.

[Canada_First]

How much are all these lost cases costing us taxpayers BTW?

12 000 refugees cost $1.5 Billion. All that money for some so called people who are not even citizens of Canada.

[Argus]

Do you wish me to list atrocities committed by non-Muslims? All over the world? Almost entirely by Christian countries? Past and present? I have to write a book on that!!!.

Germany?, Russia?, UK?, Serbia?, USA, Israel, France, ..........

We're living in today, chum. Most of us care about how people act today, not how their parents or grandparents acted.

[CITIZEN_2015]

We're living in today, chum. Most of us care about how people act today, not how their parents or grandparents acted.

In the same post that you quoted I said past and present. At least three or four of those countries are committing atrocities against civilians near past or present like Russia's atrocities in Syria and Ukraine, USA's and UK's atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel's atrocities in occupied land. Btw if by today you meant today literally then today Muslim extremists kill no one to the best of my knowledge but in 2001 (as per his examples) or 2014 or 2013.....

All I am saying I am trying to make a point that extremists and killers are in every race, religion or nationality and not limited to one group and to those who say Muslims are the only ones and all of them are evil then as a believer of equality of womankind/mankind regardless of race or religion I point out to them that their own kind has done as bad if not by far worse with historical as well as present tense evidence they can't deny and if they do either they are ignorant or blinded by hate unable to see the facts.

Edited September 16, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[SpankyMcFarland]

Whatever about the basic issue, the government's argument that removing the niqab was not mandatory was easily disproven. It's hard to see how they thought they could win this.

[The_Squid]

Another Harper law struck down on Constitutional grounds.....

OUCH

[justme4567]

http://www.therebel.media/showyourface

This is crazy. Please sign the petition and slap your local federal rep.

[cybercoma]

Another Harper law struck down on Constitutional grounds.....

OUCH

No reference to the constitution whatsoever. Harper's law struck down on the grounds of Harper's own laws.

[cybercoma]

The Harper government is set to waste more money challenging their second failure up to the SCC. It's going to be interesting if they look at the case, note that it was not a constitutional matter, and refuse to hear it.

[PIK]

And they should ,this is wrong. Show me where it says these women have to wear them. I will bet you cant find it, unless you look in the extremists book of rules. Every Canadian should be upset at this. And what really disturbs me is the fact the judges said they want to fast track this so she can vote. We all know she is not voting conservative. The SCC is becoming all to powerful. How did we get bto this pt where the unelected judges run the country, I thought parliament ran the country. HDS at its worst.

[cybercoma]

You know these "unelected judges" got all powerful by applying the law that Harper's government wrote to the law that Harper's government wrote. The decision didn't even need to refer to the Charter of Rights.

[Black Dog]

And they should ,this is wrong. Show me where it says these women have to wear them. I will bet you cant find it, unless you look in the extremists book of rules.

It's right here.

[PIK]

Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.

That tells me they are making laws up as they go. In canada we like to see the faces of people and that is the way it should stay. This will just lead to other dumb decisions ,trying to keep everybody happy. If they dont like it, go to a muslim country that allows it.

[cybercoma]

There is no central religious authority in Islam. In Canada, we cover our faces all the time because it's damn cold in the winter.

[Black Dog]

That tells me they are making laws up as they go. In canada we like to see the faces of people and that is the way it should stay. This will just lead to other dumb decisions ,trying to keep everybody happy. If they dont like it, go to a muslim country that allows it.

If it's so important to show your face during citizenship ceremonies, why didn't the Harper government make it a requirement?

[cybercoma]

Also, not that you're really going to give a crap, PIK, but the law that the judge referred to is under Section 17(1)( of Citizenship Regulations. This doesn't even have to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. It's right there in regulations that citizenship judges are required to follow by law. The regulations state explicitly that citizenship judges must "[administer the oath of citizenship] with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof." Citizenship judges are required to follow this. It's not optional. It is a hard law. The ban on the niqab comes from a Harper Government™ policy manual(s. 6.5 of CP15: Guide to Citizenship Ceremonies*). Policy manuals do not take precedence over hard laws, which is why the judge in the first case wrote:

Citizenship judges cannot exercise that function to determine what degree of freedom is possible if they instead obey the Policy’s directive to ensure that candidates for citizenship have been seen, face uncovered, taking the oath. How can a citizenship judge afford the greatest possible freedom in respect of the religious solemnization or solemn affirmation in taking the oath if the Policy requires candidates to violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion? For instance, how could a citizenship judge afford a monk who obeys strict rules of silence the “greatest possible freedom” in taking the oath if he is required to betray his discipline and break his silence? Likewise, how could a citizenship judge afford a mute person the “greatest possible freedom” in taking the oath if such person is physically incapable of saying the oath and thus cannot be seen to take it?

*Note: I would love to link you to an official source for that file, but the government has pulled it from their websites: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/updates.asp

Edit: disabled emoticons, since it interferes with writing "(b)"

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[justme4567]

yawn

http://blackburnnews.com/bri-national/2015/09/16/feds-double-down-on-defending-niqab-ban/

all u arm chair quarter backs actually DO SOMETHING? I wrote to Peter Mckay as many many people did. Today this was announced and I shall continue to demand answers from the justice minister re the issue of judges subverting PROCESS. The demands the appeals court made re having the ruling in place by next month was deeply against everything our court system is based on..PROCESS. I havent even looked at the ruling so far but any other claim before the courts takes between 5 and 12 years....5 before a Judge can even look at it and probably 7 before a judge has enough authority to rule on much more than what time lunch is. And where are the Lawyers?????? they should be lined up round the block flooding our courts with applications and lining their pockets.....weird

