Democrats Shift Dramatically Towards Obama On The Eve Of Super Tuesday

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I think this process has started in the EU, Canada and Australia and I don't see any outrage anywhere. If anything, any sort of "outrage" gets labeled as "racist and intolerant extreme right-wing" and what not.

I think Szarkozy being elected in France was somewhat of a public outcry...he has a pretty hardline stance on these types of matters.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If the process is slow enough, people won't even notice, and when they will, it will be too late. Like that frog sitting in the cooking pot full of water. You turn the heat on real low and the frog will not notice the difference. Until its cooked.

I think this process has started in the EU, Canada and Australia and I don't see any outrage anywhere. If anything, any sort of "outrage" gets labeled as "racist and intolerant extreme right-wing" and what not.

I think people are noticing, but its being dismissed for now due to political correctness and cultural tolerance. If it ever gets to the point where it affects the daily life of Joe Sixpack, you can bet your ass there will be some serious fallout.

The EU is mixed bag... some countries are definitely in the process, while some of the "less tolerant" nations, such as France, Spain and Italy, are not really feeling this and are pushing back already. With Australia, under John Howard, he put that notion in its place with his imfamous "This is Australia and this is Australian law... if you don't like it, get out" speech. Of course, he's not in office anymore.

The average person is pretty apathetic until it affects them. I think people would even allow Shariah law to exist in conjunction with our own so long as they are not bound by it... but the moment it threatens to handcuff their lifestyles, people will show their true colors.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The only dogma of the Liberal Party is to win power. Should Islamic slanted views start to become more mainstream (Ie continued immigration and growth of the Islamic voter base in places like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) the liberals could start the thin edge of the wedge should they feel it would benefit them at the polls.

The majority could be outraged beyond belief, but as proven for years you only need 37% popular vote to win a majority. As demographics change the 'majority' could find themselves without the power to stop it.

Under normal conditions, you'd be right. While the Liberals are traditionally power mongers, and median vote chasers, I don't think you'll ever see the day where that median voter is in favor of social dogma that would make Stockwell Day sigh.

Lets not forget, many immigrants from Islamic countries left to avoid the lunatic fringe that is trying to set up shop, are leaving to avoid a different type of persecution, or are from countries that are pretty anti-islamic. People tend to be apathetic come voting time, but if a hypothetical situation came where a party would run on a Shariah or "Shariah-lite" platform, Joe Sixpack would jump from his couch and rush to the polling station to protect his right to alcohol and free women.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

but if a hypothetical situation came where a party would run on a Shariah or "Shariah-lite" platform, Joe Sixpack would jump from his couch and rush to the polling station to protect his right to alcohol and free women.

One would hope so.

On the other hand....we'd probably all get called racists for voting against a religious based platform.

Or infidels.....

[troutman]

Bill Maher:

[photo shown of Hillary and Obama smiling broadly] [laughter] That’s – yes, that’s Hillary and Obama. Is it just me, or did they look like the local weekend news anchor team? [laughter] [applause] “Over to you, Hillary! That is a lot of puppies.” [laughter]

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If the process is slow enough, people won't even notice, and when they will, it will be too late. Like that frog sitting in the cooking pot full of water. You turn the heat on real low and the frog will not notice the difference. Until its cooked.

If the process is moving so slow that one could say "it's not moving at all", is there still a process?

That's an interesting analogy with the frog and all, but we aren't quite as dumb as he is. We'd actually notice if there was an Islamic theocracy being imposed on us.

A white Canadian-born guy even trying to bring Jesus into the political realm would be hooted down before he finished his sentence, so I think it's safe to say that we pay enough attention to notice Islam sneaking into the rule book.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

One would hope so.

On the other hand....we'd probably all get called racists for voting against a religious based platform.

Or infidels.....

Well, it seems that the average Canadian prides themselves on being tolerant because of their disdain for intolerance... however, because this intolerance part of an aggressive sub-culture of a visible minority, its tolerated because it "doesn't concern us", "its different, we shouldn't judge", or "who cares," with the hope that being surrounded by tolerant and open-minded people will make them see the light and be tolerant and open-minded. Once that changes, and that there isn't something in the air that changes people and that it could affect them, I think the hypocrisy of tolerating intolerance ends rather swiftly.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A white Canadian-born guy even trying to bring Jesus into the political realm would be hooted down before he finished his sentence, so I think it's safe to say that we pay enough attention to everything to see Islam was sneaking into the rule book.

Didn't they try to impose Sharia law on the Canadian Justice system a while back?

I'm a bit vague on the details here, but wasn't there a push by some Islamics in Ontario or something?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Didn't they try to impose Sharia law on the Canadian Justice system a while back?

I'm a bit vague on the details here, but wasn't there a push by some Islamics in Ontario or something?

I don't know what you are talking about so you'll have to prove your own point.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know what you are talking about so you'll have to prove your own point.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...-20050909.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/3599264.stm

It was a pretty big debate. Fortunately it was quashed, but that doesn't mean the movement was quashed.

[Flame Of Liberty]

"In Montreal around 100 people gathered Thursday to protest the tribunals. In Ottawa more than 100 others, mostly women, protested in the rain in front of the parliament building."

