Peter F

. I really do not care about your effing retarded standards that keep people out of this country because they wear Niquabs. Your useless standards are meaningless.

I find that doubtful

Yes, if they thought it could possibly be a bomb I am quite sure things would have played out differently. I find it unbelievable that in 2015 after 14 years of War-on-Terror, colour coded alerts, shootings in schools, underwear bombers, shoe bombers etc, that the principle and most certainly the police would think that the thing may be a bomb but do absolutely nothing about it possibly being a bomb. It follows then that they knew it was no bomb.

I'm good with her being a citizen.

and Yes, the government is looking for a Stay on the judgement because they are horrified that a woman in a Niquab might actually get citizenship so's they gotta hurry-up because the clocks ticking! Who knows? Maybe they will get a stay if they make some decent legal arguments. I hope not.

again, whatever the colour of the legal documents: From Federal Courts Rules (see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-106/page-91.html#h-144) PART 10 ORDERS 392. (1) The Court may dispose of any matter that is the subject-matter of a hearing by signing an order. (2) Unless it provides otherwise, an order is effective from the time that it is endorsed in writing and signed by the presiding judge or prothonotary or, in the case of an order given orally from the bench in circumstances that render it impracticable to endorse a written copy of the order, at the time it is made. I believe they gave to judgment orally from the bench, therefore the judgement came into effect at the time it was announced at the bench.

absolutely. Which is why the UN rules are the way they are. The propaganda of years past was that the UN would be the answer to all things - despite its rules. That propaganda story has been destroyed and everybody thinks the UN is a useless pile of junk - also very wrong.

Whatever the colour of the pages.... Effective date of judgments and orders 9.6 Every judgment and every order, whether or not it has been entered, comes into effect on a. the date of pronouncement, or b. if the Court orders the judgment or order to come into effect before or after the date of pronouncement, the date so ordered. In Alberta courts anyways. (a) the date of pronouncement - thats when the judgement comes into effect unless the judging judge gives another date for the judgement to come into effect. Would the Alberta Court rules (as kindly provided by you) apply to Federal Court?

To clarify, I do not think dual citizenship is a bad thing. or even triple or quadruple citizenship. Have as many citizenships as you want. Make a hobby of gathering citizenships if you like. I just don't get why stripping criminals of citizenship solves anything when we have prisons and work-houses for multiple citizenship holding criminals.

But that happens right now. Immigration not required. Right now we allow 'old-stock' Canadians to make all sorts of goofy claims if they wish. We accept such silliness as part and parcel of having an actual Legal system. People get to make claims. I cannot understand why immigrants should somehow be denied the legal rights that crack-pot 'old-stock' Canadians have or why we should tailor our immigration system to, somehow, only accept people who will not make crack-pot legal claims that everyone else gets to make.

Indeed, they can be tried for treason in either of them. Imprisoned too! I'm completely at a loss why stripping citizenship from criminals is a useful thing.

Yeah, but what you say doesn't really matter. It's what CSIS and the RCMP say in hidden court chambers far from public eyes that matters.

Well, again, thats what I'm asking - What book?

Yes, I understand that too. It's not a way-out-there thought and has been brought up many many times almost always on immigration threads. But the realization of your fear requires immigrants to never change. Followed by arguments that yes many European immigrants change but Muslim immigrants will never change and and their children will never change either therefore - eventually, some day - Muslims will outnumber us. I don't hold that belief. Nor do I see any actual evidence to support it. But let me for a moment assume you are correct and the day does come where a majority of the voting population are muslims. Assuming also that at that point the majority starts electing politicians that run on political platforms they support and all your worst fears are realized - Sharia law, Dhimi taxes, etc. To that assumption I say well thats the democratic process isn't it? The NDP - supposedly a bunch of socialist/commies who will destroy freedom - may possibly form the next government (god and voters willing!) Many find such a possibility totally reprehensible. Shall we ban the NDP ? Or shall we let democracy flow? I say let it flow.

Yes, I understand that you really believe that. I am asking for a reference to the rule that led you to that belief. I think you may be mistaken y'see.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever should any individual claim a violation of that persons right and that persons right being upheld by the courts. Even if they are a Muslim. Or me. Or you.

In reply to Citizen 2015 post #1764 How about it? A single person can file a complaint about anything they want to file a complaint about. One need not hold a referendum to seek approval to complain about my neighbours dog or my neighbours loud music or the hookers walking down the street.

indeed. It seems that there is a belief out there that anyone can ask for anything and the law of the land immediately becomes moot. Many people have asked bars/disco's/booze haunts be shut down - usually through petitions or appeal to civic councils. i cannot see why some guy starts a petition so we need act to stop immigration. Doesn't make sense.

A rule of the court was waived and thats against the rules of the court....What rule are you talking about? I would appreciate reference of some sort instead of just your legal opinion (of which, judging your recent writings, I have little regard).

UN peacemaking is a myth. NATO peacemaking has been shown to be not-a-myth. Russian peace-making too. Or French peace-making or British or Australian and on and on. But UN Peacemaking? impossible: They have no elfin army.

Yes! Very true.

Yes, I'm not sure how appealing to a court and having the court listen to legal arguments from the niqab wearer and government lawyers then rendering a decision based upon the actual law of the land is overthrowing the courts.

ah. Good point. Neutrality is absolutely necessary. ETA : Thats why philosiphers and lawyers weren't recruited for peace-keeping missions! The peace-keepers need the discipline to remain neutral and not get all emotional under stress. Thats why they always send soldiers on those things.

Hey its not all that hard to find peacmongers - it doesn't seem that difficult to find people willing to stand in front of bulldozers or sail into blockades or chain themselves to vessels at sea.

Because conservatives would have laughed at them.