Posit

The same thing applies for a Muslim woman. However, they don't have to see your face to validate your ID AND they can't tell you to remove your Crucifix in order to vote.

No, you don't get it. The roads that were blocked and the lands that were occupied were on their own lands. We have been using those roads and extracting resources from those lands without authority. And no we can't interfere with them. That is the law. Are you a law-abiding citizen?

Muslim women in Canada wear habjab because THEY choose to. They also choose their religion and beliefs. You're just pissed because you can't choose for them. If ANY woman is threatened, she receives the full protection of the law...unless of course if she is Native. Is it fair and just that 80 women disappeared in western Canada and the police didn't even blink an eye? Is it fair and just that Native women are murdered every day and their non-native killers are set free without even so much as an interrogation? Is it fair and just that Native women have their children stolen from them and whisked off to foster homes in far-away cities, just because they are poor? There is IMO a continuing act of gencide taking place in this country against aboriginal people. That most can't see it doesn't surprise me. Most Canadians are too apathetic to even raise an eyebrow. Womens' advocacy groups are fighting for them too. So the women's special interest groups are alive and well in Canada. In time Canadians and law will adjust to the religious freedoms and customs of many people. Unfortunately you demonstrate that changing attitudes and educating ignorant people about those rights is a relentless and daunting task.

Yes. And considering that they get in with less than 10% voting in some case they surely do not represent or exemplify native people. Some nations have their own laws and Constitution. We have no right to interfere. (And i would suggest that most native people are more cognizant of human rights, and more free people than you or I).

No. They would be turning it into food and water. The little regulation that we do have isn't enough and that is why there are lobbies for government to get tougher with corporations. Would you like a mega-pig farm in your backyard?

Most of you don't know your own prejudices and those that do and reply in racist tones are bigots. Mikedavid pats himself on the back for believing he is colour-blind, having just pointed out the different races and religions of his ~friends~. That would be called a hyocrite. However, he can be forgiven because he doesn't understand where the root of prejudice lies.

I am a champion of human rights. Muslim women choose to wear habjab in order to recognize their respect for their religion. Amish women wear a bonnet for the same purpose. Nothing in law, whether it is specific or not can refuse them a service because they choose to respect their religion. Even if election laws called for visual identification (which it does not) then the their Charter right over-rules it. Wrong again. The minute women started to lobby government, society and businesses to be treated on equal par as men, they became a special interest group. As they still collectively are fighting for equality in many areas their special interests groups lobby politicians every day. And while you may enjoy the luxury of freedom and some equalities, women in Canada are still largely ignored by law and in male-dominated professions. Without that lobby of those special interest groups you would not be enjoying pay equity with men, nor would the building codes across Canada now require more toilets for women at theatres and public auditoriums. These are some of the things the special interest groups argue for on your behalf. Otherwise despite the Charter, men would still be prescribing what women wear and and where they go in society. Generally speaking, for Muslim women that is a "religious choice" now guaranteed under the Charter. There is no doubt that should this go to court (which Harper will not want) it would go to the SCoC. Charter rights cannot be denied.

Ya hook line and sinker. Toxic waste is dumped into the environment by private corporations who skirt government regulations. Privatizing of anything will only lead to furth pollution and depletion of the resource by greedy companies. And their argument for mass destruction? "We're just trying to compete!"

I guess you've never read the Charter: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5) I dumbed it down a bit for you. My bad. Next time I start throwing the legalese at you. Be sure to follow along and use a dictionary to look up the bigger words....

Well this must be a lie, since you just finished making a point about the people's race and ethnicity that is different than your own. Only when their differences disappear can you truly consider your free from prejudice.

Wrong on many counts. They were a "special interest group" and politicians listened to them because there was political pressure to do so. The purpose of special interest groups is to change the law or policies of government to correct what is perceived as a wrong, or injustice. Before being granted the vote women were not persons under the law. They had no rights except those that were afforded her by her husband or her parents. Until 1958 native people were not considered "persons" under the law either. They could not enter a bar, or vote in elections, hire lawyers to sue government, or seek public counsel except with the express approval of the Indian Agent. Special interest groups changed that too and they were no considered persons under the law either. I suppose it is getting near your bed time. I look forward to other fantasies and myths that you dream up tonight so we can consider tomorrow a brand new day....

