Canadian Politics

[Eriol]

But seriously now, how is that an issue with immigration, as opposed to being one with your justice system?

Because why do we want people in this country MORE likely to act this way? A simple questionnaire with some simple questions about their values would be enough to filter this crap out.

1. Do you believe that men and women should be equal under the law?
2. Is physically disciplining your wife when they misbehave acceptable?
3. How old does a male relative have to be in order to escort a woman outside the home?
4. How should a woman be punished when she's brought dishonor on her family?
5. What should the penalty be for converting to another religion away from Islam?
6. How many years in prison should a person get for drawing or depicting the Prophet Muhammad?

You know, SIMPLE shit.

For reference, the correct answers:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Bullshit, isn't necessary
4. She shouldn't, that's bullshit.
5. None.
6. Zero.

Every one of those things are illegal/biased in virtually the entire muslim world, except 3, as that's more of a Saudi-specific thing. I'd be willing to bet this guy would answer "not correctly" on every one of those, with again, 3 maybe not, as that's Saudi. And then our (broken) justice system wouldn't have had to deal with anything!

 

[DarkAudit]

And for extra reinforcement, the family doesn't get to define "misbehave" or "dishonor". either.

@Eriol, it's what it says on the tin. The husband or brother or whoever can't decide what "misbehave" or "dishonor" means. You can't shove your wife down the stairs for having dinner on the table five minutes late, and then trot out the "misbehave" defense.

 

[Eriol]

And for extra reinforcement, the family doesn't get to define "misbehave" or "dishonor". either.

@Eriol, it's what it says on the tin. The husband or brother or whoever can't decide what "misbehave" or "dishonor" means. You can't shove your wife down the stairs for having dinner on the table five minutes late, and then trot out the "misbehave" defense.

I more meant that the "direction" of your amendment wasn't clear. Are you intending that the family gets to define it, or that the state defines it? From your edit you seem to be saying that the state defines it, which I'm 100% good with, though even so, any cases of that still do not justify taking your "honor" (or whatever) into your own hands.

To put it to an extreme, if you find out your family member killed somebody else, you report them to the police, not "discipline" or kill them yourself because you feel it's justified because of "honor" reasons. That's even more my point, rather than defining either of those terms.

 

[@Li3n]

Because why do we want people in this country MORE likely to act this way?

Yeah, why allow these people to go somewhere where they're actually punished for hurting others... they should just stay where they are, so we can safely ignore all the suffering.

Hell, why don't we just deport anyone that beats their spouse all together, that would solve the whole thing in your country. Oh wait, you can't do that because being born somewhere means you have more of a right to break the law there then somewhere else.

And the worst thing is that 50-60 years ago beating your wife was acceptable in the west (pretty sure some US states still have laws about how to do it "right"), and that wasn't changed by singling out the group with the highest rate of it happening and deporting them.

....

And are you seriously saying it's better not to deal with flaws in your justice system by just not having it used? (of course, without knowing what probation does, and what the recidivism rates are, can't even really tell if it's flawed)

 

[DarkAudit]

I more meant that the "direction" of your amendment wasn't clear. Are you intending that the family gets to define it, or that the state defines it? From your edit you seem to be saying that the state defines it, which I'm 100% good with, though even so, any cases of that still do not justify taking your "honor" (or whatever) into your own hands.

To put it to an extreme, if you find out your family member killed somebody else, you report them to the police, not "discipline" or kill them yourself because you feel it's justified because of "honor" reasons. That's even more my point, rather than defining either of those terms.

Oh, yeah. 100% the state defines it. Or even defines it as not existing, so it's back to going up on assault or murder charges.

 

[Eriol]

Yeah, why allow these people to go somewhere where they're actually punished for hurting others... they should just stay where they are, so we can safely ignore all the suffering.

Hell, why don't we just deport anyone that beats their spouse all together, that would solve the whole thing in your country. Oh wait, you can't do that because being born somewhere means you have more of a right to break the law there then somewhere else.

Actually, we don't have to "allow" them to come into our country to break our laws. We'd actually like the people that come here to NOT break our laws. And ya, deporting foreign nationals who break our laws is a GOOD thing IMO. They shouldn't be a burden on our social systems. No country has an inherent responsibility to any outside their borders. The PEOPLE can decide to do so via international charities or whatnot, but the systems within? No, sorry, we actually don't have to take everybody from everywhere, and then sort them into our jails, or other places as appropriate. That's just more load on us.

