And what about my culture?

Ben (The Tiger)
#1. September 27th, 2007, at 5:34 PM.

My take.

Dorothy
#2. September 27th, 2007, at 10:10 PM.

I am astonished and angered by this. What ridiculousness! If anywhere should be exempt from the smoking laws (supposing that we should have these draconian smoking laws in the first place), it should be the Veterans halls.

Incidentally, I don’t smoke. But I recognize that smoking is something that brings people together, even if it is to freeze their butts off outside. Smoking has been a part of European (and American) culture since tobacco made it to Europe and, incidentally, it’s a custom native to Canada, in both senses of that word.

Dirk Belligerent
#3. September 27th, 2007, at 11:17 PM.

The Dirkworld® comment.

Sean McCormick
#4. September 27th, 2007, at 11:41 PM.

“One of the problems with multi-cult posturing and cultural sensitivity is that it leads to such brilliantly racist outcomes”

I would say bigoted outcomes. Last I checked, Islam hasn’t achieved race status yet. Besides, if you convert to Islam, you can go to a hookah lounge and take a few hits yourself.

Just don’t drink the bong water.

Keyser sose
#5. September 27th, 2007, at 11:42 PM.

Begining to feel like someone at the table trying to eat politely when one group is grabbing all the food and moving their chairs to get all the good spaces. Do I need to start grabbing food and reserving some space before its gone? To assure I have something?

Robert McClelland
#6. September 27th, 2007, at 11:49 PM.

Jay to ignorant slut. You should have read the second page of this article before popping off.

Anton and Coun. Tim Stevenson, who are from the city’s two main opposing parties, came up jointly with a motion to exempt the hookah lounges and cigar rooms temporarily.

Unless those cigar rooms are all owned by filthy immigrants you’re entire bigoted argument collapses.

Dr.Dawg
#7. September 28th, 2007, at 1:06 AM.

Let mer get this stright. A hookah lounge is an enclosed space wherein certain hookah-enjoying Muslims gather to smoke a hubble-bubble. This is not likely to be a “social space” that non-Muslims, and non-smoking Muslims, are tempted to enter. But a general non-smoking by-law, intended to protect the non-smokers among us, of course sweeps this case up in its wide net. So a request for an exemption is made, and granted.

Perhaps we do need to think of the workers in such an “atmosphere”–in fact, of course we should. Perhaps one solution would be to allow objecting workers to be accommodated–to work in other parts of the establishment. But what we seem to have here is more like a (self-selected) private club than a public bar or a restaurant, both of which attract smokers and non-smokers alike.

I thought you were a libertarian, Jay. Maybe except for Muslims?

Brett
#8. September 28th, 2007, at 2:57 AM.

The war on smoking is a war on liberty itself.

Whenever I see a hospital preening itself on its smoking bans, even outside, I know the patients are in the hands of the intentionally cruel. That’s good for no one’s health, but the power of vanity to blind oneself to one’s owns failing cannot overcome the Puritan echo chamber.

Robert McClelland
#10. September 28th, 2007, at 7:58 AM.

oddly, no one argued that the cigar lounges were a matter of cultural necessity for a minority religious group.

I’d ask you to show me where you pulled that bit of information from but I really have no desire to see your ass.

That aside, nobody argued that hookah lounges were a matter of cultural necessity for a minority religious group either. The fact that these people may or may not be Muslim–and I have doubts as to whether or not that is a fact–has no bearing on this issue what-so-ever. Nowhere in the article is it argued that this was done religious grounds. That too is something you pulled out of your ass.

As for me missing the point, I don’t think so. You clearly make it in your last paragraph where you howl we’re granting rights to noisy newcomers while ignoring that some noisy natives were granted the same right. In other words, you’re just upset that the squeaky brown wheel got some grease too.

Robert McClelland
#12. September 28th, 2007, at 9:01 AM.

All that shows is that the city councillors and the journalist who wrote the article incorrectly use the religious term Muslim to describe anyone of Middle Eastern decent. Again, nowhere in the article was it demonstrated that this exemption has anything to do with religion.

If this had been English pub owners succeeding in gaining an exemption on the basis that cigarette andpipe smoking was a part of their English culture you wouldn’t have batted an eye at it. But since brown people–or possibly Muslim brown people–were involved, you lept on your high horse of nativism and charged headlong into the cannons of stupidity.

George
#14. September 28th, 2007, at 3:48 PM.

Jay
You can be sure the smoke police will go after the cigar bars next but not the hookah lounges. I live in NS and the special treatment of groups of people is sickening. The smoke police have a lock down on smoking except on the reservations. I Went to a hockey game last year on a reserve and they were smoking in the rink! Now if I did that in my town I would probably end up in jail.

balbulican
#15. September 28th, 2007, at 5:59 PM.

“Dawg, I can make precisely your argument about Legions.”

No, you can’t. I’m a non-smoking legion member. The primary purpose of a Legion is not smoking.

Boris Ben
#16. September 29th, 2007, at 1:37 AM.

