T1B

Sharia protesters target Canada
Groups to fight Ontario's tribunal plan in cities across Europe next month

By MARINA JIMÉNEZ

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Page A11Key

A campaign against Ontario allowing sharia tribunals to resolve family disputes has spread to Europe, where protests are planned for Sept. 8 in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Düsseldorf and Stockholm.

As many as 89 international groups have spoken out against an Ontario law allowing faith-based arbitration, saying it will create a precedent for religious fundamentalists working to suppress women's rights, and give fodder to political Islamists in Europe who are also lobbying for sharia law to be used to settle family matters.

"A lot of French people cannot believe it, because for us Canada is a country with very good rights for women. It is unbelievable," said Michèle Vianès, president of Regards de femmes, a non-governmental organization in France. "Under sharia, women do not have the same rights as men. Sharia is a bad idea. How is it possible that Canada would back it?"

Ms. Vianès will demonstrate outside the Canadian Embassy in Paris next Tuesday, alongside a number of high-profile French activists and politicians, including two former government ministers, the vice-president of the municipality of Lyon-Grand, dozens of writers, and representatives of human rights and women's groups.

Similar protests will take place outside the Canadian High Commission in London (in an event organized by the British Humanist Association, a human rights group whose international branch has consultative status with the United Nations), in Stockholm, Amsterdam and Düsseldorf, as well as in Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Ottawa, Montreal and Waterloo, Ont., said Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator for the International Campaign Against Sharia in Ontario.

The issue of sharia-based tribunals in Ontario is causing alarm in Europe, where Muslim feminists fighting for greater equality clash with conservative Muslim groups lobbying for faith-based family law.

"It is a battle to control the discourse of the religion. In Canada, political Islamists are using the tool of multiculturalism and freedom of culture and religion to oppress women. The introduction of sharia courts in Ontario would send the wrong message to the world," said Ms. Arjomand, who fled Iran in 1989 and settled in Toronto.

Rights and Democracy, a Montreal-based non-governmental organization, has also lobbied against faith-based tribunals, and won backing from 80 national organizations including the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Council for Muslim Women and the YWCA. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Women Living under Muslim Laws and dozens of other international groups have joined the global campaign.

Ontario's Arbitration Act from 1991 provides for voluntary faith-based arbitration to resolve civil and family-law disputes. This allows Muslims, Jews and other religious groups to use the principles of their faith to settle matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody outside the court system.

In 2003, Syed Mumtaz Ali, a retired Muslim lawyer, established the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice, with an aim to train imams and religious scholars to resolve civil dispute in the community, a process already under way informally.

His announcement prompted the Ontario government to appoint former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd to review the Arbitration Act. She concluded there was no evidence women were being discriminated against in faith-based arbitration and recommended the existing arbitration system be strengthened. The Ontario government has not yet responded to the report; a spokesman for the Attorney-General did not comment on the growing international outcry.

Sharia, a body of law based on religious principles, is interpreted differently even among Muslim nations. However, critics say it is inherently discriminatory toward women. Male heirs receive a greater share of an inheritance than female heirs; husbands, not wives, may initiate divorce proceedings; and in divorce cases, fathers are generally awarded custody of daughters who have reached the age of puberty.

While in theory, faith-based arbitration must comply with Canadian civil law and decisions may be appealed, in reality, many Muslim women are isolated, with no idea what their rights are under Canadian law, Ms. Arjomand said.

"These international demonstrations reflect the concern that Ontario's approval of faith-based arbitration of family law will have serious consequences for women's rights beyond Canada, and that's a responsibility we urge the Ontario government to consider," said Gisèle Eva Côté, of Rights and Democracy.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Any woman who would stand for this should be forced to move to Iran.

Why bother when you can have the tyranny and oppression of Iran in the comfort of your own home in Ottawa?

A lot of French people cannot believe it, because for us Canada is a country with very good rights for women.

Sharia wouldn't harm women's rights: McGuinty


Canadian Press

Tuesday, September 06, 2005


Click here to find out more!