And the worst thing is that 50-60 years ago beating your wife was acceptable in the west (pretty sure some US states still have laws about how to do it "right"), and that wasn't changed by singling out the group with the highest rate of it happening and deporting them.

Deal with what's in your own country appropriately, but nobody has a "right" to come into another country if they're not a citizen.

And are you seriously saying it's better not to deal with flaws in your justice system by just not having it used? (of course, without knowing what probation does, and what the recidivism rates are, can't even really tell if it's flawed)

Our justice system should only have to deal with those who are here already LEGALLY, and those whom we invite in legally. We shouldn't be inviting them in if we already know they're going to cause issues, and we shouldn't be inviting all-and-sundry in either. Not asking is just inviting the abuses (and abusers since that's the original topic).

 

[TommiR]

Because why do we want people in this country MORE likely to act this way? A simple questionnaire with some simple questions about their values would be enough to filter this crap out.

1. Do you believe that men and women should be equal under the law?
2. Is physically disciplining your wife when they misbehave acceptable?
3. How old does a male relative have to be in order to escort a woman outside the home?
4. How should a woman be punished when she's brought dishonor on her family?
5. What should the penalty be for converting to another religion away from Islam?
6. How many years in prison should a person get for drawing or depicting the Prophet Muhammad?

You know, SIMPLE shit.

I think this presumes they would answer such questions honestly, instead of saying what friends/relatives/human traffickers have coached them to say.

I'm a bit sceptical of the success of such a questionnaire. In recent times, Europe has experienced a substantial influx of asylum seekers, as I'm sure you are all aware of. I am uncertain if a policy of taking what the asylum seekers have to say at face value would produce anything approaching desirable results.

 

[Eriol]

I think this presumes they would answer such questions honestly, instead of saying what friends/relatives/human traffickers have coached them to say.

I'm a bit sceptical of the success of such a questionnaire. In recent times, Europe has experienced a substantial influx of asylum seekers, as I'm sure you are all aware of. I am uncertain if a policy of taking what the asylum seekers have to say at face value would produce anything approaching desirable results.

1. Doing nothing = assured failure
2. Doing ANYTHING = possibility of success.

We're currently doing #1 right now. Doing #2 might work, at least somewhat. And yes, I know what pun I'm making.

 

[GasBandit]

1. Doing nothing = assured failure
2. Doing ANYTHING = possibility of success.

While I'm sympathetic to your position, I want to point out that this logic is what got the US billions in toxic "quantitative easing" and a Patriot Act.

 

[Eriol]

While I'm sympathetic to your position, I want to point out that this logic is what got the US billions in toxic "quantitative easing" and a Patriot Act.

Fair enough. Slam the door if you're doing nothing. If opening the door somewhat (which I support), also do something.

 

[Bubble181]

If you really think any Western country is currently "doing nothing", you're willfully ignorant.
There are plenty of hurdles on the way either for immigrants or refugees, asylum seekers and war victims. Are we doing enough? Are we doing the right things? Are things turning out OK? That's all another matter; but saying we - in any version of "us" - is just letting anyone in, is just plain false.

 

[Eriol]

If you really think any Western country is currently "doing nothing", you're willfully ignorant.
There are plenty of hurdles on the way either for immigrants or refugees, asylum seekers and war victims. Are we doing enough? Are we doing the right things? Are things turning out OK? That's all another matter; but saying we - in any version of "us" - is just letting anyone in, is just plain false.

Given the extremely low standard I set above that's obviously not being met, it's the next best thing to "nothing" being done.

 

[Eriol]

Fraser institute releases study on Canadians going abroad (read: USA) for health care: Big jump in number of people seeking medical care outside Canada: Study

From the article (not the original study, which I also linked above)

According to Fraser Institute's yearly measurement of wait times, people waited an average of 10.6 weeks to see a specialist for treatment, which is four weeks longer than what physicians deemed reasonable.

*snip*

Otolaryngologists – ear, nose and throat specialists – have the reportedly highest number of patients that traveled abroad for treatments at 2.1% while neurosurgeons followed at 1.9%.

Medically necessary stuff, 1 in 50 (at most, less for other things) going across the border rather than wait, often in BAD pain (I've had neurological stuff... nerve pain SUCKS ASS).

