myata

I agree there're some troubling signs of 1) political interference (e.g. leak investigation incident); 2) what looks like persistent failure to detect and investigate wrongdoings withing the force (Arar incident; that "pension fund" affair; recent episode with underage molestations accusations on which, again, the (pretty short) term allowed for internal investigation was missed); other episodes that periodically pop up in the news or TV; 3) culture of self preservation and inablity to adapt to modern times. I also agree that most of the problems are emanating from the top brass and probably haven't reached the rank and file level, yet. But a major reform of the force is in order.

One more time: four years and counting (time and lives I don't care about american money) and still no WMD. Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of H.Blix's inspections? As supported by majority of the SC and Blix himself? That's what proportionality means. Most people understand that.

Well, if it was made a policy, it'd be instantly challenged on the grounds of discrimination and freedom of religion. As Supreme Court already made decisions based on "reasonable accommodation", such a policy would probably be stricken down unless it can be proven that wearing a veil can bring real harm. Good luck trying to prove it. I believe that school in Quebec had a stronger case with ceremonial knife. If, on the other hand, such decisions were left entirely to the preference of the official, one may question how far should these preferences be allowed to go? E.g. can an official express a preference to deal with young good looking women? only with individuals who are impeckably dressed including full business suit and a tie? and so on?

Exactly. Saddam is sitting put between no-fly zones in the south and protected areas in the north. Inspection teams roam around the country getting access even to his private palaces. He's afraid to move a finger and only shows his nasty temper once in a while, just to keep his buddies in check (guessing), but nothing that isn't solved by a few phone calls to the right places. Blix haven't found any prohibited weapons and presents a plan to eliminate all doubts that they may exist within short timeframe. Despite desperate hand wringing, the liberation team fails to obtain a mandate for invasion from the Security Council (or in fact even secure majority in the vote). Not to worry. One morning Bush and Blair wake up in their (separate) beds stricken by same the message from high on (or on high?): IT IS TIME. They barge their way into the country, destroying power infrastructure, housing infrastructure, water supply infrastructure, undermining the intrinsic framework of the society that could very well result in a civil war, and killing a few thousand civilians on the way. Then, a year later, the message finally hits home: no prohibited weapons were found, still! Could the same result have been achieved by another 6 months of Blix's inspections? Maybe, a year of inspections? (to remind: it's been 4 years now and counting... probably many more years counting). Was the action proportional to the objective? In the absence of internation justice, everybody will have to decide for themselves. But the facts are out there and no amount of liberation and democratization talk can change them.

So you absolutely deny that an individual may wear a veil out of their own will and by consent? Let's parse this statement logically: - you see the veil; - you know that it's "used to oppress women"; - you know that she thinks (being oppressed) and how she'll behave (as one being oppressed). So there's no error in my previous post. Congratulations, you're gifted with a rare indeed ability to read the mind (and make absolute moralistic statements as a bonus).

Just my two cents. There are reports of homosexual pedofile priests and heterosexual pedofile priests. Surprisingly, both can be defined as pedofile priests. And BTW your later defence about brushing under the carpet because they were oh so ashamed that they couldn't even admit it is beyond ridiculous.

Sorry, but you're clearly confused between three of your own posts. And I'm a bit in a rush to help you out. Till soon.

OK, leaving out this "cultures" thing, can I rephrase it to say that by looking at a person you can pretty damn good guess what they think and how they will behave?

And of all people you always know for sure who is being coerced and who is not?

Should we ignore a man who beats his wife because she is an adult and consents to it? Can a woman really give her concent to wearing a viel if she risks being beaten if she refuses? I'm sorry to say that but you're making no sense. How could wearing something / anything have any resemblance to physical violence?

But... if an adult person decides to wear a veil in full conciense and consent, would you still have any reason to think that they're wrong? It must be that you know something about this world they don't.

I'm not sure you can read right ... OK .., again: can you point to the place in your own post where a service was refused based on the religion of the customer?

