.

[Argus]

Look, I get it. You don't understand constitutions, you don't understand CAnadian history. You just have this series of ludicrous statements that you keep repeating because you have infantile dislike of our constitution.

No, I think the difference is you're an ideologue and I'm a pragmatist. You don't care to discuss reality, preferring theory.

In theory, the charter has all these set in stone protections. Of course, in reality, the Charter is a blank piece of paper which the judges of the Supreme Court can read anything they want into. That's fact and you have thus far in your sneering dismissals been completely unable to deny.

You suggest it will take decades to stack the courts, which is ludicrous given Harper has already appointed 7 of its members. And you continually ignore my statement that the will of the people is the only reason why a PM wouldn't be able to stack the court however he wants.

It's this blithe refusal to accept basic reality which marks your arguments as being so banal and wrongheaded. You will simply ignore facts that contradict your world view because you feel insecure without neat, typewritten rules of life. The idea frightens you so you lash out in defense of your silly legalistic mechanisms.

[ToadBrother]

No, I think the difference is you're an ideologue and I'm a pragmatist. You don't care to discuss reality, preferring theory.

In theory, the charter has all these set in stone protections. Of course, in reality, the Charter is a blank piece of paper which the judges of the Supreme Court can read anything they want into. That's fact and you have thus far in your sneering dismissals been completely unable to deny.

You suggest it will take decades to stack the courts, which is ludicrous given Harper has already appointed 7 of its members. And you continually ignore my statement that the will of the people is the only reason why a PM wouldn't be able to stack the court however he wants.

It's this blithe refusal to accept basic reality which marks your arguments as being so banal and wrongheaded. You will simply ignore facts that contradict your world view because you feel insecure without neat, typewritten rules of life. The idea frightens you so you lash out in defense of your silly legalistic mechanisms.

There's nothing pragmatic about declaring "The only reason the government obeys constitutions is because the People demand it..." even as I can provide hundreds of historical and extant reasons of governments that blithely ignore any rights of the people they govern.

If the rule of law was as weak as you suggest it is, even democracy itself would be just a stone's throw away from being outlawed. The People, as it were, would have no protection at all from the government, and all your claims would be rubbish.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, I think the difference is you're an ideologue and I'm a pragmatist. You don't care to discuss reality, preferring theory.

In theory, the charter has all these set in stone protections. Of course, in reality, the Charter is a blank piece of paper which the judges of the Supreme Court can read anything they want into. That's fact and you have thus far in your sneering dismissals been completely unable to deny.

You suggest it will take decades to stack the courts, which is ludicrous given Harper has already appointed 7 of its members. And you continually ignore my statement that the will of the people is the only reason why a PM wouldn't be able to stack the court however he wants.

It's this blithe refusal to accept basic reality which marks your arguments as being so banal and wrongheaded. You will simply ignore facts that contradict your world view because you feel insecure without neat, typewritten rules of life. The idea frightens you so you lash out in defense of your silly legalistic mechanisms.

The charter is anything but a blank piece of paper, you should actually look at it some time. Applying it is not reading into it what judges would like, it's making sure that new legislation doesn't contradict what is written on that paper. As to Harper stacking the deck, his appointees are often the ones who find against this or that Harper bill. Perhaps study up a little on how our legal system before you dig yourself in even deeper.

[dialamah]

I think its fair to say in Canada, that dialogue or dynamic tension does not exist-the Supreme of Canada, does what it wants. How it determines the Charter remains a mystery other than to say, it will assume as wide an application as possible. It frowns upon the rights envisioned in it being applied narrowly which explains why it went so far as to say it applies to anyone who steps foot on Canadian soil even if they are a terrorist, illegal entrant, criminal.

That seems perfectly fine to me. I'd rather err on the side of 'too much' than too little when protecting people's rights.

I think the only way to get people to understand that there is a Canadian vision more than, "I am whatever I want to be and to hell with everyone else", is through called community grass roots dialogue. That is a slow and some say impossible process but it does happen but it takes 2-5 generations to change mass behaviour. The problem no one wants to admit is that in certain communities the " I am whatever I want to be and to hell with everyone else" approach is seen as an absolute right.

What about those communities that say "I want you to be whatever I want to be and to hell with what you want" ? Is that a better approach?

If for example your religion teaches you people of other religions are inferior to you,

This is what all religions teach, with the possible exception of Buddhism. This is also 'taught' by political parties, which is why we see extremely partisan people making really outlandish justifications for all kinds of stuff their guy does (or doesn't do). This isn't pointing a finger, it applies to all parties equally.

I think anyone who wants to cover their face and chooses that, because its not obliged in the Koran, but who chooses that, is choosing an approach that says, I am above the rest of you. My individual rights and beliefs are more important than yours. You conform to me, not the other way around

Whereas I think that anyone who objects to what another person chooses to wear is choosing an approach that says "I am above you. My personal belief about what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, are more important than your personal right to practice your religion in the way you choose. You conform to me because I am made uncomfortable by what you choose to wear or choose to believe."

