News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you favour releasing popular murderers from prison early? Or just those who build do-it-yourself gas chambers in their garages to exterminate the unacceptable?

Tracy Latimer suffered from a very severe form of cerebral palsy in which she experienced between 5 and 6 seizures a day, and the supreme court ruling noted that Tracy was in constant pain. Although Robert Latimer practiced unsolicited euthanasia, his rationale was understandable: he could not bear to watch his daughter suffer. Carbon Monxoide poisoning was the least pernicious way to euthanize her. He could have pulled her feeding tube and let her starve/dehydrate to death or drowned her in a bathtub.

Muhhamad Parvez, on the other hand, could not bear to watch his daughter go outside of the house without a hijab. He could have resorted to any number of actions, none of them criminal: he could have talked it over with her, he could have grounded her, but, in a fit of rage, he strangled her to death in their basement. The criminal intent of this incident is only underscored by the fact that her eldest brother interfered with the police investigation.

Robert Latimer was not innocent but you cannot insinuate that he and Muhammad Parvez are guilty of committing the same crime.
 
Latimer's child wasn't killed for wearing whorish clothing... that case centred around euthanasia, which is an entirely different, incomparable issue.
 
Latimer's child wasn't killed for wearing whorish clothing... that case centred around euthanasia, which is an entirely different, incomparable issue.

Except it wasn't euthanasia. Tracy Latimer was not capable of deciding whether she wanted to commit suicide. Robert Latimer deliberately planned to murder her, and did so.

How, exactly are the issues different? Except that the murder you approve was done buy a white father? Because people who can't make their own decisions are of no value, and therefore expendable?
 
Robert Latimer was not innocent but you cannot insinuate that he and Muhammad Parvez are guilty of committing the same crime.

What is the difference? Mr. Latimer was proven to have deliberately murdered his daughter. Mr. Parvez is accused of doing the same. Mr. Latimer has taken the consistent position that he is above the law. To date, at least, Mr. Parvez has not said this. If found guilty, he should be punished, but Mr. Latimer has done nothing to show he is not a risk to the public and did not deserve the special consideration he sought.
 
Don't feed the troll, all you fellow murderer-sympathizers (based upon the reason he's white). It's a waste of time.
 
How, exactly are the issues different? Except that the murder you approve was done buy a white father?

Wow. My desire to argue this case in an intelligent, thought-provoking manner has almost entirely disappeared. Thanks. Can the last person to leave this thread please turn out the lights?
 
Wow. My desire to argue this case in an intelligent, thought-provoking manner has almost entirely disappeared. Thanks. Can the last person to leave this thread please turn out the lights?

It appears that you only wanted to have your arguement with people who agree with you.
 
Canadian citizens cannot be deported. That includes immigrants. I'm not sure about the specifics of this case, but if the father is a citizen he will not be deported.


Are you under the impression that only those who are born in Canada are able to become citizens of this country?

And no, I did not know I was an idiot.

Good for you! Selective quoting FTL!

You took what I wrote out of context. What I wrote was in rebuttle to your thought that:

Lets set up two class of citizenships: one, full of mostly whites, that can't be deported and the other, mostly visible minorities, that can.

As I've already acertain, there are already more than 2 kinds! Citizen, permanent residents. The majority of immigrants are permanent residents.

Stop even trying, really, your not making a case here. Instead your just proving mine.
 
BuildTO: Hear, hear!

Syn is also correct. It isn't about religion, which was merely provoking cause in this sad story, where teenage rebellion and a clash of generations and a likely unstable family being the real issues here. A cultural-religious difference in opinion was merely a catalyst. Not a new story, and can happen in any type of family.



Of all the over-the-top, unfair, dismissive and ignorant generalizations ever stated on this forum, this ranks amongst the worst.

How is it not? Women are not treated as equals in that culture. Why should they be forced to cover their entire bodies from head to toe? Why can't women stand among men in Mosques? And when a Muslim man dies in battle he is promised 72 virgins in heaven. What does that say about women? What incentive is there for them? I think they just go along with it because they're fearful of men. Because many, not all, but a good number of people from the Middle East don't have much or any regard for human life. Hence all the ongoing daily problems over there.
 
Good for you! Selective quoting FTL!

You took what I wrote out of context. What I wrote was in rebuttle to your thought that:



As I've already acertain, there are already more than 2 kinds! Citizen, permanent residents. The majority of immigrants are permanent residents.