TORONTO -- The rights of women "will not be compromised'' if Ontario becomes the first Western jurisdiction to allow Muslims to use a set of religious rules known as Shariah law to settle civil and marital disputes, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday.

"Whatever we do will be in keeping with the values of Ontarians and Canadians, I can say that much,'' McGuinty said after visiting a local school for the first day of classes.

"I'm not going to say any more than that at this point in time. People will just have to be patient.''

A report by former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd recommends Ontario allow Muslims to establish Shariah-based tribunals similar to Jewish and Catholic arbitration bodies already operating in the province.

The government has had Boyd's controversial report in hand since December, but McGuinty was offering no clues Tuesday about when or even if the province will act on its recommendations.

Attorney General Michael Bryant was still examining the report, he said.

"I know that he's reviewing it and at some point in time he's going to come forward with some recommendations for us,'' McGuinty said.

"And then we'll act on it at that point in time.''

Conservative justice critic Bob Runciman said he couldn't understand why the Liberal government decided to tackle the Shariah issue in the first place when there was little call for it from Muslims in Ontario.

"I'm not sure why they put their toe in the water,'' Runciman said. "I don't know that there was an enormous demand for it to occur.''

The New Democrats believe Ontario should follow Quebec's lead and exempt all family law matters from the province's Arbitration Act so courts would never have to enforce rulings from a religious tribunal that could infringe on Charter of Rights guarantees.

"The public courts should not be used to enforce anything other than the public law,'' said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.

"That doesn't prevent anybody from going to their imam or their rabbi ... to resolve their differences, except that it (would) be voluntary compliance.''

Opponents claim the push for Shariah is part of an extremist Islamic agenda, and say it discriminates against women in basic matters such as divorce, inheritance rights and child custody.

Almost 100 organizations have banded together under the banner of the International Campaign against Shariah Court in Canada and plan protests around the world.

On Thursday, they'll march in at least five Canadian cities: Ottawa, Toronto, Waterloo, Ont., Montreal and Victoria. Protests are also planned in six European cities: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Goteborg, Sweden, and Dusseldorf, Germany.

The Boyd report was prompted by a retired Muslim lawyer who in 2003 announced he was setting up the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice to train arbitrators to use Ontario's Arbitration Act.

But Syed Mumtaz Ali's view of Shariah was considered unabashedly fundamentalist and political, unlike Boyd's vision of provincially regulated religious arbitration under the mantle of family law and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

tough love wrote:Can't believe that the Otises would re-elect such a clued_out_cunt.

Yes I can. :roll:

Otis Wrote:

Get your political parties straight tl..

Marion Boyd is NDP not Liberal.

Like, there's a difference :roll:



But as for the topic at hand, I'm against the idea.

I agree with both you and Hap

There you go, Hap ->''I agree with Hap" = A new Sig offering. :wink:

I'm not in favour of supporting any religious tribunal or arbitration bodies when it comes to family law.
That said, it's time to axe the Jews and Catholics tribunals.
I mean just who in the fuck are they to have any special rights based on their religion.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (CP / Jonathan Hayward)

No Shariah family tribunals in Ontario: McGuinty
Canadian Press

TORONTO — Ontario will not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of a set of centuries' old religious rules called Shariah law to settle Muslim family disputes, and will ban all religious arbitrations in the province, Premier Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday.

In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act.

"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,'' he said.

"There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.''

McGuinty said religious arbitrations "threaten our common ground,'' and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation "as soon as possible'' to outlaw them in Ontario.

"Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice,'' he said. "But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law.''

Otis Wrote:
All's well that ends well.
Looks as if the Liberal bashers will have to find something else to whine and bitch about.

September 12, 2005

Nice pork if you can get it


With most eyes on the unfolding horror of Hurricane Katrina, little notice was given to yet another failure by Prime Minister Paul Martin to live up to his claim to care about addressing the "democratic deficit."

In the same week that Katrina's deadly winds hammered Gulf coast states, Martin made his latest appointment to the Upper Chamber -- his longtime supporter Francis Fox, a former Liberal cabinet minister who worked both on Martin's leadership campaign and in his PMO.

