.

eyeball · September 29, 2015

It works in Singapore.

It's between 72 and 92% depending on which poll. People didn't care very much until they saw the courts go so far out of bounds. You can thank the courts for turning it into an issue by being so obtuse.

And what do you propose the 92% do when the SCC also tell it to go piss up a rope?

I wonder what they do to principled judges in Singapore?

On Guard for Thee · September 29, 2015

It works in Singapore.

It's between 72 and 92% depending on which poll. People didn't care very much until they saw the courts go so far out of bounds. You can thank the courts for turning it into an issue by being so obtuse.

What's actually obtuse, is Harper's ability to comprehend out constitution. And we keep having to pick up the bill's for his unsound challenges.

cybercoma · September 29, 2015

It's between 72 and 92% depending on which poll. People didn't care very much until they saw the courts go so far out of bounds. You can thank the courts for turning it into an issue by being so obtuse.

Your opinion on the issue is worthless, since I can't even tell whether you understand the court's ruling or not. You've made absolutely no reference to it or shown any sort of understanding for the legal process here or in other posts.

The courts shot down a policy document because the Tories own citizenship law contradicted it. Yet you seem to think the courts are just making shit up. The problem is that the government contradicted itself by demanding that judges break the law. A law, mind you, that Harper's government put into place.

I will be very surprised if the SCC even humours the appeal, let alone the government winning it. None of the lower courts have even needed to make reference to the Charter.

Edited September 29, 2015 by cybercoma

Bryan · September 29, 2015

And what do you propose the 92% do when the SCC also tell it to go piss up a rope?

If 92% of the public tell the govt to ignore the SCC, they should do it.

Bryan · September 29, 2015

Your opinion on the issue is worthless, since I can't even tell whether you understand the court's ruling or not.

I'm fully aware of the horse-hockey excuses that the court made up for their ruling. When 90% of the country can see that the court decision is completely out of bounds, clearly YOU are the one whose opinion is worthless.

Peter F · September 29, 2015

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.

Black Dog · September 29, 2015

I'm fully aware of the horse-hockey excuses that the court made up for their ruling.

OK, which specific parts of the ruling are out of bounds? I'll hang up and listen.

When 90% of the country can see that the court decision is completely out of bounds, clearly YOU are the one whose opinion is worthless.

Yeah if history has taught us anything its that the justness of a cause is derived from its popularity. :rolleyes:

Peter F · September 29, 2015

I'm fully aware of the horse-hockey excuses that the court made up for their ruling. When 90% of the country can see that the court decision is completely out of bounds, clearly YOU are the one whose opinion is worthless.

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.

Topaz · September 29, 2015

The only way the government could pass a law about face covering IF it calls on the person to prove who they really are. The examples would be citizenship, drivers licenses etc. because if one bans face coverings that would include brides, doctors, nurses welders etc. The women wearing niqab, should only have to proof who they are, even in a back room, and then take their place out front and no one has said anything about these women wearing these niqab on the street, so let's not make a bigger deal than it is.

Bryan · September 29, 2015

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.

Many government departments have all manner of policies that are not specified by law. If you're told to take a number and sit down, you do it. If you're told to uncover your face, you do it.

Bryan · September 29, 2015

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.

If they chose to, they absolutely could. It would be fully within their rights to do so.

cybercoma · September 29, 2015

If 92% of the public tell the govt to ignore the SCC, they should do it.

You see what I mean. You talk about obtuse courts, but you don't even understand that the SCC hasn't ruled on this yet. You don't even understand that there wasn't a Charter challenge here. I'm not confident you know at all what was challenged, what the legal arguments were, nor what the decisions even said, and that's despite it being posted here several times already. Yet, you sure are opinionated about something you clearly understand nothing about, nor are you much willing to understand it. You just want to soap box.

cybercoma · September 29, 2015

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.

In fact, the law explicitly states that the presiding judge must allow "the greatness amount of freedom" while a participant takes the oath. The law that was passed by the Conservatives tells the judges that they must do the exact opposite of the policy that the Minister (Jason Kenney at the time) passed down.

cybercoma · September 29, 2015

Many government departments have all manner of policies that are not specified by law. If you're told to take a number and sit down, you do it. If you're told to uncover your face, you do it.

If you tell a judge to violate the law with one of your policies, guess what? They're not going to violate the law. I'm sorry, but this isn't very difficult to understand.

Bryan · September 29, 2015

You see what I mean. You talk about obtuse courts, but you don't even understand that the SCC hasn't ruled on this yet.

I never said they did. Try actually reading the posts before you comment.

If you tell a judge to violate the law with one of your policies, guess what? They're not going to violate the law. I'm sorry, but this isn't very difficult to understand.

Apparently it's VERY difficult for you to understand much of anything.

cybercoma · September 29, 2015

I'll just wait for you to actually address the points that have been brought up.

Oh, let me guess you already did and I can "go fish" for the answer. :lol:

Bryan · September 29, 2015

I'll just wait for you to actually address the points that have been brought up.

Oh, let me guess you already did and I can "go fish" for the answer.

I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.

Black Dog · September 29, 2015

I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.

We're still waiting for that breakdown of the legal flaws in the court decision and a link to a case where people are being allowed to wear face coverings on government IDs.

dialamah · September 29, 2015

It works in Singapore.

It's between 72 and 92% depending on which poll. People didn't care very much until they saw the courts go so far out of bounds. You can thank the courts for turning it into an issue by being so obtuse.

Turns out, we're not in Singapore. I also note that when Singapore attempts to lash a Canadian citizen, there's a huge outcry against it. So, this not very smart remark is just because you feel you are losing the debate, hmmm?

It's the government that is being obtuse. The Citizen Act requires that individual religious beliefs are to be accorded the greatest possible freedom. It also says that any changes involving the oath need to go through Cabinet. So, for a time, niqab wearing women could take their oath with faces covered and they did so, apparently without any impact on national security. But, in 2011, Kenney decided this needed to be changed, and implemented a mandatory policy, despite warnings from advisers that was not going to fly if taken to court. He seemed to figure he could implement a 'policy' and if he made it mandatory, nobody would question it. Given we're dealing with new Canadians, he wasn't too far off the mark - until Ms. Zunera said "Wait, is that really the law?" Sure enough, it is not.

If we cannot count on the courts to uphold the laws set by the government, or if we expect them to ignore laws, based on uninformed public opinion then we're in deep trouble. In other countries that would be called "corruption". Calling the courts obtuse because they support a law you don't happen to like is common, but not very smart. Allowing oneself to be manipulated by a political party - also common, also not smart.

Edited September 29, 2015 by dialamah

Big Guy · September 29, 2015

A Niqab covers a persons identity. There are other things that can have the same effect:

http://cdn.coresites.factorymedia.com/mpora_new/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/imgarcade-com1.jpg

Argus · September 29, 2015

I have respect for our charter of rights. So should you.

Why?

Argus · September 29, 2015

What if that 92% also wanted to give her 20 lashes for being such a troublemaker?

You have something against democracy?

Argus · September 29, 2015

By banning an article of clothing that a person/family consider part of their religious culture, we aren't sending a message of 'respect'.

No, we're not, because most Canadians don't respect those who choose to cover up women because of their perfidious sluttiness and their evil affect on otherwise pure male sensibilities.

Argus · September 29, 2015

The only way the government could pass a law about face covering IF it calls on the person to prove who they really are.

But just such a law is going to be implemented in Quebec, with broad public support. And if the SC doesn't like it I'm pretty sure the Quebec government is going to tell them to drop dead and use the notwithstanding clause - again to broad public support.