they can’t teach young boys because of the sexual abuse done by Catholic priests.

Shall we not let Jews in the banking industry because of Bernie Madoff?

Forget the Jews, have you come up with a single name for one of these freemen you were so eager to discuss until asked for specifics?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

Forget the Jews, have you come up with a single name for one of these freemen you were so eager to discuss until asked for specifics?

Here's two: Robert Menard and Paul Fiola. It's in the OP you seem unable to read.

And I will anticipate your next ruse by reminding you I never said they wrote the law, only that they sat on their hands while it was being posed to the public.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Here's two: Robert Menard and Paul Fiola. It's in the OP you seem unable to read.

And I will anticipate your next ruse by reminding you I never said they wrote the law, only that they sat on their hands while it was being posed to the public.

That took long enough. Now we can try to understand what your point is. We have this bloke, who I've never heard of but have now checked out, who is a member of a fringe group of lunatics that have no credibility whatsoever. He has no influence in any legal or political sphere and is not, as far as I can discover, supporting a ban on face coverings... so... ?

[arayder]

baron, I am not included to accommodate people too lazy to read and understand a simple forum thread.

I never said Menard and Fiola were mainstream, influential thinkers. I said they were/are hypocrites.

I suspect you know that but are just playing games.

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

baron, I am not included to accommodate people too lazy to read and understand a simple forum thread.

I never said Menard and Fiola were mainstream, influential thinkers. I said they were/are hypocrites.

I suspect you know that but are just playing games.

Hypocrites? They're insane. Hypocrisy is the least of their problems, but if you're intent on proving your point at least link to some quotes of this Menard character which support criminalisation of head bags.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by baron

. . .if you're intent on proving your point at least link to some quotes of this Menard character which support criminalisation of head bags.

Reading is fundamental, baron.

My point is that Menard claims his version freedom for himself and is ilk and then stands silent when Quebec tramples the religious freedoms of Muslim women.

Can you not read, baron?

[baron]

Originally Posted by arayder

Reading is fundamental, baron.

My point is that Menard claims his version freedom for himself and is ilk and then stands silent when Quebec tramples the religious freedoms of Muslim women.

Right, so it's not a case of this irrelevant loon legislating the 'ban', proposing the 'ban' or even supporting the 'ban', but of him not actually saying anything about it, a revelation that is not only stultifyingly inconsequential but kind of expected, being that his entire ideology is based on the concept that the law itself is bogus.

Originally Posted by arayder

Can you not read, baron?

I started out OK but after several pages of this crap I'm getting a little boss-eyed.

[arayder]

Here's another thread that might put you to sleep:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=324845

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Well, aside from the Lone Ranger. Duh.

Hey, Green Hornet, the Phantom...…………………...

[arayder]

As violence breaks out in Ottawa during protests against the Global Compact for Migration the police have outlawed protestors' yellow jackets.

From his Facebook page Bobby chimes in:

Quote:

Robert Menard
Yesterday at 4:59 AM ·
"Police have also outlawed protestors wearing yellow jackets, such as those worn in Paris by people fighting the recent increases in gas taxes."
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/an...#8230;/…
If the police can simply outlaw clothing like that, then we are in a complete police state, and the rule of law is gone.

So the white nationalist branch of freemanism is all in with making Mulsim women take off their face coverings. But when their anti-immigration buds are required to take off their yellow jackets Bobby screams bloody murder.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by baron

I never mentioned the Bible. The Koran? Absolutely not. The idea of the non-believer who must convert, be enslaved or die is entrenched in the religion.

I've lived and worked in (in order) Saudi, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outside of adversarial action, just plain Muslim folks welcome strangers.

Other than being given a beautiful Koran by a Saudi friend, nobody I associated with got much into any religious discussions and no one attempted to convert me.

[arayder]

I have always thought that the fear of Muslims and their culture is misdirected.

The Muslims I have gotten to know (admittedly a small sample) are just as "American" as an other American. . hard working, kind and religiously tolerant. Many of them have told me at one time or another that they hit the jackpot when they came to America and are apprecitive of the opportunity to live in the U.S .

[bobdroege7]

You can leave your Niqab on