Earlier last month, Martin rewarded another staunch backer, Dennis Dawson, with a Senate appointment -- and the $116,000 salary, perqs and guaranteed work until age 75 that goes with it.

Martin is far from the first PM to use the Senate as his personal stash of thank-you presents. Just about every PM in office long enough has done the same.

But other PMs didn't come into office, as Martin did, promising to end the "democratic deficit."

Other PMs didn't make the grandiose vow, as Martin did in a show of post-AdScam bluster: "No longer will the key to Ottawa be who do you know. We are going to condemn to history the practice and politics of cronyism."

Other PMs didn't help write, as Martin did, a fatuous election platform document 12 years ago called the Red Book, promising: "A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government. We will introduce reforms to Parliament ... and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal appointments ..."

And other PMs didn't have the alternative, as Martin did, of duly elected senators, chosen in votes in their home province (in Alberta, at least) -- votes Martin has ignored.

Among others Martin has sent to the Senate trough are James Cowan, who led his leadership campaign in Nova Scotia, Liberal fundraiser Rod Zimmer, and ex-MP Art Eggleton, who stepped aside last year to make way for Martin protege Ken Dryden. So much for ending cronyism.

We'll give Martin this: His Senate track record so far has not only bolstered our arguments for either electing or abolishing senators, but underlined the bankruptcy of his democratic vision and the hollowness of his promises.

Nice job, Mr. Prime Minister.

Mulroney also levels accusations on former opponents and colleagues alike, including former cabinet minister and his eventual successor, Kim Campbell, who he labels as "a very vain person" who ran the "most incompetent campaign I've ever seen in my life."

Otis wrote:
So who else is going to pick that book up?

Hapday wrote:How about that democratic deficit that Martin and the gLiberals were supposed to take care of?

September 12, 2005

Nice pork if you can get it


With most eyes on the unfolding horror of Hurricane Katrina, little notice was given to yet another failure by Prime Minister Paul Martin to live up to his claim to care about addressing the "democratic deficit."

In the same week that Katrina's deadly winds hammered Gulf coast states, Martin made his latest appointment to the Upper Chamber -- his longtime supporter Francis Fox, a former Liberal cabinet minister who worked both on Martin's leadership campaign and in his PMO.

Earlier last month, Martin rewarded another staunch backer, Dennis Dawson, with a Senate appointment -- and the $116,000 salary, perqs and guaranteed work until age 75 that goes with it.

Martin is far from the first PM to use the Senate as his personal stash of thank-you presents. Just about every PM in office long enough has done the same.

But other PMs didn't come into office, as Martin did, promising to end the "democratic deficit."

Other PMs didn't make the grandiose vow, as Martin did in a show of post-AdScam bluster: "No longer will the key to Ottawa be who do you know. We are going to condemn to history the practice and politics of cronyism."

Other PMs didn't help write, as Martin did, a fatuous election platform document 12 years ago called the Red Book, promising: "A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government. We will introduce reforms to Parliament ... and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal appointments ..."

And other PMs didn't have the alternative, as Martin did, of duly elected senators, chosen in votes in their home province (in Alberta, at least) -- votes Martin has ignored.

Among others Martin has sent to the Senate trough are James Cowan, who led his leadership campaign in Nova Scotia, Liberal fundraiser Rod Zimmer, and ex-MP Art Eggleton, who stepped aside last year to make way for Martin protege Ken Dryden. So much for ending cronyism.

We'll give Martin this: His Senate track record so far has not only bolstered our arguments for either electing or abolishing senators, but underlined the bankruptcy of his democratic vision and the hollowness of his promises.

Nice job, Mr. Prime Minister.

Pettigrew's explanation draws fire from all sides

By DANIEL LEBLANC

Thursday, September 15, 2005 Updated at 5:32 AM EDT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — The Conservative Party said yesterday it will try to force Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew to appear before a parliamentary committee to explain why his office spent $10,000 to take a chauffeur on two overseas trips in which there was no driving to be done.

At the same time, Liberal sources cast doubt on Mr. Pettigrew's explanation that he invited driver Bruno Labonté to Europe in 2001 and to Latin America in 2002 as a "personal security adviser," saying it was more likely an expression of gratitude for Mr. Labonté's work at home.