Whether the exemption for the hookah lounges was for religious or ethnic reasons matters not if the key motive for banning smoking was the health of the population. Bit by bit, an alien culture with dangerous fringes takes over, and the indigenous one loses out. The historian Arnold Toynbee got it about right: ‘Cultures don’t get murdered, they commit suicide’. And as for Robert, he should look out for the guys in white overalls.

Dr.Dawg
#17. September 30th, 2007, at 2:21 AM.

So, everyone (or nearly everyone)… what about those cigar lounges? Hmmm? Nice catch, Robert!

Maybe, or maybe not, the “accommodation” issue was advanced. But it obviously wasn’t the only issue, or we wouldn’t be hearing about cigar lounges. The fact is that both spaces operate more or less like private clubs. They are for the very purpose of smoking. Non-smokers (other than employees) wouldn’t go there.

I agree that the employees themselves need to be accommodated–that’s a genuine health and safety issue. But that applies to the cigar rooms too.

So the primary issue is exceptions to the anti-smoking by-law based upon the entirely reasonable argument that a sequestered smoking area does no harm to non-smokers (employees aside, see above). To make this a racial or ethnic issue is a bit much. For shame, in fact.

Dr.Dawg
#19. September 30th, 2007, at 10:44 PM.

Jay:

That’s a little misleading. We’re talking about cigar rooms–enclosures where people can enjoy smoking cigars. It seems that both groups celebrated success.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b0682537-2505-4e6c-bef9-2390eca6152c

It seems natural that any group would advance all possible arguments to support their cause. But that shouldn’t warrant all this Angst about the enemy within.

Sentinel
#20. October 1st, 2007, at 2:50 PM.

Here we go again……….the left calling the right names because we happen to disagree with something of a cultural or politically sensitive nature.

So lefties? Where do we stop in making allowances for other cultures? Some religions allow you to have several wives (even underage!) Others find that the eating of dog or monkey meat is a delicacy. Some treat women as chattel with no rights. Some have a sabbath day on Sat or maybe Sun. The list goes on and on. Do we stop the allowances when they break our laws (like the no smoking laws?), or maybe the status quo? Or how about when the majority disagrees? Where do you draw the line?

The main complaint is that making allowances for “cultural” beliefs rarely seems to be a viable reality OUTSIDE of certain cultures.

A lot of Canadians enjoy a smoke with their coffee at Timmies ( a culture onto itself), or with a beer at their local Legion or watering hole. These are privately owned places that no one forces anyone to do business with and that do not forcefully recruit employees and make them stay on board. If a private business want to allow smoking then people have the CHOICE to go there or to work there.

That’s what I like about being right of centre. I HAVE MORE CHOICES (choice = freedom to me) Now those to the left seem to feel that the Government should have more of a say in your daily lives, like where or if I can have a smoke outside of my home. I don’t subscribe to the idea of more intervention of the Government in my daily life.

Now, if more Govt intervention is the rule of the day, then it should be applied uniformly across the board and everyone gets treated the same.

stephen.reeves
#21. October 1st, 2007, at 3:32 PM.

It was the Vancouver council that made it an Ethnic issue, by specifically singling out one group over others.

And what is going to happen to all the pot smokers out there,??

DCardno
#22. October 1st, 2007, at 10:08 PM.

“So the primary issue is exceptions to the anti-smoking by-law based upon the entirely reasonable argument that a sequestered smoking area does no harm to non-smokers…”

But bar owners who had built sequestered smoking areas upon reliance that such an exemption would allow them to offer smoking and non-smoking areas have since been told that the entire establishment must be non-smoking. As noted above, this includes the patio, which until now had been the last refuge of smoking patrons. This ban was justified on the basis of health risks to employees. I’m all in favour of allowing smoking throughout and letting the market sort it out - but if we are going to ban it, let’s do do comprehensively and consistently.

Roundhead
#23. October 1st, 2007, at 11:06 PM.

oh, no not Dawg-pile…

Dawg guy, why don’t you get you head out your ass for a moment…

if you did, you’d find that the law applies even to private clubs EXCEPT for the clubs that might be frequented by Muslims (just coincidentally, of course).

you can get back to admiring your framed picture of Ernst Rohm now, you along with the Robert McClellan thing

Dr.Dawg
#24. October 2nd, 2007, at 1:37 AM.

Jeeze, Jay, I thought you were moderating this thing.

As noted, cigar rooms are exempted. Funny how all the “aliens have landed” folks keep ignoring that point–as well as the fact that the two exemptions are temporary.

Oh well.

DCardno
#25. October 2nd, 2007, at 2:23 AM.

…folks keep ignoring that point–as well as the fact that the two exemptions are temporary.

Oh, you mean like Income Tax?

Jaz
#26. October 4th, 2007, at 2:50 PM.

This is a disgusting double standard. But I wouldn’t expect anything else.. We are no longer willing to defend anything Western and “they” (aggressive muslims) are more than willing to enforce, using the language of victim-ology’ and leftism, their right-wing culture.

Anyhow, I see Robert has pissed off back to the anti-semitic hole he came from. He literally handed his arse to you on a platter.

Dr.Dawg
#28. October 6th, 2007, at 4:51 PM.

Muslims in the cigar rooms? Man, you guys are simply too much. It’s like talking to the wall.