I don't see many Joe Sixpacks jumping from their couches here, Thunderball...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

"In Montreal around 100 people gathered Thursday to protest the tribunals. In Ottawa more than 100 others, mostly women, protested in the rain in front of the parliament building."

I don't see many Joe Sixpacks jumping from their couches here, Thunderball...

Well apparently there was enough of them, because it didn't happen.

[peter12]

The Sharia debate is interesting.

On the one hand, I historically recognize the significance and liberal evolution of sharia law in pre-modern Islamic societies. In this way, it resembles the growth of Western law out of the roots of Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman law.

Laws evolve. They twist and change according to society's needs, while still maintaining adherence to a foundation of values. As far as I have read this was the case of Sharia law in the pre-modern Muslim societies. That changed with the spread of modernity into Muslim countries. What we have now is a case where reason has been entirely discarded and replaced with a modernist's literal interpretation of the texts.

I'm not sure how you can reconcile Sharia with Western law. I would take it as being completely impossible.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

"In Montreal around 100 people gathered Thursday to protest the tribunals. In Ottawa more than 100 others, mostly women, protested in the rain in front of the parliament building."

I don't see many Joe Sixpacks jumping from their couches here, Thunderball...

You're forgetting two things. One, Joe Sixpack is lazy and apathetic, and most importantly, two... it doesn't affect him (yet). Now, say Shariah law became an approved source of dispute resolution... the door opens, and maybe a movement emerges that women wear too little, or that too much blatant drinking is tolerated... THAT'S when Joe Sixpack emerges, and in huge numbers. That's also why I'm not too concerned.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well apparently there was enough of them, because it didn't happen.

Ultimately it was the correct decision. They also abolished the Jewish and Catholic tribunals with the decision as well. The reason for this is because those who made the decision weren't owed their political fortunes by the Islamic vote. However should that change in the future it could be a different story.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Ultimately it was the correct decision. They also abolished the Jewish and Catholic tribunals with the decision as well. The reason for this is because those who made the decision weren't owed their political fortunes by the Islamic vote. However should that change in the future it could be a different story.

I don't know if they made that decision because they didn't owe the Islamic vote anything. Maybe they made the decision because it was the right decision to make.

One of those articles Thunderball included made reference to 600,000 Muslims living in Canada. So what's that, 1 Canadian in 50 is Muslim? How many of them are extremists? I don't know, but I'll bet it's a pretty low number, so I'm going to make the assumption here that significantly less than 1% of Canada's population is interested in imposing Sharia law and/or living in a Muslim theocracy. The people who are "for it" aren't exactly influential or particularly intelligent either, so I just don't see the "we'll be electing a Sheik soon enough" worry to be based in reality.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if they made that decision because they didn't owe the Islamic vote anything. Maybe they made the decision because it was the right decision to make.

One of those articles Thunderball included made reference to 600,000 Muslims living in Canada. So what's that, 1 Canadian in 50 is Muslim? How many of them are extremists? I don't know, but I'll bet it's a pretty low number, so I'm going to make the assumption here that significantly less than 1% of Canada's population is interested in imposing Sharia law and/or living in a Muslim theocracy. The people who are "for it" aren't exactly influential or particularly intelligent either, so I just don't see the "we'll be electing a Sheik soon enough" worry to be based in reality.

You can't fool us, you're on of those Little-Mosque-on-the-Prairie-watching fundamentalist sympathizers, aren't you?!

I actually think the whole shariah law debate was extremely healthy, because it forced the ontario government to do something quite difficult for a government in Canada to do: maintain equality by restricting rights, rather than expanding them.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So in the end, it's still all about money. I know campaigning in a country this big isn't cheap, but it pretty much still boils down to the idea that if you dont have money to begin with, you dont even have a chance TO START! Look at how many people agreed with Chris Dodds policies on the CP thread a few days ago....the guy didnt even register a blip.

Ron Paul made $20 million in the last quarter to lead all republicans in fundraising, and he started with basically nothing a year ago. Unfortunately the establishment just wants him to disappear lest it might disappear.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...-20050909.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/3599264.stm

It was a pretty big debate. Fortunately it was quashed, but that doesn't mean the movement was quashed.

"Tried to impose Sharia law" is a gross distortion. They did nothing of
the sort.

The second article you post answers some of the questions and
provides hints:
- "...in Ontario Orthodox Jews are able to settle their civil disputes in religious courts."

- "It could even be a Canadian contribution to an Islamic reformation."

- "[Marion Boyd] hinted strongly to me that the government could not allow Jewish courts and forbid Muslim ones; that would be discrimination."

I believe that aborignal people have their own court/justice system that,
if all participants are willing, can be used. I would imagine that this would
follow in the same way, not that you must use it.

Now, whether people could, or would, be pressured into using it, that
would be interesting to see in the Jewish system.

ers

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Ultimately it was the correct decision. They also abolished the Jewish and Catholic tribunals with the decision as well. The reason for this is because those who made the decision weren't owed their political fortunes by the Islamic vote. However should that change in the future it could be a different story.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification.

ers