In a television interview, Mr. Pettigrew said he felt the $10,000 cost to taxpayers to take his chauffer along on the two trips was fully justified. "Oh, absolutely," Mr. Pettigrew said on CTV's Canada AM.

"I believe it is important that everyone in the staff has a complete understanding of my work, so this is the way. . . . Of course, this individual is a security expert."

Conservative MP John Williams said he does not buy the explanation.

"Why is he taking his chauffeur around the world if they didn't bring the car?" Mr. Williams asked.

Mr. Williams, who calls himself the waste watchdog, said Mr. Pettigrew has to explain his actions before the foreign affairs committee when the House of Commons starts its fall sitting.

In the current minority Parliament, the opposition parties hold a majority of votes in committees and can force witnesses to face a public grilling.

"If Mr. Pettigrew can convince the public at large that it was a good idea, then maybe it was a good idea. But I'm skeptical he can convince many people," Mr. Williams said.

Bloc Québécois MP Michel Guimond said that bringing the issue to committee is a possibility, given Mr. Pettigrew's inability to properly justify the expenditure.

"The role of a chauffeur is to drive the minister's car. He wasn't there for security, that's something that embassy officials take care of," Mr. Guimond said.

Mr. Pettigrew's chief of staff, Francis LeBlanc, said that Mr. Labonté was not on the trips to act as a bodyguard, but rather to gain a better understanding of Mr. Pettigrew's security needs on foreign trips.

With that knowledge in hand, Mr. Labonté was better equipped to help co-ordinate the security of Mr. Pettigrew's other trips abroad, which is one of his unofficial duties.

"He performs those duties more effectively if we send him on the ground with the minister once in a while," Mr. LeBlanc said.

Mr. LeBlanc said the trips were not a way of rewarding Mr. Labonté's loyal services to Mr. Pettigrew since 1996.

"It's not more of a perk for him than for any one else on a foreign trip," Mr. LeBlanc said, adding that his office treats all tax dollars carefully.

Federal officials said that the ministers of Trade and Foreign Affairs always travel with a protocol officer who handles all logistical matters.

In addition, if ministers need security, it is provided by the host country or the RCMP.

Ministers often travel abroad without any special security arrangements, unless the mandatory threat assessment recommends otherwise.

In an interview, former Liberal minister Herb Dhaliwal said he does not remember needing a personal security adviser during his trips abroad.

"I've never been aware of a security need for myself, but each minister would be assessed individually based on the security situation at the moment where they travel," said Mr. Dhaliwal, who handled a number of portfolios in the Chrétien government.

Mr. Dhaliwal joked that his chauffeur only wished he had been invited overseas.

"My driver didn't come with me on any international trips," Mr. Dhaliwal said.

A number of Liberal sources said they have witnessed their ministers, as well as Mr. Pettigrew, being accompanied by RCMP officers on foreign trips or by security officers from the host countries.

No one, however, remembered a minister bringing an administrative aide to provide security.

A senior Liberal added that the explanation that Mr. Pettigrew needed a personal security adviser during the two overseas trips was a "lame excuse," while another one called it "ridiculous."

Mr. Pettigrew spent nine days in Europe in 2001, holding two days of meetings in Paris at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and giving a speech in Brussels the next day, according to the media advisory of the day.

There is nothing in the public records to explain the schedule during the six following days in Madrid, but Mr. LeBlanc said there were two off days during the weekend and then three days of meetings and briefings with Spanish officials, and working lunches.

Mr. Pettigrew's spokesman, Sébastien Théberge, said he was on the trip and remembers a number of meetings in Spain with political officials and business people.

Otis wrote:So you aren't in support of how Bush appointed those who he felt would best serve the country to the Supreme Court?

Canadian Parliament Votes Against Raising Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16

OTTAWA, September 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an expected vote, but nevertheless shockingly outrageous to many observers, a strong majority of Canada's Members of Parliament rejected two proposals to raise the age of consent for sex from one of the lowest in the world at 14 to 16 - the norm in most of the world, with some nations even having it at 18.

Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent, was supported by 99 MPs, including all Conservative Party members and a few Liberals, while the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the majority of Liberals combined to defeat the proposal with their opposing 167 votes. A similar motion, M-221, a Private Members Motion from Conservative MP Nina Grewal, was also heard yesterday and defeated by a vote of 100-169.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, one of the fiercest opponents of the proposals, wanted to ensure 14 year olds were not prevented from engaging in sex. "We don't want to criminalize innocent sexual behaviour among teenagers and young people," Cotler said.

Cotler's intervention was roundly criticized, however, as being false since Conservative MP Rick Casson, who proposed the legislation, clearly stated he would be open to adding a near-in-age exception should the bill be approved to go to the committee stage.

LifeSiteNews.com will later publish the Campaign Life Coalition tally of the indidual MPs' votes on the bill and the motion.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Amendments to Canadian Law to Prevent Pederasty Likely to be Defeated by MPs Wednesday
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092705.html

Hap Wrote:
How about this story that got virtually no coverage in out gLiberal run media:

tough love wrote:OTTAWA -- David Dingwall is poised to receive a government severance package after resigning as head of the Royal Canadian Mint amid allegations of lavish spending and questionable lobbying practices.

The government is considering a financial settlement for the one-time Liberal cabinet minister, Revenue Minister John McCallum said Thursday.

Dingwall quit after it was reported that he and top aides racked up expenses of more than $740,000 last year for everything from a BMW car allowance to a $1.29 pack of gum.

The Conservatives accused Prime Minister Paul Martin of breaking his promise to end cronyism "come hell or high water."

"A year ago the prime minister was saying he wanted to get to the bottom of all the wrongdoing," said Tory MP Brian Pallister.

"(Now) he's nominating David Dingwall for the Order of Canada. What the heck happened?

"It seems he's only a proponent of cleaning things up when he can send the bill to Jean Chretien . . . This is his dirty laundry."

The Tories have called for an auditor general's investigation into the affair.

Dingwall has also been under fire for acting as an unregistered lobbyist prior to his 2003 appointment as president and chief executive of the mint. It has been reported that he agreed to accept $350,000 to help a pharmaceutical company secure grants under Technology Partnerships Canada. On top of that, the law forbids lobbying for grants under the partnerships program.

In addition to any severance pay, Dingwall is eligible for a $77,200 pension from his 15 years as an MP, according to calculations by the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation.

http://www.canada.com/national/national ... 0b788b5c56


The Martin Liberals kick common sense in the nuts again:
Rewarding criminals should be one of their next campaign slogans.

Open your eyes, Otis, Pockets and Crouton are and were one in the same.
Remove the nose plugs, 'Bro, smell the ongoing stink which is Martin.

Hapday wrote:How about this story that got virtually no coverage in out gLiberal run media:

Canadian Parliament Votes Against Raising Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16

OTTAWA, September 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an expected vote, but nevertheless shockingly outrageous to many observers, a strong majority of Canada's Members of Parliament rejected two proposals to raise the age of consent for sex from one of the lowest in the world at 14 to 16 - the norm in most of the world, with some nations even having it at 18.

Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent, was supported by 99 MPs, including all Conservative Party members and a few Liberals, while the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the majority of Liberals combined to defeat the proposal with their opposing 167 votes. A similar motion, M-221, a Private Members Motion from Conservative MP Nina Grewal, was also heard yesterday and defeated by a vote of 100-169.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, one of the fiercest opponents of the proposals, wanted to ensure 14 year olds were not prevented from engaging in sex. "We don't want to criminalize innocent sexual behaviour among teenagers and young people," Cotler said.

Cotler's intervention was roundly criticized, however, as being false since Conservative MP Rick Casson, who proposed the legislation, clearly stated he would be open to adding a near-in-age exception should the bill be approved to go to the committee stage.

LifeSiteNews.com will later publish the Campaign Life Coalition tally of the indidual MPs' votes on the bill and the motion.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Amendments to Canadian Law to Prevent Pederasty Likely to be Defeated by MPs Wednesday
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092705.html

Just as I suspected. I believe this is a clue as to just which lobby groups were really pushing for same-sex marriage up here.