Excuse me, in this country, the notion a woman must cover her face is bull sheeyit. Its based on an antiquated concept of women. The bleeding heart liberals on this forum who want to be all things to all people showcasing their own feelings of unlimited entitlement, don't get it.

My feelings of entitlement means that I won't insist someone else submit to my personal beliefs? You know, to me it looks like it YOUR feelings of entitlement that make you think you can force other people to do what you want ....

Their very liberal approach is creating chaos as rigid fundamentalists are pulling their children from school with this mentality that they can opt out of Canadian society and pick and choose only those parts of Canadian society to their advantage, but ignore the rest.

A lot of Christians pull their kids out of school to do home-schooling, and the Anabaptist children are educated within their colony through high school. There are thousands of Christian women across Canada who are subject to a 'modest' dress code, in some cases including covering their hair, subject to their husbands, sometimes including corporal punishment, subject to their beliefs in Christianity being done a certain way. Why aren't you/Harper/Cons out there saving these women from their (Christian) subjugation? Why aren't you insisting that they join the greater Canadian family rather than living off in their own secluded community? Shouldn't they also accept the "entire" Canadian experience, rather than picking and choosing what they'll accept? Or does your desire to save women from subjugation only apply to Muslim women? And only a few dozen women at that?

The illogical in your stance is stunning. But then, Harper said "I will never tell my daughter to cover her face" Well duh! You aren't Muslim! And even if you were, face-covering isn't a requirement. I guess that set the bar.

Edited September 30, 2015 by dialamah

[Argus]

If the rule of law was as weak as you suggest it is, even democracy itself would be just a stone's throw away from being outlawed.

There is a REASON why established democracies are strong. It's because they tend to develop and thrive in places where the overwhelming majority of people want them and believe in them and all they imply. There is a REASON why democracies so often fail in third world countries. Because the spirit and culture and values which enable and protect democracy are not present, regardless of the pretty pieces of paper. A leader who decides he's not going to leave can seize power fairly easily, and his supporters in and out of government will aid him.

A leader in a country like Canada isn't going to be able to seize power because even his own supporters won't aid him, to say nothing of the military and police. And they won't refuse to aid him because of a piece of paper, but because of their own deep rooted beliefs in democratic values.

Now your piece of paper can provide a legal framework for how government operates, no question. It can even impose limitations which the government will have to obey. But the reason it has to obey them is because any attempt to refuse will put them alone, without support even from their own people.

Without that, without the commitment of the broad public to democratic ideals and freedoms the piece of paper is useless. Lots of countries have them, and they're of no use whatsoever when General So and So decides he's going to take power, or President Banana says he won't leave and all his cronies back him up.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

This is the classic bait and switch type of argument, right? You have realized you can't actually argue against what I said so you'll simply rephrase what I said and then argue against that.

What, you thought I wouldn't notice?

Your claim is essentially "All rights (except democratic rights, oddly) are just totally up to whether the majority agree or not".

There is a REASON why established democracies are strong. It's because they tend to develop and thrive in places where the overwhelming majority of people want them and believe in them and all they imply. There is a REASON why democracies so often fail in third world countries. Because the spirit and culture and values which enable and protect democracy are not present, regardless of the pretty pieces of paper. A leader who decides he's not going to leave can seize power fairly easily, and his supporters in and out of government will aid him.

A leader in a country like Canada isn't going to be able to seize power because even his own supporters won't aid him, to say nothing of the military and police. And they won't refuse to aid him because of a piece of paper, but because of their own deep rooted beliefs in democratic values.

Now your piece of paper can provide a legal framework for how government operates, no question. It can even impose limitations which the government will have to obey. But the reason it has to obey them is because any attempt to refuse will put them alone, without support even from their own people.

Without that, without the commitment of the broad public to democratic ideals and freedoms the piece of paper is useless. Lots of countries have them, and they're of no use whatsoever when General So and So decides he's going to take power, or President Banana says he won't leave and all his cronies back him up.

So, in other words, that "piece of paper" has more weight than you originally claimed it did. The mere fact that even cranky Supreme Court haters like yourself know full well that it's authority to terminate unconstitutional legislation is both lawful and right suggests that when you complain about the Supreme Court, it's just whining.

[Argus]

So, in other words, that "piece of paper" has more weight than you originally claimed it did. The mere fact that even cranky Supreme Court haters like yourself know full well that it's authority to terminate unconstitutional legislation is both lawful and right suggests that when you complain about the Supreme Court, it's just whining.

I never claimed the Charter and constitution weren't an outline of how government can function in Canada. I never claimed it was ineffective in acting as a framework. What I said was that without massive public support a constitution is no guarantee of rights. The only thing which guarantees the people's rights is the willingness of the people to enforce those rights.

[ToadBrother]

I never claimed the Charter and constitution weren't an outline of how government can function in Canada. I never claimed it was ineffective in acting as a framework. What I said was that without massive public support a constitution is no guarantee of rights. The only thing which guarantees the people's rights is the willingness of the people to enforce those rights.

