Peter F

ah yes of course. I must be brainwashed if I could not care less about who Hillary's lovers are. Well, since I'm brainwashed I suppose there is no point in further discourse...unless, of course, you can make the point that further on in the taped link, Drudge explains the necessity of knowing who Hillary's lovers are. I doubt very much that such explanation will be available due to the fact that Jones and Drudge are having a little fun exercise playing word association: Obama! Clinton! Lovers! Evil! Corporations! Government! Power! throughout the tape just like every show Jones ever put out.

True, the ontario court ruled that charter rights are not a blanket exemption to the rules of tradition. However, they did not say that rules of tradition are blanket exemptions to charter rights. The case you reference was about certain individuals wanting to not make an oath to the queen. "...But to obtain a commitment to our form of government from those writing to become Canadian citizens. If there is a violation of the appellants' rights to freedom of expression, it is justified." The whole point of the oath is to obtain the commitment. Thus the necessity of actually swearing the oath to the Queen as an actual commitment to our form of government. IE: no revolutions or treason allowed. This woman wearing the niquab did just that: swore an oath. signed the document that swears the oath. She removed her get-up to be properly identified by an official of the court. She proved that she is who she says she is. She did it in compliance with the requirements of decorum too. She wasn't laughing or sneering or rolling her eyes (but might have been crossing her fingers)... and some official or other stood near enough to actually hear her utter the oath. ​To claim that the oath is invalid because we didn't see her lips move (which is/was the precise requirement of the Harper Government policy) is ridiculous.

I stopped watching after "Why don't we hear anything about Hillary's lovers? Huh? Huh?"

not really... Canadian economy slaved to US economy is more accurate

Voted my third choice: Green. First choice was communists but none running here. Second would be NDP but the guy running for the NDP here is an ass. There's some strategic voting for you!

I don't care about polls, in fact I despise them. I want to know what these people running for parliament think, not the other way around.

"All's well that ends well." -- P.E.Trudeau

I know. What a bunch of maroons. It is incredible the lengths this government will go to in bullshitting their own supporters. Not to worry, citizens, this government has put an end to niquab wearing during citizenship oaths. Then turn around upon legal challenge and say that nobody is required to remove any face-coverings! Then be horrified when the judge says ok then your policy is bullshit. Gold! Jerry. Pure gold!

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=989099 The argument for the removal of face coverings is what? Its a barbaric practice oppressive to women. So lets make sure they cannot be citizens of this country.

Then the policy is crap. We fully support women rights and completely condemn making women wear these things. Therefor we shall deny the oppressed woman citizenship and eventually ship her off to the land of oppression. We really really care very much about females being oppressed.

If they don't want to blow up Canada then why are we deporting them? If they want to blow up the USA then why are we deporting them?

You don't seem to understand... The government tells this woman that she must remove her mask if she wants citizenship. The government tells the court oh no she need not remove her mask at all. You don't see the obvious deceit of this government? The two-faced bullshit? Bend over backwards to not change the law and you blame the court for not ignoring the law that your own lovable party wrote.

Even the governments lawyers said there was no law requiring the removal of face-coverings during the swearing in ceremony. Do you understand that? There simply is no law requiring it. And the judge agreed. You're right, he said, The law does not require removal of face coverings. and ruled accordingly.

92% of the public have not told the government to ignore the SCC. Even if the government ignores the SCC they can't. IE: in a society based upon law the government can't ignore Supreme Courts even if it wants to. But here is how you get your ban: Pass a law, or modify existing legislation, to say what you want that law to say. For example, noting I am not a lawyer, modify the citizenship act to say: Face coverings must be removed during the recitation of the citizenship oath. Of course this government has steered well clear of such action. They won't touch it with a ten-foot pole even if 92% of Canadians supposedly want them to - even during an election! But I'll let conservative supporters explain why their favourite government isn't/hasn't done what all their supporters want them to do.

Mostly true, of course. But! Is it necessary that we demand immigrants abandon a sincerely held belief immediately? I don't think it is. Woman, on this side of the world - and very often in muslim lands also - do not have to hide their faces. Those that voluntarily wear such things really do not believe, as you and I do, that their face coverings are symbols of oppression. They see it as a symbol of modesty or even fashion. Those that do in fact see it as oppression will very soon stop wearing such things in our particular culture. Those that don't see it as oppression will continue to wear it. By forbidding the wearing of these things is telling people what they must believe, Just as telling women they must wear these things is telling them what they must believe. At some point the individual gets to determine how they dress to reflect their own beliefs.