Otis criticizing the souce of the story instead of the story itself in 5...4...3...

Senator: Hurricanes are God’s Judgement on Sinful Nation

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama, September 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Alabama Senator wrote that hurricanes Katrina and Rita are God’s judgment being visited upon a sinful nation.

“New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness,” Sen. Hank Erwin wrote in a column appearing in the Birmingham News Wednesday. “It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God.”

Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent, was supported by 99 MPs, including all Conservative Party members and a few Liberals, while the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the majority of Liberals combined to defeat the proposal with their opposing 167 votes. A similar motion, M-221, a Private Members Motion from Conservative MP Nina Grewal, was also heard yesterday and defeated by a vote of 100-169.

tough love wrote:

Hap Wrote:
How about this story that got virtually no coverage in out gLiberal run media:

The Otis Party of Ont has so many horror stories coming outta it's ass that it's hard for the media to keep up with them all. :wink:

Case in point - uppity meaningless and as unCanadian as it may be:
Did you read about how their newly exulted Libby Queen had a libby fit and axed some poor seamstress commomer cuz she told someone about the dress she was making for their new queen to wear to her crowning in?
Neither did I.

tough love wrote:I hear you Otis, your man Martin just needs another ten years or so to get what he wants outta this country. :roll:


Case in point:
Results 1 - 10 of about 29,700 for pope to excommunicate liberal politicians.


Even 'The Man Of God' gots no love for libby_poli_pig.

Btw; not nearly far enough if you ask me, Mr. pope should be hell_damning ALL heathen libby voters. :twisted:

Otis wrote:

Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent, was supported by 99 MPs, including all Conservative Party members and a few Liberals, while the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the majority of Liberals combined to defeat the proposal with their opposing 167 votes. A similar motion, M-221, a Private Members Motion from Conservative MP Nina Grewal, was also heard yesterday and defeated by a vote of 100-169.

And for good reason too... That's all we need, to be having 15 year olds being tossed into jail and given criminal records for doing something that makes them one step ahead of JTR... they've been laid.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, one of the fiercest opponents of the proposals: "We don't want to criminalize innocent sexual behaviour among teenagers and young people," Cotler said.

Otis wrote: Martin is still cleaning house...

Hapday wrote:

Otis wrote:

Bill C-313, which would have raised the age of consent, was supported by 99 MPs, including all Conservative Party members and a few Liberals, while the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the majority of Liberals combined to defeat the proposal with their opposing 167 votes. A similar motion, M-221, a Private Members Motion from Conservative MP Nina Grewal, was also heard yesterday and defeated by a vote of 100-169.

And for good reason too... That's all we need, to be having 15 year olds being tossed into jail and given criminal records for doing something that makes them one step ahead of JTR... they've been laid.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, one of the fiercest opponents of the proposals: "We don't want to criminalize innocent sexual behaviour among teenagers and young people," Cotler said.

Otis attacking the source, right on que.

Thanks for being you predictable self.

Hapday wrote:As far as the bill goes, the Conservative offered to ammend it so that wouldn't happen and it still got shot down. Cotler knows this because Harper told him this before it was even brought to the floor. As usual teh gLiberals are shoveling their bullshit and you continue to lap it up.

Hapday wrote:Gee, who was it that not that long ago was chastizing the Conservatives for supposedly being in bed with the Bloc? Now the gLiberals team up with them to defeat this bill and keep it legal for 40 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds. Nice party you got there Otis, you should be proud.

Otis Wrote:
I couldn't give a fuck what some jackass kraut over in Rome thinks.

The pope can go fuck himself for all I care.
Now if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to declare it, I might give a rats ass about it.

tl, the fact is the past year has been spent trying to make the current government work instead of concentrating on cleaning up all of Chretien's lingering stench. But that's only one of the downsides to having a minority government which some wished for.
When Martin is elected with a majority government in the next election, those changes will speed themselves up.

tough love wrote:

Otis Wrote:
I couldn't give a fuck what some jackass kraut over in Rome thinks.