This does NOT surprise me, but any move to change ANYTHING major about the system is accused of being the USA (we don't want that either). Thus, we'll keep pouring money into the pit while little changes.


X

 

[Eriol]

I think this video sums up the ideas of the Liberal Party of Canada very well:

 

[Eriol]

So this is a thing: 'It's totally disgraceful': Military families condemn Ottawa's plan to pay Omar Khadr millions

“When a Canadian soldier is injured in battle, the government provides a disability award up to a maximum of $360,000,” Calgary MP Michelle Rempel said in a tweet. “Despite this, the current government is willing to provide $10 million to a convicted terrorist.”

That article gives a fairly good summary of the entire thing up to those point as well.

Also, the family of the US soldier that he killed and the survivor of the same attack (who lost an eye, at least) are suing to get any damages paid out to them, not Khadr. Story related to that: U.S. application filed to secure any cash for Khadr

The lawyer for the widow of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan said Tuesday they have filed an application so that any money paid by the Canadian government to a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner convicted of killing him will go toward the widow and another U.S. soldier injured.

So ya, that's happening. Thoughts?

 

[@Li3n]

Actually, we don't have to "allow" them to come into our country to break our laws. We'd actually like the people that come here to NOT break our laws. And ya, deporting foreign nationals who break our laws is a GOOD thing IMO. They shouldn't be a burden on our social systems. No country has an inherent responsibility to any outside their borders. The PEOPLE can decide to do so via international charities or whatnot, but the systems within? No, sorry, we actually don't have to take everybody from everywhere, and then sort them into our jails, or other places as appropriate. That's just more load on us.

Deal with what's in your own country appropriately, but nobody has a "right" to come into another country if they're not a citizen.

Well, unless it's the 18th century, and those people are too savage to count.

But lets play: jews fleeing from Germany in 1938... throw them back because they're not citizens, and those are the rules we decided on, right.

Our justice system should only have to deal with those who are here already LEGALLY, and those whom we invite in legally. We shouldn't be inviting them in if we already know they're going to cause issues, and we shouldn't be inviting all-and-sundry in either. Not asking is just inviting the abuses (and abusers since that's the original topic).

"Some might be bad, don't let any of them in."

Also, wasn't he there legally anyway?

So ya, that's happening. Thoughts?

The families should sue him personally, in civil court, and not try to get the money right from the state.

Human rights violations shouldn't be excused just because someone is guilty. They knew that in 1776, that's why "cruel and unusual punishment" was a thing.

 

[Eriol]

Well, unless it's the 18th century, and those people are too savage to count.

But lets play: jews fleeing from Germany in 1938... throw them back because they're not citizens, and those are the rules we decided on, right.

That the standard was bad previously does not mean "then we should have no rules because rules sometimes result in bad." Under that idea, all laws against everything are bad, as they can be abused. I'm advocating reforming the existing laws.

"Some might be bad, don't let any of them in."

Also, wasn't he there legally anyway?

I think I was pretty clear on advocating that the rules change. He was here legally, but there should have been more checks before he was let in. Let's change the laws so individuals such as him aren't let in again.

The families should sue him personally, in civil court, and not try to get the money right from the state.

Human rights violations shouldn't be excused just because someone is guilty. They knew that in 1776, that's why "cruel and unusual punishment" was a thing.

They DID sue him personally in the USA, and were awarded $130M or so. That's in the article I linked above about how that all happened. Did you read it or just my excerpt? Here's another excerpt that answers your question:

The widow of Speer and Morris filed a wrongful death and injury lawsuit against Khadr in 2014 fearing Khadr might get his hands on money from his $20 million wrongful imprisonment lawsuit. A U.S. judge granted $134.2 million in damages in 2015.

Please read the entire article for context. Here's the link again: U.S. application filed to secure any cash for Khadr

 

[@Li3n]

That the standard was bad previously does not mean "then we should have no rules because rules sometimes result in bad." Under that idea, all laws against everything are bad, as they can be abused. I'm advocating reforming the existing laws.

I think I was pretty clear on advocating that the rules change. He was here legally, but there should have been more checks before he was let in. Let's change the laws so individuals such as him aren't let in again.

Based on the reasoning for why he got such a light sentence, what should be changed is how you inform them of the difference in local laws.

