dialamah

Not even true! Beiber keeps us on the international stage, and Ford did his part for Canada's visibility. Harper has also contributed to our worldwide reputation. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stephen-harper-master-manipulator

Since most taxes are taken at source, tax compliance is essentially ensured, imo.

Harper couldn't even get a prostitution law past the Supreme Court, how will Sharia law get anywhere?

Never mind, I found it anyway. ETA: It's the *hike* where he doesn't lower the EI as much as Harper planned to do, isn't it? Luckily, it seems most Canadians can tell the difference between a "hike" and a "smaller decrease".

What payroll taxes is he raising?

Works for me as long as I can irresponsibly get a low paying job, then go into debt and wait for the rich, hard-working, responsible Conservative portion of our population to bail me out. 'Cause I'm entitled, eh?

How much would the GST be raised?

Stunningly hard to believe, but the oil and gas industry believes energy stocks would go down if companies are not left unfettered to continue business and collect profit, regardless of environmental costs.

Honestly, they never really leave - they just morph into different-looking pigs.

Seems even Lynton has had enough of the Conservatives Crosby’s partner Mark Textor has launched an online campaign to distance their firm Crosby|Textor from the Conservative campaign, going as far to create a hashtag #notincanada. “Neither Crosby nor Textor are there,” Textor tweeted. “Nor staff. We don’t do bit-part politics.”

Is there any proof that a lot of parents are also buying huge houses, expensive vehicles and trips south? I haven't seen an indication of that; what I've seen is people waiting until they are at least well-employed, and then doing without all that luxury stuff when they start a family. But it would be interesting to see if there have been actual studies on the degree of luxury parents attempt to finance.

No, because the discussion is just going 'round in circles --- I had one last question, you answered, I thanked you, and I'm going to quit discussing it - "sit on my hands". No criticism of your solution was intended, merely my withdrawal from the thread.

Sorry I missed your previous post on this, thanks for explaining it again. Really, I am going to have to sit on my hands.

An interesting case. It would seem that at this time, there is some leeway about whether or not she would have to remove her niqab. Susan Chapman, lawyer for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, reads the case differently. "The starting proposition here is that she's entitled to wear it [the niqab] until somebody demonstrates, namely the accused, that it will impact adversely on his fair trial rights ...The onus I see is on the accused."

Still haven't answered the question: If a niqab-wearing woman is confined to her house because of a public ban on niqabs, how is she going to get a job? How is she going to enjoy parks, park benches, or coffee in public? How exactly is this going to increase her freedom? Especially if wearing a niqab isn't her choice, but is being forced on her?

I know, I keep letting myself getting drawn back into it. I shall endeavor to sit on my hands. Although I still hope I get an answer to how these women's freedom would be improved if they were confined to their homes by a public ban on niqabs.

No, you haven't explained how a niqab-wearing woman (whether by choice or oppression) is going to be able to even have a job interview or a coffee on a park bench if public niqab-wearing is banned. Niqab-wearing women do get jobs; in France, I read of a woman who had a job but had to quit when the niqab was banned in public. She turned to making candies in her home.

What I would like to know is how a woman, banned from wearing a niqab in public, is even going to get to a job interview or to walk down the street, or have coffee on a park bench. MLW member BC_Chick has had no answer to that, so far.

The right's sense of victimhood is what I'm getting, loud and clear. Was already aware of their complete lack of empathy or compassion for people who don't happen to make six figures, for whatever reason. Because we don't care. You can make millions, or you can make pennies - nobody here cares. Lots of money isn't going to make you more credible. Lack of money only makes you less credible to someone like yourself. Bye.