The pope can go fuck himself for all I care.
Now if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to declare it, I might give a rats ass about it.

tl, the fact is the past year has been spent trying to make the current government work instead of concentrating on cleaning up all of Chretien's lingering stench. But that's only one of the downsides to having a minority government which some wished for.
When Martin is elected with a majority government in the next election, those changes will speed themselves up.

You keep telling yourself that, Otis.
The fact remains that never before in the modern history of this earth has a poli_party managed to degrade itself and lead a nation astray to the point of being considered worthy of excommunication.
No matter how you slice that up, it still stinks to high heaven.

Bottom Line:
The one true God is no friend to heathenkind.


Typical Liberal MP Pedo_Pedigrees' take on Bill C-313

Eight is too late.

Martin's priest says PM can receive communion as Pope condemns politicians' 'hypocrisy'

Last Updated Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:18:13 EDT
CBC News


Paul Martin's priest says the Prime Minister can continue to receive communion. Father John Walsh disagreed with a proposal being studied by Catholic bishops meeting at the Vatican this weekend. They may consider denying communion to politicians who pass laws that go against their faith.

Pope Benedict XVI opened the synod on Sunday saying that trying to keep God out of public life was "not tolerance but hypocrisy."

Father John Walsh disagreed. "We can't use the Eucharist as a time ... to judge a person's conscience by refusing them communion," he said.

Walsh is a priest at the church Martin attends in Montreal. "I think that we must look at the situation and say: 'Are we respecting a person's conscience?'" asked Walsh.

Martin reacted to the controversy on Friday. "I am a practising Catholic, in fact I am a strong Catholic," said Martin. "But I am also a legislator and I believe in the separation of church and state." Martin has supported same-sex marriage.

The Pope said in a homily Sunday that "the type of tolerance which permits God as a private opinion but refuses to allow him in the public arena, is, in the reality of the world and our life, not tolerance but hypocrisy." The Pope was speaking to over 250 bishops from 118 countries.

The three-week-long synod is the Pope's first major Church meeting since his election in April.

Echoing the position taken by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Most Rev. Thomas Collins, Archbishop of Edmonton, told The Star that he believes local bishops have a duty to deal with local politicians individually.

"A bishop's role is not to forbid communion to people -- that's a sad necessity that may unfortunately from time to time occur," he said, but only after much fasting, prayer and encouragement for the politician to repent and change.

From her perspective as a former nun turned Catholic pro-choice activist, Joanna Manning says the church's staunch moral code is dividing believers.

"The church now has been very severely polarized," she told CTV.

Martin Rover of the pastoral studies program at Saint Paul University in Ottawa believes the church has to account for the differences of opinion within its flock.

"You've got to think of the church in Canada that is already desperately looking for priests and needs to bring missionaries over from other places," he told CTV.

"Sometimes I get the impression that the church doesn't worry about alienating people in the pews."

Rover believes a fiercely dogmatic church risks losing the last of its dwindling congregation.

"The fight in the church is really between the right and the centre. The left have all gone and if it keeps fighting to the right -- more conservative and more fundamental -- soon the centre will have to leave too."

In a move that signals a shift in church policy from condemning homosexual acts, but not sexual orientation, the resolutely conservative pope will also consider a proposal to ban all gay men -- whether celibate or not -- from becoming priests.

If Pope Benedict does to go ahead with the ban, Manning believes it will be the eventual undoing of his church.

"This signals the end," she said, "of the embrace of the church of the teachings of compassion and justice."

Since 1972, any Christian of any other Church who has been baptised in the name of the Trinity -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit -- and is a communicant member of that Church is welcome to receive Holy Communion in the Church of England. This is an expression of our hope that, one day, all Christians will be united.

Otis Wrote:
PM Martin would be welcomed into the Anglican Church and free to receive Holy Communion.

tough love wrote:

Otis Wrote:
PM Martin would be welcomed into the Anglican Church and free to receive Holy Communion.

Do they call their sacrament, the Eucharist of Hypocrisy?

