In the news

Actually really surprised you need permission to get a divorce, assumed you could just do it if you wanted

'unreconciable differences' should have worked that out a long time ago. At 66 she should just separate and after five years divorce is simple, so what's stopping her??

Here's a list of examples of unreasonable behaviour;
*The Respondent has been violent towards the Petitioner.
The Respondent has threatened the Petitioner with physical violence or has been physically abusive.
The Respondent has been verbally abusive towards the Petitioner.
The Respondent drinks to excess, and when he is under the influence of alcohol he behaves in an unreasonable and aggressive manner.
The Respondent is financially irresponsible, and has failed to maintain the Petitioner and/or the children properly during the marriage.
During the marriage the Respondent has gambled to excess and has, on numerous occasions, caused considerable distress to the Petitioner by running up large gambling debts and dissipating the family’s savings.
The Respondent has formed an improper relationship with a woman whose identity is unknown.
The Respondent refuses to discuss the issues within the marriage with the Petitioner.
The Respondent does not want to engage in any sexual or physical relations with the Petitioner.
The Respondent shows no interest in socialising with the Petitioner and prefers to socialise alone with friends.
The Respondent refuses to try and resolve the issues and continues to behave in an unreasonable manner.**

All that ^ is going to make you unhappy.

I think I scored 3 out of 11 ? 3/11

Trumpcare is fucked in what commentators are calling a "disaster" for Trump and the Republicans.
"Obamacare is the law of the land"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39387550

I don't disagree, just pointing out she'd failed to clear the bar. Which probably means her lawyer was a bit shit.

The ongoing scandal of Osborne becoming Evening Standard 'editor':

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/24/george-osborne-gains-approval-of-local-tory-association-over-editorship-role

Funny he seemingly didn't ask his local Conservative association before he accepted the appointment, isn't it?

It was good to see a whole page about it in Private Eye this week. Apparently, he didn't bother running it past Acoba, the 'Advisory Committee on Business Appointments', which Private Eye routinely reports to be toothless and which Osborne felt he could simply bypass.

Apparently, the suggest is that Osborne is going to use the ES to beat up on the government over brexshit, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

beat up on the government over brexshit, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

Well apart from the New European no other paper is doing this. So yes the frenemy theory is ok with me

slope faced redundant jittler-rag douglas carswell has now upgraded the ukips total mp count to 0. fuck em all.

.

It was a motion condemning Islamaphobia. It is not a law. I'm not sure how that privileges Islam. In fact, official, parliamentary, discussion and condemnation may be part of what makes Canada "one of the least racist countries on earth."

.

I'm well aware of what a motion is, I made sure not to say 'law'.

You made sure not to say law, but also wrote it results in 'the real privileging of one religious group over others.' What is the real privileging provided by denouncing a type of prejudice?

This is a slippery slope. They have refused to define 'Islamophobia', which goes to show what an utterly baseless and slanderous word it is.

What is baseless and slanderous about the word Islamophobia? And, although not in the text of the motion itself, Iqra Khalid did define what she meant.

It should not be given a legal context.

What is the legal context related to a motion? Motions are statements of opinion by parliament and have no legal force.

This motion privileges islam by singling it out in such a way.

So governments should not denounce the rise of Islamophobia if it means they have to mention Islam? It's worth noting that the text did mention all other types of prejudice and racism ("Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination"), but this motion was intended to specifically denounce one particular type.

Let's try a thought experiment. If a gunman entered a synagogue and unloaded on those worshiping, and the government responded with a non-legally binding motion stating the opinion that antisemitism is wrong and we need to do more to combat it, would you be equally upset? If so, at least you're consistent. But I think most people would understand that this is not privileging a particular group.

Actually, we don't need a thought experiment. In 2015 there was a unanimous motion passed by the Canadian parliament which condemned antisemitism. I don't recall much outrage then. Curious, that.

If you think Canada doesn't have a race problem, you've never seen, or ignored, how the First Nation are treated

Canada is probably one of the least racist countries on earth

^ #trufax (and it doesn't end with the aboriginal peoples).

.

You seem to have abandoned your primary claim about a motion which privileges a particular group in favour of a new argument.

Islamophobia implies an irrational fear. It is not irrational (do I have to explain why?)

Yes please. My upstairs neighbours are devout Muslims (going by their dress). They often bring us treats (which I should really reciprocate. I'm such a dick). What is it that I need to rationally fear? Are the cupcakes poisoned!?!

Do you have the same problem with homophobia?

Brainwashing cupcakes- they're probably radicalising you via icing.

Icing then ISISing.

I has your tshirt BTW

Nice. Or 'So called' ISing.

.

Aha - another mosque thread.

Christian/infidel
Jewish/gentile
Muslim/kuffir

A lot of religions have this distinction.