and then there's the ceremonial aspect. Is it necessary to actually see the applicants lips move? Is the document they sign and is witnessed not good enough? During the treason trial will the applicants defence be "yah I was there but - very important point here - I didn't actually utter the oath! I just pretended I did". Does magic citizenship dust float on the air and need to be imbibed through open mouths or you don't really become a citizen? This need to see the lips move is akin to superstition. Black cats, Blue legal papers, Lower case name-printing and uttering oaths. Same thing. There was a time when Ceremony served a very important purpose back before books and literacy when memory and the remembering of official events was a going concern. Back then there'd be a fancy ceremony with all sorts of important nobles and other authority figures in all their regalia. Face coverings would be removed so's witnesses could remember who was there and who said what. But we don't need that anymore. We don't remember shit because we have everything written down and official documents issued. No need for the ceremony anymore except as a warm personal memory for the people who take part. *lordy, I hate spellcheck.*

Oh yes, I am sure that in most cases the niqab and burka are as you say, part of a male domination thing for fear the woman will take up with other men and bringing their own manliness into question. But, do we need a law to prohibit this? Many in our society right now buy into all sorts of mysoginist thinking and behaviour, well short of criminal law too. We don't ban those things though we may frown upon them. We don't ban women from relationships with men who treat them badly. As you and I know there's little to be done about such things and we let all sorts of it flow on by with a shake of our heads and a resolve to never let that happen to us. What laws could we use? Thou shalt not walk one pace behind your husband upon summary conviction $500.00 fine? Loss of citizenship?

What we do not legally recognize polygamy with marriage certificates. We do allow any number of women to go live with a man if they so choose, to be treated as wives, but the state will only recognize one of the women as married to the man. I am quite sure that this came about due to Christian heritage. There is really no reason for polygamy to not be recognized - except for the fact that the Common Law would have a hell of a time coming to terms with the consequences of multiple co-existing marriages. Also, the polygamy laws are for the odd case where a man legally marries more than one woman but the women remain in ignorance of the other marriages and so enter into a fraudulent marriage. I believe that is what the polygamy laws are directed against.

It wasn't a security issue, Rue. Absolutely no steps were taken to secure anyone from the possible bomb. None. Not a single thing. They knew it wasn't a bomb which is why the supposed adults did absolutely nothing to secure anyones safety. There was no need because it obviously was not a bomb - not even a maybe bomb. As the cops admitted later on it wasn't even a hoax bomb. So being none of the above - what are we left with to explain the actions of the adults that day?

Thats a clincher! I won't be voting for the Democrats thats for sure.

oh man. Reading the actual decision is enlightening. http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/108049/index.do The issue was the Policy issued by the minister to the citizenship ceremony people. Particularly this part: Then the government (respondent) argued that yah thats the policy but the ciitizenship judge doesn't have to adhere to that its just policy after-all. and the governments argument is that a citizenship judge could very well allow the woman to swear the citizenship oat without removing her niquab. Its just policy; guidelines for the staff at these ceremonies. Then the Judge disagrees. The policy actually demands adherance. I shall emphasize the judges words "even if the officials are confident that the person actually took the oath by hearing it recited.” The judge then ponders where this policy came from Then he considers what the actual legislation says coming to the conclusion And here is the point Cybercoma has brought up a couple of times: and finally the actual conclusion. Take note that the judge doesn’t refer to the woman charter rights here in any way whatsoever. Just to sum up: The judge determined that this was not a charter issue; The policy did not adhere to the Legislation and so the Policy is unlawful. The government went through a whole bunch of internal policy writing rigamoral to come up with a policy and directions to the functionaries so's that things could be the way that they honestly believe things should be. But! But they wouldn't go through any trouble to change the legislation! We don't need no stinking parliamentary debates or votes we just change policy and bobs-yer-uncle. and they do this over and over again, then sob about bleeding-heart liberals ignoring the will of the people. and that is why I would never vote for these clowns

Here's how I imagine things should have happened: Teacher: What is that beeping sound coming from your backpack? Student: oh, well, its just an alarm...(opens pack and removes beeping object) ... its an alarm clock, but I forgot to turn it off and (Teacher interrupts) Teacher: OMG is that a bomb? Student: no! no its an alarm clock that I... Teacher: Children ! leave here immediately. ... No no! Leave your stuff! Leave your packs! Everyone out! Ahmed! You stay with me young man! etc etc. OR Student: oh, well, its just an alarm...(opens pack and removes beeping object)... its an alarm clock, but I forgot to turn it off and I showed it to Ms.Smit but she said don't let anyone else see it so I... Teacher: Its an alarm clock? Student: yes! I made it! Last night. I had all this IC and I thought... Teacher: well turn it off.

uh no. Conservatives wouldn't have been able to shred anybody. Not that they didn't want to, mind, but only because they did not have the means to - despite all the chest thumping and demanding and gnashing of the teeth.

TimG: People will work for food. Thats where Free Market wages will stabilize: The Corps will feed us in return for work ...and that applies to the our kids too. and only then the minimal to keep you alive and working.

and how did their actions relate to the safety of the child?