hitops

It's beyond that question. It's about whether we really need just a comprehensive service at all. It's 2014 and arguably we don't. Obviously we need package delivery, but the majority of Canadians today do not need mail delivery even every weekday. Judging by the amount of mail I and my neighbors get (when I see them pick it up), realistically a person's mail could be pooled and delivered once a week and this would have minimal impact. Those that need more, could pay more.

You may be able to game it a little, but it is public knowledge. When you request a ride, you see the rating of whatever driver's are in your area and you get to choose. You can also see how many ratings they have. Uber was banned in Germany. It's the typical sclerotic, entrenched union interest against innovation because it threatens to disrupt their non-competitive comfortable monopoly. It's exactly the same as banning dishwashers in the interest of keeping people employed washing dishes, or banning cars because that takes work away from carriage drivers.

Red herrings much? It's so funny how folks so desperate to prove 'it's not just Islam' can find these 1 or 2-3 death incidents to 'prove it'. Never mind the literally tens of thousands of killings directly attributed to be 'for Allah' over the last decade, and active, organized groups who specifically cite Islam as their raison d'etre and the motivation behind their very public calls to murder non-Muslims (Jew or other). But ya, it's 'just crazy people' isn't it? Guess that's why you hear about all those Buddhist groups from poor countries who can't find employment always founding violent groups eh?

This is a huge part of the issue. Canada post workers (I have family in that category) do not justify their salary. Candidly, the attitudes are basically who gives a shit, mail can wait if I feel like it. The best thing we could do is privatize is, and let the cost of mailing reflect the actual....cost of mailing. It makes no sense at all that it costs me the same to send a letter to my next door neighbor as somebody 2000 km away. What would quickly happen is people would switch to e-delivery for everything possible, as would the majority of businesses and utilities.

Opinions change when reality for the people holding those opinions changes. It's great that we don't need to be a police state, but it's possible that with increasing threats, we need to slightly edge in that direction. It's about compromise and finding the right balance. The doctrine of Islam, out of the mouth of Mohammed, is one of dominance and violent. If you are not Muslim, you ARE inferior, and subjugating your is legitimate. All the supposedly peaceful tenants, apply to Muslim on Muslim, not to you. That is the doctrine in the text. True believers will follow that. Millions upon million more behave themselves, but support the fundies, or sympathize with them. They hate the west, and they have you. Our government cannot change those people, but they do have to deal with the reality. Except that it's pretty much only Islam. Do a quick calc of all the in-the-name-of-religion killing today, it's 99.9% Islam.

That's the irony isn't it? But they will never realize it. Here here. Certain areas of the world are tough places to live and breed a high proportion of violent or anti-western individuals. Generally these areas are Islamic. Certain areas are tough places to live, but don't produce many of those individuals. Generally, these are non-Islamic. It's not wrong to use statistical probabilities to determine who should come here.

And they would be. It's completely consistent. I concur these comparison are asinine. But he knows that..., he's just being a troll for troll's sake.

None of which is a problem unless it impairs identifying you. Is there something about this principle you don't get? Talk about desperate red herrings.... If you wore a crazy wig and blackface, along with a big clownnose when seated for your driver's license picture, yes you would be required to remove.

Guess that's why reading closely is good. All irrelevant though. It is a fact that you cannot both be a fully law abiding Canadian citizen, and also cover your face all the time.

Nobody has claimed it is. What we've claimed is that are instances where it is. It happens that this is true. Papers please is perfectly good cause - if those papers are your driver's license and registration because you committed a traffic violation. That is ENOUGH to require to be able to identify you. Stop distorting the issue. The fact is that in Canada you cannot abide by all legal requirements and situations with your face covered 100% of the time. There ARE instances it must be removed. If you can't abide by it, don't live here.

Court ordered woman in the end, to remove veil. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/engy-abdelkader/to-veil-or-not-to-veil-in_b_4661953.html http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/01/13/woman_to_remove_niqab_to_testify_in_toronto_case.html Could have just said 'I am wrong'. Police can insist to identify you if and when needed, period. They cannot insist you live here, that's your choice. Nobody has claimed anyone can force you to uncover your face for any reason. They have said, correctly, that are several occasions where you do have to. That's part of living here.

Obviously that won't help much. But we certainly should review immigration policies. It's not wrong to act in the nation's best interests and restrict immigrants from certain parts of the world, even if that means discriminating against Muslim countries on immigration. Unfortunately no policy is perfect and all will be unfair to some. On the flip side, let's continue to load up on Philippinos, who seem to contribute nothing but positives.

I guess the argument is that banning people from voluntary indentured servitude or perpetual abuse is like saving them from themselves. We do plenty of that, and the debate is where to draw the line. Most of the time we err on the side of letting them debase or harm themselves in the interest of freedom. For example most women in prostitution did not directly choose it, but were forced into it or dealt with problems in there life, coersed etc, but it still is a choice. Perhaps we should allow slavery, so long as the person voluntarily enters into the arrangement?

Why stop there? Maybe it was Steven Harper himself. Then he ran back to his office to make a statement later. Indeed. Dummy of epic proportions.

You sound like a truly ignorant person claiming this is political theater. Utterly classless and thoughtless given the situation. You look the fool. Westboro baptist grade.

lol Serious situation, but that is hilarious. But seriously this situation is bad and I really hope nobody dies.

Can you link? I don't see anyone reporting this. CBC still says just one down.

Oh ya, plenty. No doubt they will get the culprits, hopefully no innocent deaths in the process. Looked lke there was some CPR going on in earlier footage, not a good sign.

Oh you already told us what you know - that it's just theater. Genius comments, classy.

Says shootings took place in 3 places. At war memorial, at parliament, then east of the parliament buildings.

Phew, for a second I thought it might take a whole 2 pages for someone to suggest a conspiracy to support the CPC. Box checked, all is normal again.

Ya it is. It's legally required to show your face in this instance (you can cover up again after), just like it is for things like being in court, or getting a driver's license. Otherwise, yes. If you want a passport or driver's license, no face cover. If you are in court, you have the right to see the face of your accuser, or the face of witnesses. If you are swearing the oath, the subject of this thread, also required. A police officer can demand you remove any face covering if they cannot ID you based on your license, or even if they need to see your face for other reasons like assessing if you are impaired, etc. They can also ask anybody else in the car to do so if they feel they need to be identified, and that goes for anyone walking on the street as well. They need a cause of course, some degree of plausible suspicion just like anything. But the fact remains it is perfectly legal, totally reasonable for the normal functions of police work, and if you can't handle it you probably shouldn't be here.

All arguments for why we don't need home delivery.

At least you can't get nobel prizes without doing anyt.....err wait. At this time, a Chia pet has a tremendous opportunity to lead the Liberals out of the wilderness. There is a major hate on for the CPC, and the Liberals will very likely be elected. If Justin's book had profiled his interest in becoming a US citizen or described his journey through a dozen paternity lawsuits, or simply included 300 blank pages with the middle of the book cut out and instructions on how it can be used to hide weed, it would matter not. Canada will elect, if not the Conservatives, the Liberals. That's how we roll. Because we have some serious CPC fatigue after a decade, ergo the Libs. Trying to make it something more than that is gratuitous, IMO.

Yes, if that obstructed a legal process. It doesn't, so we don't. You have to show your face for a few things in Canada for the sake of law and order, such as being identifiable to police and getting a driver's license, etc. End of issue. Can't do it? Nobody packed you in a shipping container against your will and forced you to come here. ....and if they did, I guess you didn't want to be here anyway.