So you mean to say that you understand their reasons for wearing a veil better than themselves?

No, but you're just plain wrong even though it was your own post. Nowhere in did it mention that they refuse service exclusively to heterosexual Catholics (i.e. discrimination on the basis of religion). Their problem is with a particular product. BTW weren't it one of you guys recently advocating the right of public officials to refuse service to the people of certain sexual orientation? Talk about hypocrisy, but somehow I'm not surprised.

Oh we've been through this so many times. And who's there, pray, to tell us lowly ones, what is "the real purpose" of everything?

I actually agree with you and yet ... it's probably way more likely that an employer, all other factors equal, would accommodate a religious belief much more readily than an equivalent individual one. Maybe we aren't just there yet.

I don't quite understand your concern. Wouldn't it be like refusing to rent a hall for same sex marriage?

You're assuming that one particular communication standard (open face) is true (or dominant) for all people. That's not logical, and as the example shows, not necessarily true. Tribal chief may exhibit the same concerns as highly honorable Jack Straw. Another point is that a persons who desires to wear a veil can ask the same question: if/how does it interfere with her ability to communicate? If it's simply a matter of preference of the official, then these questions should be asked: what personal preferences public officials should be allowed to bring into their public functions; and what if personal preferences of a certain official deny someone the same opportunities that are available to others?

In this CBC report, Jack Straw "asks muslim women to remove their veil" while visiting him. I can certainly see when it would be a justified measure e.g. for security. But as a personal preference, "for comfort" of a public official? What if someone else felt more comfort if their visitors removed their clothes? (I can certainly see how some visitors would be discomforted equally by either request). What's this "comfort" thing anyway? Aren't they supposed to be paid in proportion to the thickness of their skin?

Obviously you keep missing the point I've elaborated in several posts and this will be my last one. There's a big difference between shooting a dog and barging into an inhabited apartment building throwing around hand grenades and spraying the place with bullets from machine gun. If anyone other than criminal were to be hurt, there will be investigation and if it determines that reasonable force was exceeded, the responsible will be brought to the court and end up in jail. Not to say that the force applied will be measured against the offence, arresting a petty thief being held to a different standard of reasonable force than armed and dangerous criminal.

I believe it was SC (Supreme Court not Sec Council) that put forward a concept of "reasonable accommodation" which, as far as I understand it, means that a requirement of a religious belief should be allowed as long as there's no reasonable expectation of harm resulting from it. I wonder if the same would apply to the concsientous individual belief. I'm not sure if / what coursts have decided with respect to various dress codes dictated by religions. But to me it would appear logical, in the line of one of the previous posts, to extend this protection to any conscientous belief, whether of a formal religion or not. From that point of view, not wearing a tie should be absolutely equivalent to wearing a turban, burka, or any other religion dictated gear, as long as it can be demonstrated that it's a deeply held conscientous belief rather than a prank.

OK, but would that change if several people sharing this "belief" came together and established "a church"? I'd like to understand what exactly differentiates a religion from any essential personal belief to allow it to qualify for additional freedoms that everyone else isn't entitled to?

The same argument can be used w.r.t e.g. police arresting a criminal. Things may turn out different ways. Yet, there's pretty good understanding on what constitutes reasonable force. It should also be a concept of any reasonable justice system. Resolution in question and the entire UN/SC based structure simply does not qualify as such so there's little point to argue here. There's no court, no law and no recourse to justice. The only thing what's left is a perception of great misuse of military force for political purposes that is and will be shared by many, giving it a well deserved place in the international hall of (in)fame next to Hiroshima and Vietnam.

Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why?

OK that speaks volumes in favour of your argument. Would anyone (including the leader of the organization that granted the mandate in question) who thinks that the actions of the coalition were in fact, illegal, qualify as an "idiot"? No, kerry and the swarms of lawyers, nor what they think does not matter as long as there's no ligitimate venue to bring their arguments forward and have them weighed against the opposition and the law. And deal out punishment if needed.