.

[CITIZEN_2015]

No Peter I wasn't suggesting that Muslims don't change. The second and third generation specially will be/are as Canadians as the rest. Even some first generation Muslims. Also a Muslim majority will not happen in my lifetime as per suggestions by few that they double every decade. What I was saying however was this. That in a democracy even a tiny minority can change behaviors or laws in their favor suggesting that their religious rights have been violated and as an extreme example for the sake of debate even one may claim that he is being tortured every night fearing ending up in fire after life for the reason of hearing music from a nearby nightclub. So for what I say we don't need a majority to launch a constitutional challenge but a single person. All I say again is that we must be more selective in choosing our immigrants and adoptability should play a major role.

Edited September 18, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Peter F]

even one may claim that he is being tortured every night fearing ending up in fire after life for the reason of hearing music from a nearby nightclub. So for what I say we don't need a majority to launch a constitutional challenge but a single person.

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.

[justme4567]

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

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/rules2010/Rules_vol_1.pdf

off hand i have this one...there are many many many..u will notice volume 1?.criminal, civil, provincial, federal blahblahblah....when u r done reading them...let me know

andddd if it's an older version the documents no longer have to be on blue colored paper to be legal binding....

[Peter F]

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?

Edited September 18, 2015 by Peter F

[justme4567]

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?

ahhh they r getting a stay... look that up... and what do u mean color blah.....the ruling regarding all legal documents MUST be on blue paper is only a recent one. AND very very import since the inception of our legal system. Most Lawyers still send their emails in blue. It confused me for years but you can do thousands of hours of work on a single document and if it isn't to the letter and till recently on blue paper it wasnt legal. also 10 different lawyers will give u 10 different interpretation of any ruling if u pay them enough. and a Judge has to address it. our justice system is F*ed. pardon my french I am a Lady...ba ha ha ha

[Peter F]

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.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Peter F

[Peter F]

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.

[justme4567]

and 10 lawyers will argue it when it's signed...if it was oral the judge doesnt write it at all but the winning lawyer does and then sends it to the losing lawyer who can object to the wording 3 times before the judge will address it. gong show. ever word is open to the individuals interpretation.

Interesting, do u know if the judge gave a written ruling? i am curious. If they mean business they usually write it down. If they dont it's usually a lawyers field day. The wording has to be killer.

[justme4567]

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.

nah we r horrified by someone who insists on disrespecting our country...ya know it was tried in the states and they sent them packing. that and has it occurred to u that a ruling giving peeps the right to cover their faces. there's a whole if she can- we can thing happening..the bank must be shitting themselves. this is a very very bad ruling and not just for it's legal implications.

[Argus]

No Peter I wasn't suggesting that Muslims don't change. The second and third generation specially will be/are as Canadians as the rest.

You hope. You don't actually know that.

Even some first generation Muslims. Also a Muslim majority will not happen in my lifetime as per suggestions by few that they double every decade.

I didn't say there would be a Muslim majority any time soon. There's no Muslim majority in Sweden, France, the UK or Austrlia now. But Muslims are creating huge problems in their opposition to modern life. And I would be just as opposed if we were bringing in tens of thousands of Haradi from Israel, or born again Christian fundamentalists from Texas.

[Argus]

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.

I doubt there is any legal argument that can force her to show her face. I don't think I really want a law which governs such things in Canada.

But I don't want her in Canada. Period. She is an example of the kind of person who should be rejected outright on application.

[Peter F]

But I don't want her in Canada. Period. She is an example of the kind of person who should be rejected outright on application.

I'm good with her being a citizen.

[Argus]

I'm good with her being a citizen.

I have higher standards.

[CITIZEN_2015]

You hope. You don't actually know that.

I didn't say there would be a Muslim majority any time soon. There's no Muslim majority in Sweden, France, the UK or Austrlia now. But Muslims are creating huge problems in their opposition to modern life. And I would be just as opposed if we were bringing in tens of thousands of Haradi from Israel, or born again Christian fundamentalists from Texas.