Stop even trying, really, your not making a case here. Instead your just proving mine.

But a permanent resident is not a citizen. There is only one class of Canadian citzenship: citizen.

As for most immigrants being permanent residents and not citizens, I don't know if that is true. But I guess that depends on what exactly your defintion of immigrant is.
 
The overwhelming majority of immigrants are citizens, and not permanent residents.

He could have resorted to any number of actions, none of them criminal: he could have talked it over with her, he could have grounded her, but, in a fit of rage, he strangled her to death in their basement.

Or, if she had been younger, he could have legally physically assaulted her. This is off-topic, but it brings up what I believe is an important point: the glaring legal inconsistency of allowing physical violence for "correction," but only against small children who couldn't possibly defend themselves.
 
physical violence for correction does nothing but teach violence. future generations will look back in disgust, hopefully.
 
Pops lost control, not his religion. He had a choice. He made it.
 
Sooner or later, the father in question would have had to get used to the fact that his daughter was a completely different individual than what he wanted or demanded. Cultural communities and religions don't exist in a vacuum.

These cases are getting increasingly common. Just months ago a crazed father (visibly elated as the police escorted him away) tried to mow down his daughter in Scarborough because she dated a non-Tamil boyfriend. For all of you saying "why did you come here if you don't embrace our lifestyle?" , it's so easy to forget everyone's entitled to own their sytem of beliefs, morals, principles, etc. For first generation newcomers, some people just won't tolerate deviation of their traditions as it's the only sense of stability and security they truly have in a period when they're most vunerable to persecution, unemployment, homelessness, bankruptcy, threat of deportation, etc..

This girl got kicked out of the family home just to satisfy what she felt was her version of normalcy. It's so easy to demonize people of a certain creed, race, culture; the hard part arises when she had no where else to turn but back to an overly conservative father. We shouldn't outright blame cultures clashing for this, but rather learn that latent Islamophobia/anti-Muslim sentiments are still prevalent, forcing our youth to mask their roots and parents in defiance of such discrimination increasingly rebel in taboo behaviours leading upto extremism. As usual it's only after the disaster, people are like "Oh shit, if only I had known!".

The whole Islamic religion is completely mysoginystic.

Religion in general is misogynistic. Man's personal biases impede rationality and selflessness, as such neglecting female perspectives. I'm sure if a woman wrote the Bible similar biases would arise. However religion is not to be taken literally. It's a composite of exegetical allegories, prophecy fulfillment schema, proof-texting, etc. in correspondence with the point-of-view of a few influencing the multitudes.

Brilliant idea. Lets set up two class of citizenships: one, full of mostly whites, that can't be deported and the other, mostly visible minorities, that can. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this? What are our politicians doing? Its time to get the ball rolling and make this a reality!

This guy's point I think, is that no matter how much we want to believe it, non-whites do not get treated the same way as Caucasians. We're a country of immigrants yet one ethnicity is privileged above all others. Look at our house of representatives if you think I'm wrong. A white person can never truly know what it's like to be a minority, in that sense they're lucky.

Pops lost control, not his religion. He had a choice. He made it.

Is it too late to impose unfit parent laws, mandatory vasectomies, psych evaluations before the third trimester?
 
These cases are getting increasingly common. Just months ago a crazed father (visibly elated as the police escorted him away) tried to mow down his daughter in Scarborough because she dated a non-Tamil boyfriend. For all of you saying "why did you come here if you don't embrace our lifestyle?" , it's so easy to forget everyone's entitled to own their sytem of beliefs, morals, principles, etc. For first generation newcomers, some people just won't tolerate deviation of their traditions as it's the only sense of stability and security they truly have in a period when they're most vunerable to persecution, unemployment, homelessness, bankruptcy, threat of deportation, etc..

Dentrobate, both of those fathers are obviously deranged, and it is absolutely wrong to try and justify that in terms of the pressure they face on their morals. This girl obviously didn't appreciate or agree with the father's "morals" and that should have led to an argument and maybe even ejection from the home, but certainly not murder. That is an act of a madman, no matter how frustrated he might have been at her decision to adopt Canadian/Western norms of behaviour.

Our House of Representatives? Perhaps you're looking at the wrong country. Are you sure that you're aware Urban Toronto is Toronto, Canada, not Toronto, Ohio? To think... all along maybe there's a suburb of Toronto, Ohio called Malvern that really does need three streetcars and an RT...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top