Is it insensitive to call barbarian practices - barbarian?  


Quote:

OTTAWA - Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings "barbaric" in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens. On Monday, the federal government updated its Discover Canada guide, a pamphlet given to new immigrants to help explain life in Canada and prepare them for the citizenship test. Among other things, it tells new Canadians that gay marriage is OK and forced marriages are not. But the guide also says: "Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings,' female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence." "Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws," it reads. Trudeau blasted the Conservatives for using the term "barbaric," even though it's been in the guide since 2009. Forced marriages are the only new item on the list. "There's nothing that the word 'barbaric' achieves that the words 'absolutely unacceptable' would not have achieved," Trudeau, the Liberal immigration critic, said. "We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That's not the debate. In casual conversation, I'd even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality."

Is Trudeau Jr right? Should we worry about the self-esteem of barbarians?

This oughta fix what ails them...

---

WTF - how many threads are you gonna start and/or spam to advertise this product!?

Quote:

...........official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.......

neutrality ????????????????
where murders and gouging out a daughters clit is concerned??
No, I'm not "neutral"
not by a long shot.



Soren wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 2:02pm:

Is it insensitive to call barbarian practices - barbarian?   Quote: OTTAWA - Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings "barbaric" in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens. On Monday, the federal government updated its Discover Canada guide, a pamphlet given to new immigrants to help explain life in Canada and prepare them for the citizenship test. Among other things, it tells new Canadians that gay marriage is OK and forced marriages are not. But the guide also says: "Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings,' female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence." "Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws," it reads. Trudeau blasted the Conservatives for using the term "barbaric," even though it's been in the guide since 2009. Forced marriages are the only new item on the list. "There's nothing that the word 'barbaric' achieves that the words 'absolutely unacceptable' would not have achieved," Trudeau, the Liberal immigration critic, said. "We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That's not the debate. In casual conversation, I'd even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality." Is Trudeau Jr right? Should we worry about the self-esteem of barbarians?

Equitist wrote on Mar 29^th, 2011 at 10:09pm:

WTF - how many threads are you gonna start and/or spam to advertise this product!?

Umm...this is the first ever.
If you have a problem with that, I'd suggest that you really need a dose.

Muslims need insensitivity training. They are too bloody sensitive. It's the beards - hiding their inferiority behind fuzzy hair. They need to grow thicker skins. Should start by shaving.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/747/01beard.jpg

;D

The Human Right Not To Be “Offended”

April 21, 2011 8:41 A.M. By Mark Steyn    
. . . now trumps all throughout the Western world.

In Australia, the columnist Andrew Bolt is on trial for the crime of “offending” prominent members of the taxpayer-remunerated “professional Aborigine” elite. One of the complainants simultaneously “offended” a fellow Aborigine by comparing her recent appearance on TV unfavorably to an act of equine bestiality, but that’s not actionable because no formally designated white people were involved — which was kind of Bolt’s point in the first place: Collective rights based on race, sex, orientation, and ideology (ie, religion) destroy the concept of equality before the law.

In Denmark, despite an earlier acquittal, Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society is to be re-tried by the State for the crime of “offending” Muslims by discussing Islam’s treatment of women in a private conversation.

And in Canada the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal has just fined a stand-up comic, Guy Earle, $15,000 for the crime of “offending” lesbians at a comedy club. They were drunk and were heckling him, and he unburdened himself of some putdowns. But they were homophobic putdowns, and so he must be punished. Earle was working for a fifty-buck bar tab and doesn’t have 15 grand, and no comedy club in Vancouver will hire him ever again. He donated money to a gay charity in atonement, but his fellow liberals abandoned him anyway.

In all the above “human rights” cases, the traditional protections of Common Law do not apply — whether the notion that truth is a defense or the principle of equality before the law. For the crime of giving offense is in the eye of the offended. A “multicultural” society needs not sensitivity training but insensitivity training — that’s to say, thicker skins. The alternative is what is happening in some of the oldest free societies on earth: a state ever more comfortable in regulating the citizenry’s speech, thoughts, and jokes. There’s a word for that, and it isn’t “diversity”.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265353/human-right-not-be-offended-mark-steyn