kelownabomberfan

I don't want to say much more either, other than to say that I heartily disagree with the above statement. First of all, I've seen enough rulings and law practiced in Canada to know that the term "legal fact" is about as big an oxymoron as it gets. Second, saying that the slope isn't slippery simply because it won't lead to beatings is in my opinion just plain choosing to focus on small worst case scenario, and ignoring the giant elephant in the room. In fact, your comment displays to me a willingness to be deliberately obtuse, in that while you accuse other Canadians of not being educated, it is you and others here that are not willing to educate yourself about the bigger picture, and what is happening in the world right now. Men being allowed to discipline their wives as they see fit under Sharia Law is a small part of a much bigger issue, and a much bigger slope that is extremely slippery. That's wonderful that a woman is protected in Canada under S.1 of the charter. Great. But Sharia Law is so much more than that. In an effort to be super-tolerant-liberals who want to appear as enlightened as possible to their fellow liberals, other western nations have allowed sharia law to creep into their legal structure, and as such, "legal facts" as you call them have already become much murkier, as the sense of what constitutes religious freedoms is constantly being tested versus what other values are held dear by our society. Have a look at Britain sometime. They've already allowed Sharia Law to be allowed for Islamic disputes in some cases, and the BBC has been reporting that SURPRISE, women are being screwed over in divorce cases. But hey, let's not talk about any slippery slopes, and just focus on worst-case scenarios. To say that there is no slippery slope because Canada won't allow beatings or honor-killings is disingenuous. But that being said, I don't believe that the niquab being worn in a citizenship ceremony matters. That also being said, after having seen what is happening in Europe, in the name of "tolerance", leads me to believe that there is something to be worried about, and just calling people ignorant and bigots, or even saying that they aren't educated, by people who don't seem to want to educate themselves either, is not acceptable either. There is a middle ground, in which everyone's concerns should be listened to, and fully understood, without name-calling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Arbitration_Tribunal

I am really getting tired of the Ray Finkel impersonations we keep seeing at kicker. Winnipeg, the place kickers/QB's/Coaches come to die.

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question. Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day. I haven't once used the word bigot or called anyone stupid, so there's no need to put words in my mouth. I've simply stated that our Charter protects her right to wear a niqab. When you responded that's a slippery slope to stonings and beatings, I explained why it's not. Personally, I'm glad that we live in country in which, despite how others feel about one's beliefs, an individual is free to practice her beliefs when, as in this case, they have not been demonstrated to harm anyone. And, despite what Unknown Poster may argue, I read the case and the Government introduced no evidence that her wearing a niqab when she recites the citizenship oath harms anyone. So if she isn't spending millions, then why didn't you also state that the government isn't spending millions too? Who exactly is spending millions here? I get it that there would be volunteers helping her for the notoriety, much like the guy helping Omar Khadir. There's a guy who never met a camera he didn't like. The Government is not spending money to support her case. They are spending money to appeal it. They could stop spending on this case by not appealing it. I didn't say you called anyone a bigot and I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you why this seems to be the only reason some here have given for why Canadians who disapprove of the niquab is that they are bigots. But I see now I won't get any straight answers out of you so I am giving up trying. And if you honestly think that you answered the question about the slippery slope I feel sorry for you. I too am happy to live in a country of religious tolerance and freedom. Mark H. and I both are in this country thanks to this amazing concept, that so few areas of the world allow. As I said before, unlike probably everyone else in this thread, I have attended a citizenship ceremony and witnessed a Muslim woman being asked to remove her niquab. When he asked her to do it, there was an audible cheer from the crowd. So obviously there is a strong feeling in Canada about this subject. The test of "no harm" per the Charter is fine, but perhaps there are things going on in the world now that weren't contemplated in 1982. I will state that if the majority of Canadians are against the niquab, I guess I am in minority, as I honestly don't care, as it really does no harm in my opinion. Your point about how the commissioner could just "listen" to the person behind the niquab is kind of ridiculous though, as at the ceremony I witnessed, there were thirty new Canadians taking the oath, and the commissioner was standing 50 feet away. There is no way he/she would be able to discern if the niquab clad person was saying the oath. But that being said, I honestly don't care, and don't believe that it matters. Why I jumped in this argument was that it bugged me that the only reason why people would be against the niqab was, per certain posters here, because they are bigots, ignorant or stupid. Perhaps this issue is just a bit deeper than that. But I am giving up trying to explain why, as its obvious those here who have certain opinions don't want to hear it, or want to bother even trying to understand a different viewpoint. So be it. KBF out.