Notthing, if that's what you want to do. Also, nothing wrong with making less money, if that's what someone wants to do. There's no "how dare you make so much involved", that's just your inner "victim" talking. Harper's tax policies have benefited the higher income earners for the past ten years, and done little or nothing for everyone else. Were you busy pitching a fit? I'm guessing not - no doubt you just looked down your nose at those who make less, and assumed they didn't deserve all the goodies you were getting. #entitled. That's the life you chose, and your company is willing to pay you whatever. Good on you. I don't care, nor does anyone else here - somehow you think we should, judging by the number of times you bring it up. Do you feel inadequate in some way, and you hope your wallet is going to make that feeling go away? It ain't working. You just look like an idiot. Dirt shovelers and other 'low skilled' people keep you humming. The receptionist in your office, the admin clerks, the janitorial staff - what would you do without them? The people who move our stuff around, serve the food in the restaurant, stock the shelves in the stores - you gonna do all that shit yourself? Get a grip, and consider the fact that of all these people, you are probably among the least important to the successful functioning of society. I'm guessing all your important and high priced "skills" would be useless if the power went off. Yes, you be responsible for your actions and career decisions. YOU decided you wanted to pursue the 80-hour work week, no time at home, make the big bucks -- and end up in a higher tax bracket. You think you have such a hard life, OMG, I'm not going to be able to save $10,000 tax-free a year now! Damn those low-income earners who barely make $10,000 a year -- it must be their fault! We could care less how much money you make. We could care less about how much income tax you pay. But just like you are too happy to take the TFSA increase and the income split we are happy to have a break on our personal income tax. Whether you pay more, or less, or the same is completely irrelevant. And take some responsibility: "other people's attitudes" aren't why you are being a prick Oh, dear,what shall we do ... quick, call Trudeau -- we must cancel the tax hike, or AP will stop giving to charity! The horror! Damn right I deserve a break. None of Harper's tax breaks did SFA for me, because I'm a single female who doesn't earn those high wages.

More people are killed in this country from "old stock" Canadians than any terrorists. Why wasn't it crucial for the government to read email, tap phones, generally spy on their citizens until now? Not that I think we really have privacy regardless of C51, but this "the terrorists are coming" argument lacks any kind of rationality.

I find it rather ironic that just when France bans the burka, it lifts the ban on trousers for women. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/at-last-women-of-paris-can-wear-the-trousers-legally-after-200-year-old-law-is-declared-null-and-8480666.html

Here is information on women who choose to wear the niqab: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/behind-veil-20150401.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/11/quebec-niqab-canada_n_8277626.html http://ccmw.com/women-in-niqab-speak-a-study-of-the-niqab-in-canada/ And one from a woman who was forced to wear a niqab: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10323303/I-was-forced-to-wear-the-veil-and-I-wish-no-other-woman-had-to-suffer-it.html

If a woman wears a niqab in public either at the behest of her family/husband or because she views it as an important part of her faith, and the government bans it, what do you think will happen? Do you think she'll be leaving the house to have a job? Do you think making it illegal for her to appear in public is going to create more independence for her? Inasmuch as I believe that any religion 'brainwashes' people, the actual definition of 'brainwashing' is to make someone adopt radically different beliefs through systematic and sometimes forceful indoctrination. I fail to see how someone, at the age of 15 or 29, voluntarily converts to Islam and thereafter begins wearing the veil has been 'brainwashed' in the strict sense of the word. Especially when a sizable number of these women are doing so against their family's wishes. This is not to say that some women who wear the niqab or burka haven't been indoctrinated by their family and culture, but no more so than a lifelong Catholic or Jewish person. Abuse can happen in any family of any religion, or even in families of no religion. A niqab-wearing woman may come from an abusive family, but it's also possible that she does not.

You are right, and I apologize. And as for your citation, good enough for me. Still, it seems that the law is based on 'indecency', so that in some cases being nude is 'indecent' and in other cases, it is not. Thus, nude beaches and nudist communities can exist without running afoul of the law. And what the hell, I will concede that freedom is not absolute. We aren't allowed to punch people at will, or drink and drive, nor even ride in a vehicle without a seatbelt. However, these kinds of laws are created for the "public good" - and they don't infringe on anyone's religious freedoms. Banning the wearing of the niqab serves no public good that I can see, and it does infringe on someone's personal religious freedoms.