A millennia of English constitutional tradition suggests it is much more complex than that.

[cybercoma]

The Charter of Right's creators never envisioned its use as it is today.

Aside from this being your opinion of people's thoughts (well over a hundred years ago at that), what does the Charter have to do with the niqab issue in this thread? How does it relate to the recent court rulings?

[Smallc]

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is well over 100 years old?

[Boges]

The reasoning for the latest poll numbers showing the CPC with a comfortable lead.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/01/conservatives-out-in-front-new-poll-finds.html

Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff attributes the latest bump in Tory fortunes to the party scoring points amid the recent flare up in the controversy over the niqab, the face veil some Muslim women wear.

Two-thirds (64 per cent) of Canadian voters are opposed to having fully veiled women swear the oath of citizenship, while just over a quarter (26) support it, the poll found.

Ten per cent don’t know, according to Forum’s results.

“It appears the Conservatives have scored a palpable hit with their hard line this past week on the niqab,” Bozinoff said in a statement.

[Black Dog]

Thank goodness Forum is considered a joke in all but media circles.

[Boges]

Thank goodness Forum is considered a joke in all but media circles.

Who other than media circles pay attention to polling?

[cybercoma]

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is well over 100 years old?

Yeah, pardon me. The Bill of Rights is from the 1960s and there was implied rights from the Constitution years prior. Regardless. What does the charter of rights have to do with the current case?

I'll give you the answer. Absolutely nothing. It was never referred to in these cases.

[cybercoma]

The reasoning for the latest poll numbers showing the CPC with a comfortable lead.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/01/conservatives-out-in-front-new-poll-finds.html

Wrong thread.

[Boges]

Wrong thread.

How so? It says that 2/3 of Canada is opposed to people wearing veils for citizenship.

[cybercoma]

How so? It says that 2/3 of Canada is opposed to people wearing veils for citizenship.

That's down considerably from other posters claiming 92%.

[eyeball]

How so? It says that 2/3 of Canada is opposed to people wearing veils for citizenship.

Are people sticking little Ban the Niqab support ribbons on their pick-ups yet? We'll know for sure Canadians are pretty sincere about this when we start seeing those.

[Smallc]

Yeah, pardon me.

Sorry, I was just being difficult. I have no interest in this case or the issue.

[Bryan]

Are people sticking little Ban the Niqab support ribbons on their pick-ups yet? We'll know for sure Canadians are pretty sincere about this when we start seeing those.

That's a good idea. What colour would they be... black? With an eye looking through the loop?

[PIK]

That's down considerably from other posters claiming 92%.

That was my mistake it is actually 82%.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/24/polling-data-on-niqabs-shows-82-of-canadians-support-ban

And since 20011 we have had 2 women complain and not become canadians because of it. So the NDP and liberals are willing to allow this because of 2 women. Disgusting.

[eyeball]

That's a good idea. What colour would they be... black? With an eye looking through the loop?

CPC blue with a Canadian flag peeking through, maybe with a tear welling up in the corner of the flag.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yeah, pardon me. The Bill of Rights is from the 1960s and there was implied rights from the Constitution years prior. Regardless. What does the charter of rights have to do with the current case?

I'll give you the answer. Absolutely nothing. It was never referred to in these cases.

Quite right. Essentially the Conservatives simply broke their own law. The courts didn't need to go to the charter to make this ruling. Edited October 1, 2015 by Michael Hardner
Conservatives misspelled

[Big Guy]

There have been 2 women in Canada who have refused to remove the niqab and have decided not to go through with the ceremony.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ban-zunera-ishaq-1.3249495

There are about 10 Canadians killed by lightening every year. That is 5 times more than women with problems with niqabs.

I think we should have a referendum on whether to permit lightening strikes in Canada.

[cybercoma]

And since 20011 we have had 2 women complain and not become canadians because of it. So the NDP and liberals are willing to allow this because of 2 women. Disgusting.

What's disgusting is claiming to be a proponent of individual liberties, but not allowing women to remove the niqab on their own and not allowing them to become citizens in this country if they don't. There's no equivalent restriction for Muslim men when it comes to citizenship or anyone else for that matter. If you're so concerned about women being oppressed, then let's see some meaningful measures being taken to fight violence against women and oppression. What's being done about the murdered and missing aboriginal women? What's being done about violence against all women? What's being done about sexual assault and harassment on campuses across this country? Where are the national strategies for these things?

Sorry, but the niqab issue isn't about protecting women. It's about white nationlists being able to parade their bigotry and hate, as condoned by a federal party. Not a single proponent of the ban on this forum would ever take the time to actually discuss the issue with a woman who chooses to wear the niqab. Admittedly that's not practical, but you guys don't even listen to the stories of the women who do choose to wear the niqab, often times against their families' wishes. That doesn't show that you give a crap about oppression against women, since you're not interested in listening to them at all. You're only interested in telling them what they can and can't wear, kind of like those oppressive regimes you claim to be fighting.