So if she isn't spending millions, then why didn't you also state that the government isn't spending millions too? Who exactly is spending millions here? I get it that there would be volunteers helping her for the notoriety, much like the guy helping Omar Khadir. There's a guy who never met a camera he didn't like.

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question. Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day.

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts. It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!! So where is the money coming from on the other side? Why are they willing to spend millions of their money fighting it? Are they relying on volunteers? Who is paying the tab, and why?

So the only reason I've seen for why so many Canadians are against the niquab in citizenship ceremonies is because they are dumb ignorant bigots. You honestly think that is it? If so, it's not surprising why the liberal elitists lose election after election.

What pisses me off is Harper will spend millions of tax-payers money fighting this in the courts. It's a non-issue, so stop wasting my frickin' money!!! No problem - he can just take some of the 15 billion from the Saudi arms deal. But never mind all that, we're still protected from terrorism and Comrade Harper is always right. The fact that this is an election issue that is actually shifting the polls is disturbing to say the least. I honestly don't think that the niqab is the issue. I've actually attended a citizenship ceremony and a Muslim woman was one of the people taking the oath. When the commissioner asked her to remove her face-covering, she complied without complaint. And you know what, I wouldn't have cared either way. It's just an oath that is ceremonial, so does it really matter? I don't think so. What this actually represents to a lot of Canadians is a "slippery slope". I've tried to make that clear in a few posts, but its obvious none of the deep thinkers here want to go there. I even asked what the breaking point for people would be, and no one bothered to reply. Because they don't even want to think about it. They want to compartmentalize this issue. It's not that simple for a lot of people. They think more than one step ahead. What's next? Is it sharia law? I asked what people would say if a judge ruled that under sharia law, a guy could beat his wife, and all I got was a silly answer. So to sum up - if this was just about the niquab at a ceremony, then yes, it would be stupid and ignorant to make this an issue. But it's not that simple. At least, for the majority of Canadians who obviously are all dumb and ignorant, unlike the super-intelligent judgmental Einsteins who reside here.

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that. To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives. OK - but allowing someone to murder someone else is the most radical case. What if it's just a casual daily/weekly beating? No stoning. Just a little beating. Are you good with that? Nope, that's against the law. Wearing a niqab is not.

It's news because Stephen Harper wants it to be. He preys on dumb voters... I've been on a few other political forums and I've seen several people make this comment. "Stephen Harper is pandering to racists". Stephen Harper is counting on the dumb bigot faction...blah blah blah...and the people making this comment seem to be ignorant of the national polls on this issue. Right now 70% of Canadians support the Conservatives on this issue, and over 80% in Quebec. So you are saying that 70% of Canadians are dumb and you are smart? Sorry but that doesn't wash. Everyone who thinks they are so smart and on the right side of this issue should read Barbara Kay's excellent column on this issue. She's smarter than most of the posters on this forum put together. Barbara Kay: Ten reasons to ban the niqab — in the public service http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-ten-reasons-to-ban-the-niqab-in-public

I still say that there is a flaw in the Canadian multi-cultural experiment. I still remember reading that Macleans article where a man from Afghanistan killed his two daughters and his wife in Ottawa, with the help of his son and other wife (yes somehow he was allowed into Canada as a practicing polygamist because no one wanted to offend him), and then was perplexed as to why he was being charged with a crime in Canada. How the hell can you enter this country and live here full time, and not understand that murdering your women if you feel they have brought shame on you is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders

It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial provision of the Charter.