Give your libby head a humanist shake, 'Bro... How holy could that poser communion even be if the fearful wishy washy Anglican Church Of Afraid To Lose Their Tax Exempt Status Being Greater Then Their Desire To Do The Will Of God would even consider serving what is supposed to symbolize the body of Christ to an anti-christ friendly poli_heathen like Martin.

Those pretenders should change their name to The Anglingcon Church. :roll:

What would Jesus Do?

I submit that this is a perfectly fine question. And so, to find answers, I decided to go to the source and last week read through the four Gospels. This is what I found.

Would Jesus launch a “pre-emptive” war?

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
(Matt. 5:9)

Our “President” appears to be prepared to “kick some Iraqi ass.” What would Jesus do?

Ye have heard that it hath it said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matt. 5: 43-44)

While he was the Governor of Texas, George Bush signed 155 death warrants, and granted no pardons to condemned prisoners. What would Jesus do?

Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7)

Rev. Jerry Falwell, steadfast proponent of “the right to life,” also endorses capital punishment. What would Jesus do?

Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto thee, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turned him the other also. (Matt. 5:38 39)

What might Jesus say about school prayer?

And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which seeth in secret . (Matt. 6.27)

And the separation of church and state?

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt. 22-21).

Did I remember to ask what Jesus had to say about war and peace”

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
(Matt. 5:9)

Our glorious free market economy is driven by the profit motive. What might Jesus say about the profit motive?

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. ... For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matt. 6: 19, 21)

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matt. 6:24)

Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. (Luke 12:15).

With the help of a few well-placed friends, George Bush parlayed a nominal investment in the Texas Rangers into a $20 million fortune. When Dick Cheney left Halliburton, he was given a $34 million “retirement package.” What would Jesus do with these “winnings?”

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matt. 19:21)

Verily, I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. ... It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19-23).

George Bush has denied access to his gubernatorial papers and his father’s presidential papers (in both cases, public documents). Dick Cheney refuses to disclose the contents and the persons involved in consultations regarding energy policy. What might Jesus say about this?

There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:2-3)

What might Jesus do about poverty and welfare assistance?

I was hungred and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.... Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:35-40).

Forty million American children live below the poverty level. What might Jesus say about this?

Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned int the depth of the sea. (Matt. 18:6)

Furthermore, it is estimated that as a result of the economic sanctions, a half a million Iraqi children have died.

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones...” (Matt. 18:10).

Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and numerous “televangelists” claim to speak for Jesus, as they successfully solicit millions in donations. What might Jesus tell them?

Not everyone who sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 7:21).

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; inasmuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (Matt. 24:24).

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matt. 7:15)

There appears to be something of a “disconnect” between the teachings of Jesus Christ (who, George Bush tells us, “changed my life”), and the behavior and policies of many self-confessed “Christians.” I believe that the word that describes such inconsistency might be “hypocrisy.” Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites.

Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites... This people honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me. (Mark 7:6)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer; therefore ye shall receive thy greater damnation. (Matt. 23:14)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess....

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ... ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23: 23-2.

And one last time, just in case you forgot:

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
(Matt. 5:9)

Finally, the troubled Christian today might reply: “I do love Jesus, but really, ‘love my enemies?’ ‘Sell all that I have?’ Isn’t that asking too much?” To this, Jesus would reply:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

As I read the four gospels, front to back, these are some of the passages that seemed especially relevant to our times and responsive to the question “What would Jesus do?” Alas, try as I might, I could find no guidance therein regarding abortion, homosexuality, pornography, gun control or the capital gains tax.

When faced with such hypocrisy as we seem to find amongst prominent “Christians” today, what did Jesus do?

Jesus wept. (John 11:35).

tough love wrote:The Good Pope is not saying that you Libby's are not good at mouthing 'The Word; it's just that when it comes to practicing the morality parts, you suck satan horn.

Question: Could Martins spontaneously lying tongue even stop moving long enough to accept the host which that humanist poser church of yours would gladly place into his heathen mouth?

I call Doubt'errrs.

Otis wrote: Apparently the amendments they were offering still weren't acceptable or else one or more of the other parties would have voted differently.