They DID sue him personally in the USA, and were awarded $130M or so. That's in the article I linked above about how that all happened. Did you read it or just my excerpt? Here's another excerpt that answers your question:

Please read the entire article for context. Here's the link again: U.S. application filed to secure any cash for Khadr

I skimmed it.

But i was talking about suing him in Canada, instead of suing the state, and i saw nothing about it when i skimmed. Guess i passed over the US stuff completely.

Trying to stop someone from getting compensation for a crime committed against them because they in turn committed another crime (even if it's kind of funny seeing 2nd amendment loving people argue that killing military personnel in a war zone while being engaged in armed rebellion - no matter how wrong the reasons - counts as wrongful death) just sets a bad precedent. I mean what if the government was suing him so they can just get the money back?

If they feel the US trial isn't enough, just do the same in Canada.

 

[Eriol]

Trying to stop someone from getting compensation for a crime committed against them because they in turn committed another crime (even if it's kind of funny seeing 2nd amendment loving people argue that killing military personnel in a war zone while being engaged in armed rebellion - no matter how wrong the reasons - counts as wrongful death) just sets a bad precedent. I mean what if the government was suing him so they can just get the money back?

Part of the difference here is he wasn't a soldier in an army in a rebellion. Terrorists usually fall into a "they're more like spies" category as they're not in uniform, and thus they don't have the same rights as soldiers in a war, even a civil war. You'd be surprised how important that is for protecting the rights of the soldier, but most terrorism groups don't put their people in a uniform. Add to that the fact that Afghanistan wasn't where he was from at all (he was born in Toronto, Canada) and it gets a whole lot muddier as to the idea of being in a "rebellion" if you travel to be there.

Regardless, this video sums up a LOT of the issues very clearly:

Yes it's from a really right-wing site. It's still extremely clear on the facts about the issue, and how under the UN, he didn't even qualify as a child soldier. Apparently 15 is "discouraged" but not classified the same by the UN as if he were under that, which I didn't know prior to watching that.

 

[Eriol]

So lots about Julie Payette being the next Governor General for Canada. Former Astronaut, Engineer, etc. All good stuff.

And now some not so great stuff: in 2011 she was charged with 2nd degree assault for beating up her husband.

The alleged offence for which she was charged took place on November 24, 2011 in Piney Point, Maryland, where Payette was living with her then-husband, retired RCAF pilot William “Billie” Flynn. According to a source, Flynn was the victim of the alleged assault, but that has not been confirmed.

Payette and Flynn split shortly after the November 2011 incident

Somebody over at CBC thought this also shows a double-standard on the part of the Prime Minister: Trudeau's silence on Payette's expunged assault charge shows double standard: Robyn Urback

If we take Payette at her word that the 2011 charge was "unfounded," then it should constitute a mere line or two in her biography, and certainly not disqualify her from her soon-to-be-assumed role. The charge was laid, quickly dropped and subsequently expunged, according to reports.

What makes the story exceptional, however, is the prime minister's reluctance to address the report with anything beyond a cursory "no comment." Indeed, when pressed by iPolitics, Kate Purchase, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's director of communications, said simply: "We've got no comment on this."

...

"Let's all cast our minds back to Trudeau's delivery of swift justice against two former Liberal MPs accused of pressing unwelcome advances against two female New Democrat MPs."

...

In the case of those two former Liberal MPs — Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti — there were no actual charges leveled against them when the news broke back in November 2014. In fact, the internal investigation of the matter came only after Trudeau announced that the pair would be suspended from caucus because of "allegations of serious misconduct."

At the time, the MPs hadn't even been informed of the specific allegations against them. Nevertheless, Trudeau stood before cameras to declare that he would "give the benefit of the doubt to those who come forward."

...

It's not a perfect comparison, but the difference in approach is striking: a couple of men were treated as guilty before we knew the facts, and Trudeau jumped in front of the microphone at seemingly the first available opportunity. But now, with a woman at the centre of the controversy, he's totally mum. It's all the more bizarre considering that, in the eyes of the law, Payette's case is settled.

It's not far-fetched to think that if it was discovered that a male governor general had an assault charge in his past, Trudeau would seize the opportunity to evangelize about male aggression and domestic violence. Then again, I don't think Trudeau would appoint a male governor general with a past assault charge — even one that had been dropped and expunged — in the first place.