[justme4567]

Also, not that you're really going to give a crap, PIK, but the law that the judge referred to is under Section 17(1)( of Citizenship Regulations. This doesn't even have to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. It's right there in regulations that citizenship judges are required to follow by law. The regulations state explicitly that citizenship judges must "[administer the oath of citizenship] with dignity and solemnity, allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof." Citizenship judges are required to follow this. It's not optional. It is a hard law. The ban on the niqab comes from a Harper Government™ policy manual(s. 6.5 of CP15: Guide to Citizenship Ceremonies*). Policy manuals do not take precedence over hard laws, which is why the judge in the first case wrote:

*Note: I would love to link you to an official source for that file, but the government has pulled it from their websites: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/updates.asp

Edit: disabled emoticons, since it interferes with writing "(b)"

and u r right so how come it aint before the courts like any other legal challenge? Obviously the people have spoken and the govt will file their own challenge which will be in courts for years and years..just very very odd that it got this far and so many people had to stand up and say....NO before our politicians saw their paychecks flash before their eyes.

[justme4567]

oh to be clearer the ruling must stand for 100 days without an application challenging it. Any idiot can challenge it. how can this lady vote in 30 days when it's not even an actual ruling yet? The appeals ruling circumvents the process of the court or tries to...aint going to happen. The idiots who are challenging it is the govt and guaranteed to be in process for years and years.

And when I say any idiot can challenge it , every one of us has the legal right to go down to the court house and file an application. It costs 250 bucks and a court must address it, it's OUR legal right...also a headache I dont recommend it and I think it give our politicians something to do.

Edited September 17, 2015 by justme4567

[Peter F]

It is an actual ruling. The Federal court ruled that she need not remove her niqab. How did that part go over your head?

The government says they intend to appeal the federal courts ruling - as the system allows them to do. That means that the Supreme Court - should they decide to hear the appeal - could either uphold the ruling or say the federal court was wrong and overturn the ruling.

You see? Uphold or Overturn? That means the ruling stands until it is overturned.

So to say "its not even an actual ruling yet" is obviously wrong.

[Argus]

At least three or four of those countries are committing atrocities against civilians near past or present like Russia's atrocities in Syria and Ukraine, USA's and UK's atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel's atrocities in occupied land.

There is a profound difference between an 'attrocity' commited without the guidance, direction, permission or acceptance of a group, and one done deliberately by the group as a matter of policy.

I'm not aware of any American, British or Israeli 'attrocities' being commited today. As for the Russians, I don't like the Russian government in the least.

Btw if by today you meant today literally then today Muslim extremists kill no one to the best of my knowledge

I'm sure you didn't mean to say that. Could you please clarify.

All I am saying I am trying to make a point that extremists and killers are in every race, religion or nationality and not limited to one group

I don't think anyone here has ever suggested any differently. It's a matter of numbers, of degree. Muslims have commited almost 25,000 terrorist acts over the past fourteen years. Why? Because Islam is not JUST a religion, it's a political ideology. Combine the two, and you get some very fervent believers willing to kill to establish their holy political entities.

“The list of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 is incomplete because not all such attacks are picked up by international news sources, even those resulting in multiple loss of life. These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta. We only include incidents of deadly violence that are reasonably determined to have been committed out of religious duty – as interpreted by the perpetrator. Islam needs to be a motive, but it need not be the only factor. We usually list only attacks resulting in loss of life (with a handful of exceptions).

http://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/395936/islamist-terrorism-numbers-carl-eric-scott

[BC_chick]

And what about all the crimes committed in the name of patriotism?

Patriotism can become just as sick and twisted as religion and the only common denominator between the two is human beings who are predisposed to violence over divisive ideology.

In reality George Bush and Osama Bin Laden are two flip sides of the same coin and I have more in common with your everyday Muslim.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what about all the crimes committed in the name of patriotism?

What about them ? Bring charges if you have jurisdiction and standing. Hire a lawyer.

In reality George Bush and Osama Bin Laden are two flip sides of the same coin and I have more in common with your everyday Muslim.

Really ? How many votes did Osama Bin Laden get in the election ?

[justme4567]

It is an actual ruling. The Federal court ruled that she need not remove her niqab. How did that part go over your head?

The government says they intend to appeal the federal courts ruling - as the system allows them to do. That means that the Supreme Court - should they decide to hear the appeal - could either uphold the ruling or say the federal court was wrong and overturn the ruling.

You see? Uphold or Overturn? That means the ruling stands until it is overturned.

So to say "its not even an actual ruling yet" is obviously wrong.

semantics, interpretation of our laws is what the legal community is all about. In terms of actual application one can not act until the 100 days is up and the right to challenge it has expired. When the ridiculous ruling is thrown out, hopefully along with the Judges that suggested such a thing, from a legal perspective the ruling never existed. semantics

[Canada_First]

There is no central religious authorityng in Islam. In Canada, we cover our faces all the time because it's damn cold in the winter.

We done leave it on in a bank or driving a car. It's not the same thing and you know it.

[Peter F]

semantics, interpretation of our laws is what the legal community is all about. In terms of actual application one can not act until the 100 days is up and the right to challenge it has expired. When the ridiculous ruling is thrown out, hopefully along with the Judges that suggested such a thing, from a legal perspective the ruling never existed. semantics

No. The ruling exists right now. The woman will not remove her Niqba and take the citizenship oath and be given the document and have her hand

shaken in welcome by the presiding individual. All because the Federal court ruled that she need not remove it. And until - if ever - the Supreme Court overturns that ruling, thats the way it will be.

Thats the facts. semantics be damned.