I'm not wrong about this nor is the SCoC. Religious gear is permitted anywhere in Canada, including election polls. The excuse that someone can't see your face is irrelevent considering you must hand in a Voter Registration Card. They can't ask for anything more UNLESS you don't have a card and they must register you on the spot. Then all you need is two pieces of ID. Harper is the numbnutz making an issue out of nothing.

Now you're getting somewhere. Think of this: In order to gain equal status they had to fight the status quo as a special interest group. When the arguments were raised about allowing women the right to vote and to be recognized as persons, the same arguments you and many others are making here about disallowing rights based on "reasoning" were made by men against women!. And when the law was finally changed, there were many challenges and changes that had to be made to the existing laws to accommodate the concept that women were persons too. Even today there barriers - such as workplace equality in male dominated fileds - that women must still use their "special interest" lobby groups to change laws and attitudes. Without those women would be subservient to men. That is a fact in history.

Whether you agree or not, the SCoC has upheld the rights of individuals to public establishments, consistently. Therefore if you were in a wheelchair and couldn't get access to the local bar to drown your sorrows, the law - the Charter - says that you as a shop owner must make your establishment available (or provide reasonable and equal accommodation). That is the law. Equality means that EVERYONE without regard to their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability has equal right to access the same things that any able-bodied Canadian has access to, and cannot be restricted on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. It goes further in allowing governments the authority to prescribe laws which help remove the inherent barriers disadvantaged individuals may face. Thus we are in this discussion and despite Harper's usual temper tantrum, Elections Canada is right in allowing special accommodation for women who wish to wear habjab during voting. You can try to imagine history and recreate you own versions all you want. It was a special interest group that fought the ignorance and prejudice of men in parliament that won that vote. AND it has been the womens' special interest groups that won other recognitions and rights for women that you now so casually take for granted. There are lots of men - quite a few here in fact - that would love to deny you your equality and put you back in the kitchens and bedrooms of their homes. While there are still some religions that think that way, including fundamentalist Baptists and Evangelists, fortunately the law is on your side. But I do see your dilemma. You can't empathize your own equal rights with those who are denied by legal and physical barriers. That doesn't make you pathetic. It just makes you sad. And what is even sadder is that you seem to have no clue as to what your rights are, or where they came from. Truly sad indeed.

That's not the point. It was a "women's special interest group" that won the right to vote over a male dominated parliament. If they don't represent you, they you must think that voting is not an issue worth fighting for. Believe it or not you are telling us a lot about yourself and your pre-historic ideologies....

Fine then! Go ahead and keep making up the law as you go along and ignore the REAL law, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Covering up identity isn't wrong. Forcing someone to identify themselves when it serves no purpose is "unreasonable search" under the Charter. And the House of Commons doesn't control how the Charter is written or interpreted. They are subjects of the law - EQUALLY - just like everyone else.

Did you know that "Women" are considered to be a special interest group? The have a special Secretariat, and a number of organizations that lobby government on behalf of women. So you are suggest, along with Betsy that we should eliminate this special interest group and let women's advocacy - including removing barriers to equal employment and pay equity - stand on its own merit?

In true form pliny, the Charter is a barrier to freedoms. Essentially is limits real freedoms to only those accepted by moral contract. So in essence the only thing we can do is apply a "Charter template" over any action which people find offensive and see if the act offends a Charter right. And no I'm not advocating that the government is trying to make everyone equal. That's absurd and simplistic interpretation. You can't make a disabled man a lesbian woman, nor can you use the law to make a blind man see. However, we can use the law to conscript others to allow equal access to the services they offer, by saying that you cannot keep someone out of your establishment just because it will cost too much to provide a wheelchair ramp. In the case of requiring someone to remove a religious ornament just because you can't see their eyes is equally absurd, when THEY can be accommodated without any pain to the electoral officers. Next, thing you'll be demanding that men pull down their pants so you can determine if they are cut or uncut to verify who they should be voting for..... The law is never absolute and must always face its challenges. Without challenges we would never have justice.

I agree Betsy! Let's remove the women's right to vote. Let's remove the Bible from all courtrooms so it is no longer an option. Let's remove all religious symbols from our view on streets and prevent people from praising God, Allah or Buddha outloud so it doesn't offend our sensibilities! De-christianizing Canada is a difficult task at best. But I'm sure the equality movement will one day be successful of either prying us out from under the thumb of colonial Christian influences, or equalize them with other influences to level the playing field. I reiterate your sentiment: Lets remove ALL women's right to vote. It would sure solve a lot of problems for those 18th century Anglos, now doesn't it?