Payette's past shouldn't disqualify her from the role of governor general, but it shouldn't be ignored by the prime minister, either. Trudeau was eager to get his comments in before; he hardly has a good reason for staying quiet now.

Does anybody really believe that a male GG candidate would be in with such a charge hanging over them? For all the talk about believing the victims first, his actions don't seem to jive with that when a man's the victim.

 

[Eriol]

This is interestingly inflammatory: The MMIW is stuck in a politically correct limbo

The main points in this article that are likely to "trigger" some people are the following (directly from the article, bold is mine though) :

The explanation for all this dysfunctionality may be that the MMIW seems to have a preconceived notion of what it wants to find – that white racism is the cause of most cases of murdered and disappeared indigenous women and girls. Yet it cannot reconcile that pre-made conclusion with the truth.

The truth is most First Nations women who suffer violence and sexual violence are victims of spouses, partners, ex-husbands, boyfriends, neighbours, relatives, or criminal accomplices.

And the majority of those abusers are indigenous men.

It was puzzling last summer when the Liberal government released a list of goals for the MMIW. Not on the list was an examination of just who was murdering all of these indigenous women and why.

...

Indigenous men are even more likely to be victims of violence than indigenous women. So indigenous women aren’t more victimized and more ignored.

Furthermore, the rate at which crimes are solved and prosecuted is the same for crimes against missing and murdered indigenous women as it is for similar crimes against non-indigenous women. The “clearance rate” is about 90 per cent for both.

In other words, there is no systemic bias or blindness that ignores the plight of female indigenous victims.

True? Definitely not stated in a "PC" fashion, but where's the truth here?

The part that "got" me here is the clear rate. From what the media has said about the issue, you'd think that when they disappeared they were ignored, but if the clear rate is functionally identical, then it gets into causes, and if the commission isn't supposed to find causes... then what's the f'n point?

 

[Eriol]

Alberta-specific:

She basically destroys the idea that the Alberta Conservative unity news is anything but overwhelming support.

I also thought it was interesting that only one other reporter was there the whole day (whom she gave credit to), but most outlets only showed up an hour or two before the announcement.

 

[Eriol]

Let the Warkentin family stay

I agree with the columnist. Let them stay.

 

[Eriol]

Brad Wall announces he'll retire as soon as the party elects a new leader: 'Thank you Saskatchewan': Premier Brad Wall announces retirement
He's the longest-serving Premier right now, by a decent margin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Canadian_first_ministers

Lived in Saskatchewan for 2 years, so I keep an eye on things like this.

 

[@Li3n]

Part of the difference here is he wasn't a soldier in an army in a rebellion.

Heh, soldier in an army... coz rebellions are famous for being so well organized. Maybe if your only example os the recent "rebellion" in Ukraine.

 

[Eriol]

This out today - Canadians spending more on taxes than household necessities: Taxes versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition

The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes (42.5%) than it does on basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing combined (37.4%). By comparison, 33.5% of the average family’s income went to pay taxes in 1961 while 56.5% went to basic necessities.

Not exactly a surprise here.

 

[Bubble181]

Eh, come back when you're over 50% and we'll start comparing properly. Pussies
(Belgium's tax base has been steadily lowering with our current right-wing government, and is now down from an average 54% to a measly 51.9%. Since I'm single without kids, I'm still in the highest bracket with income taxes of about 56%, so a total tax rate of about 75% if you include VAT, local taxes and social security).

 

[Frank]

This out today - Canadians spending more on taxes than household necessities: Taxes versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition

Not exactly a surprise here.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3691159/c...utm_source=GlobalEdmonton&utm_medium=Facebook

Still, Canadians are paying a relatively lower tax bill today than they were between the late 1990s and the financial crisis, the data suggests.

Canadians spend more on taxes than they did in the early 1960s. But they spend a lot less on basic necessities than they did then.

Seems like we're winning.

 

[Eriol]

Frank, those data points aren't equally spaced for equal time.

And more importantly, the "size of the gap on the graph" will always increase even if the rate is constant, and the rate would have to INCREASE for the "dollar amount gap" to stay consistent. What I mean is, if you're at $10,000 per year with a 50% tax rate, there will be a $5000 gap on the graph. But then if income is $100,000 per year with a 50% tax rate, the gap will be $50,000, and thus LOOK a lot bigger. You're not any different, but the graph looks like it's diverging like you have more money, when actually the tax man is keeping up just fine.