Actually in my life I have come across many second generation Muslims and they have come a long way compared to their parents. At least most of them. Second generation Pakistanis in the UK are a good example. First generation Muslims from Iran, Morocco, Lebanon and Turkey are quite progressive already. Likely this will not be the case about those coming from backward Muslim countries. I used to frequent night clubs for almost two decades and that is where I mostly met them. In Canada, I met them mainly in Montreal bars. Same applies to all other non-Muslim immigrants in particular Asians (China and South East Asia) where second generation immigrants are much more adoptable. I do understand your point that if we only restrict ourselves to Europe then we don't have to wait for a generation or two to pass for adoptability but my point is that there are many first generation crowds in some Muslim countries who are already well adopted and could contribute very positively and deserve equal chance,

I think the problems exist because they face daily discrimination and even harassment in their lives in those countries rather than their opposition to modern life but this is not the case in Canada and hopefully this will not change. I absolutely agree religious fanatics of all religions and ultra right wing racists and criminals all should be screened out.

Edited September 19, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Peter F]

I have higher standards.

I find that doubtful

[Argus]

I find that doubtful

Why? I think I've just demonstrated it. There are probably all sorts of people you would let in I would not. Who do you imagine I would let in that you wouldn't? Capitalists?

[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.

[Argus]

. 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.

Okay, but then clearly my standards are higher than yours.

And given the polls on this issue, the majority of Canadians are clearly not enthusiastic about people like this calling themselves Canadian. So I guess most of us have higher standards than you.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Argus

[cybercoma]

A single person or a group of them claiming that HEARING a music which comes out of the nightclub in the neighborhood or in a public street violates his religious freedom and rights as in his religion hearing music is banned!!!!. How about this?

Frankly, I don't see how it's much different from other noise complaints for music, such as the infamous case of the Ottawa Folk Festival in 2014. No Muslims needed. Laws don't need to be re-written for that.

[Keepitsimple]

This is an issue where the usual suspects are hugely out of step with just about all Canadians. We ask so very little of newcomers in return for the bounties, safe haven and accommodation that they receive. Surely, this small gesture could be a reciprocal measure of thanks. The vast, vast majority of Canadians think so. Why can't the small minority accept this overwhelming view with some grace?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1894770/most-canadians-say-faces-shouldnt-be-covered-at-citizenship-ceremonies-poll/

[cybercoma]

No one has ever given a succinct and reasonable explanation as to why it should be prohibited. It's not for identification, since as the courts and the complainant indicated she was required to identify herself in private and her written signature on the paperwork is what legally affirms the oath. There's absolutely no reason for it, other than to tell her that her faith is unacceptable here.

[Bob Macadoo]

Okay, but then clearly my standards are higher than yours.

And given the polls on this issue, the majority of Canadians are clearly not enthusiastic about people like this calling themselves Canadian. So I guess most of us have higher standards than you.

Restrictive != Higher

I don't want anymore of those dirty Irish Higher standard?

[scribblet]

This could be awkward for Mr. Mulcair, I haven't heard Mulcair's response yet.

http://www.brandonsun.com/national/reopen-the-constitution-to-deal-with-the-senate-and-the-niqab-ndp-candidate-328286501.html?thx=y
LAC-MEGANTIC, Que. — An NDP candidate in Quebec with a personal beef against the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies wants the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms amended.
Jean-Francois Delisle said if elected, his party will negotiate with the provinces to reopen the Constitution in order to abolish the Senate.
He suggests the party could kill two birds with one stone by using the opportunity to deal with the niqab issue.
"Thomas Mulcair is ready to open the Constitution for the Senate, so why wouldn't he be ready to open it up on this issue?" Delisle asked during an interview with The Canadian Press at a cafe in Lac-Megantic, Que., on Friday.
Delisle doesn't hide his disagreement with the wearing of a niqab while swearing the oath of citizenship.

[BubberMiley]

The CPC has been pushing fake data that all the Muslim people who come to this country are men, so I guess the niqab issue is moot.

[GostHacked]

I doubt there is any legal argument that can force her to show her face. I don't think I really want a law which governs such things in Canada.

But I don't want her in Canada. Period. She is an example of the kind of person who should be rejected outright on application.

There are plenty of circumstances that would require here to reveal her face. Traffic stop, court appearance. doing business at a bank, ect ect.