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that. To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives. OK - but allowing someone to murder someone else is the most radical case. What if it's just a casual daily/weekly beating? No stoning. Just a little beating. Are you good with that?

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that.

I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, that is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. Its PC gone absurd. Great point. Is there a private room at government buildings for Christians to have crosses? Is there a private Christmas Concert for those that arent offended by the word? But something that is rooted in the mistreatment and control of women, oh thats religious freedom! No it isnt. Not at all. Can someone murder a gay guy during a citizenship oath too? Do we have a private room for that? God forbid the officer administering the oath learns that the woman was once raped...he'd have to behead her or at least provide a private room for the beheading. Are there female genital mutilation rooms to accommodate that religious belief too? What if a Muslim woman was seeking Canadian citizenship without the approval of her family? Would we accommodate them stepping in and beating her...in a private room ofcourse. You are just being racist. Besides, she'd be lucky if she was just beheaded. The main punishment is stoning (and not the good kind) in a lot of these countries.

I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness.

I think that Justin is going to fold and retract his statement about not working with Harper. Let Mulcair ride that stupid train right into the sun.

I've never accused Justin or Tommy the Commie of being very bright, but this was probably one of the dumbest moves either of them could have made. They essentially are putting a gun to voters heads. If they were hoping to pressure voters into choosing the NDP or Liberals instead of the Cons, this move sure has back-fired. How about respecting the Canadian people? If they vote in a Conservative minority, instead of being giant jack-asses, try and work within that construct, instead of being giant man-babies and stating that they won't respect it. What idiots. This above all else really shows to me Justin just isn't ready. And I hope the voters make both of these boneheads pay. EDIT - on Monday the audience at the debate actually chortled when the moderator introduced the visual of Justin sitting in a room with Putin. They giggled because Putin would just laugh and say "This man-child is who Canada sends me? What is wrong with this country?"

I've voted Liberals in the past under Paul Martin when I thought the Alliance/PC merger had created too far a right wing party. Then Stephane Dion moved the Liberals to the left from the center, and Harper moved the Conservatives over to the center right, and because the Liberals vacated that space, the Conservatives keep winning. As of today the Conservatives are only 42 seats from a majority. If the NDP keep imploding, then they will keep moving up. I thought it was a strategically dumb thing to say by both Trudeau and Mulcair that they would immediately bring down a Conservative minority government. Just idiocy. So now if I don't want another election in six months, I basically have to vote Conservative. Just ridiculous. I actually wouldn't mind a Conservative minority, and the Harper to step down. Now that's probably not going to happen if the Conservatives get another majority.

If you honestly care about Saudi Arabia and aren't just trying to make political hay, you must really hate the UN now for making the Saudis the head of the human rights council. Cry about Canada selling them military gear all you want, but then you also should be protesting against the corrupt scumbags that run the UN. The IPCC is a complete corrupt joke.

This is a very nuanced breakdown of the Iran deal. Yes, almost as nuanced as this crap:

Right, just like Obama had to balance giving a massive human rights abuser the ability to make nuclear bombs so he could look cool to his far left-leaning anti-Israel idiots in his government. But of course, when Obama does stuff like giving enriched uranium to human rights abusers its cool, and when Harper sells weapons to a different one he's a jerk. Just like how he's a genius when he sells his GM shares, and somehow Harper is a villain. Politics sure makes for mass hypocrisy.

LOL - Mulcair just got his pee-pee slapped for blabbing on national TV about Saudi Arabia. It appears that he upset his bosses at Unifor, as all of the work being done for Saudi that the weak-kneed commies in this country hate so much provides thousands of union jobs. Perhaps you need to co-ordinate your propaganda better with NDP headquarters before posting it here. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/union-asks-ndp-to-keep-saudi-armoured-vehicles-deal-under-wraps-fearing-significant-job-losses

I'm in 50th place overall! I have a real chance to win a free flight to Winnipeg for the Grey Cup. Yeah I saw that - good luck man! I am rooting for you! I am loading up on Eskimos this week because they are playing a really crappy team. Oh wait...