Hence why comparing percentages is much more useful. The percentage of income taxed has gone up since then. The graph you are citing is a smokescreen.

 

[Gruebeard]

Given our increased socialism over that time, it's certain that the cost of some necessities has been folded into our tax bill, so a direct comparison like that bit @Eriol quoted can't be very helpful.

Although I notice something that seems to truly point to us winning, as @Frank say. If you add those numbers together, our combined tax/necessity bill comes to ~80% of our current income, while back in 1961 it came to ~90%.

It looks like we've got double the disposable income available.

 

[Eriol]

Given our increased socialism over that time, it's certain that the cost of some necessities has been folded into our tax bill, so a direct comparison like that bit @Eriol quoted can't be very helpful.

Another way to say it though is that taxes went up by 26.9% (33.5% -> 42.5%, not the same as a 9% increase!) over that period. Did we get 25% more services? Is the government doing a 25% better job? Are the lives of Canadians as a whole (economics, happiness, etc) 25% better through that investment? That's a HUGE judgement call.

Although I notice something that seems to truly point to us winning, as @Frank say. If you add those numbers together, our combined tax/necessity bill comes to ~80% of our current income, while back in 1961 it came to ~90%.

It looks like we've got double the disposable income available.

And the REAL cynical way of looking at those numbers is to say if we had NOT had the tax increases, we'd have TRIPLE the disposable income, since the combined bill would be ~70%, and thus it could be better for disposable income if not for government in that time.

But as I said above, HUGE judgement calls are involved here too.

 

[Eriol]

Remember kids, EVERYTHING is offensive: Everything is offensive: Here are Canada’s other politically incorrect place names

I'm amazed that the name of our country itself isn't on that list, but hey.

 

[Adam]

Another way to say it though is that taxes went up by 26.9% (33.5% -> 42.5%, not the same as a 9% increase!) over that period. Did we get 25% more services? Is the government doing a 25% better job? Are the lives of Canadians as a whole (economics, happiness, etc) 25% better through that investment? That's a HUGE judgement call.

No, you can't say that taxes went up 26.9% as your tax liability is already based on percentage of your income. You're double dipping on percentages which is fundamental deceitful math. So the question is "Have you received 9% more services between 1961 and 2017?" recognizing that since 1961:

- Universal healthcare was rolled out to all provinces as a 50/50 split federal/provincial in 1961.
- Canada Pension Plan introduced in 1965.
- Maternity and Sickness benefits in the EI program in 1971

Frankly, any one of those is worth 9%.

 

[Eriol]

No, you can't say that taxes went up 26.9% as your tax liability is already based on percentage of your income. You're double dipping on percentages which is fundamental deceitful math.

No, your way is the deceitful math. If your taxes go from $10 to $20 on $100 of income (10% to 20%), they doubled, they did NOT go up 10%.


Anyways, our esteemed Prime Minister's favorite terrorist wants to meet with his "harmless" sister unsupervised: Khadr’s sister’s less than liberal online post a telling sign

Zaynab Khadr sure has a sense of timing.

It was on Monday that Canadians were reading about her brother Omar’s request to have his bail conditions changed so he could have unrestricted access to hang with his big sis.

And it was on Monday that Zaynab took to Facebook to share this stern edict towards members of the ummah:

“All sects of Islam have agreed unanimously that homosexual acts are a sin, hijab is mandatory, imams must be men,” says a post she shared on her page Monday that was sourced by Postmedia.

“If you reject this, you are lying to yourself and you are weak in faith. Accept Islam for what it is or leave our mosques.”

Or... not? Maybe his whole family is pretty fucked up? For once the bail people got it right putting that condition on him.

 

[Denbrought]

Or... not? Maybe his whole family is pretty fucked up? For once the bail people got it right putting that condition on him.

Probably because I've been surrounded by Americans for far too long, but that does not seem fucked up at all. Fairly in line with what a lot of the Christian denominations around me preach, minus the hijab. Also worth noting that "leave our [place of worship]" is a valid way to frame religious disagreements (as opposed to what my "fucked up Islamist" mental model would've said about disagreeing with them, and the punishment for apostasy).