CORRECTION:"In the end, the only opinion that matters is the one that interprets the laws.

It still wouldn't matter if Harper had the support of everyone here. He stall can't over-rule the Charter. It isn't a special interest. It is removing a barrier - whether it be a physical barrier or a legal one - that allows the disabled or the Muslim equal access to a facility. That's called "equality" and I realize that it is a foreign concept to Harper and you minions. Equal access to everything is a right you can't put down with your menial wishing.

Canadian Fighter Jets defined Cesna 180 with police specials mounted on the wing, piloted by a flyer who trained on Microsoft Flight Simulators. Their advantage over Russian MiG25 is that they can be fitted with pontoons and can land and stealthily hide behind ice bergs....while evading the enemy.

Are the natives really the Great Custodians of Nature? Generally speaking, yes. They are closer to non-obstructive harvesting and living in harmony than we are. For Chr$t sake we are still pi$in and crapin' in our drinking water. Don't you just love ingesting all those antibiotics and birth control hormones being recycled in our water sources? It is it traditional wisdom that has been passed down from ancient times? It is something like that. The discovery that certain stupid practices have long term consequences was developed over generations. On the other hand our industrial age has only been a little over a hundred years and although we see catastrophic effects (love canal, Bopal, India, climate change etc.) we are still to arrogant to change our practices and curb the devastating effects on our children. In tribal societies, when one group refused to admit their harm they were often quarantined and outsiders refused to deal with them. The result would have been their own death. Unfortunately, what your company does and what you promote in the name of greed has an effect on us and we can't quarantine you. In fact when we stand by our native brothers and sisters and try to stop your foolish behaviors by holding protests or blockades, the force of the courts is reigned upon us and our rights to protest our government's stupid actions are denied by the courts. And so the natives take a course of economic disruption in an attempt to bring the issues to the public conscience and even when the majority of Canadians support then, the courts still deny their rights and arrest, charge and jail their outspoken. As far as ancient wisdom goes, many natives I have met can trace their teachings in a direct line 7 generations and every generation before them could do the same thing. So information isn't hearsay like we pretend it is, because generally speaking the majority of Canadians are too stupid or too inept at remembering things with any kind of accuracy. Even the science is flaw to a certain degree because the science industry has come only to care just about as long as the politicians to control their budgets care - about 1 term. And when they do start to look beyond the single term and start raising the alarm bells, most of you are quick to say "WTF? Harper never told me this so it must not be true...." What happened when the Supreme Court decided that the west coast tribes could have their own commercial fishery? The fact is that the Supreme Court never "decided" they could have their own fishery. They ruled that commercial fishery was a pre-existing right under our Charter and Canadian law couldn't stop them from pursuing it. And when it came to exercising the right, the fishery was neither ruined or canceled because of native overfishing. Rather the science that predicted a decline was flawed and legitimate scientists determined that from the outset and the temporal reduction in migration was a result of the interference of the fishery by non-native trawlers sucking the life out of the ocean long before the fish ever arrived for spawning. And like I said previously, when the sht hit the fan, the government had no choice but to shut down the commercial fishery of the rivers (save and except the native commercial fishery) because one there was a demonstrated effect caused by the trawlers, and because they don't have the authority under Canadian law because it wasn't a conservation matter in the first place. You said earlier that nothing contained in the declaration would have an effect on anything we do in Canada, remember? So the SCoC says that the government can shut down a fishery, or other resource IF there is a legitimate conservation issue. And I don't doubt that long before that, the native fishery would have been curbed to prevent it. So if the declaration has no effect, and we already have laws in place to maintain resource harvesting if they are in danger of collapse, then what is your fear? That natives will get something you and your cadre have denied them? Is that it? Otherwise you have no legitimate argument and the quasi-racist one you are hiding behind the air of concern is irrational. And Harper is refusing to go along, it is simply because his ego is a sphincter to intelligent and rational thought.

The problem for Harper is that the Charter Rights over-rule him, every time. It doesn't matter what Canadian laws aren't being complied with either since all Charter law over-rules it too.

I love how you ignore the existing laws and insert fantasy as an excuse for public policy. The UN is here and very likely to stay with Canada as a member. Now can't we all just get along?