cybercoma Posted October 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Quite right. Essentially the cons. simply broke their own law. The courts didn't need to go to the charter to make this ruling. They put a policy into place that asked the judges to break the law. To which the judge said, "Yeah. I can't do this. The law won't allow me to even if I wanted to. And besides, it's unnecessary because they're identified and sign the legal documentation prior to the ceremony." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 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. You mean the CPC is willing to make a giant issue out of this over two people. Oh here's another thing about public opinion polling on this: people can have an opinion on something and be completely uninformed of the facts of the issue. need some proof? Look in a mirror. this is an emotional button that the CPC is mashing to rile up people who likely never heard of a niqab or cared until Jason Kinney decided to pick a fight over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Oh here's another thing about public opinion polling on this: people can have an opinion on something and be completely uninformed of the facts of the issue. need some proof? Look in a mirror. this is an emotional button that the CPC is mashing to rile up people who likely never heard of a niqab or cared until Jason Kinney decided to pick a fight over it. That's why it's a cool wedge issue. Politics are fun eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 You mean the CPC is willing to make a giant issue out of this over two people. Oh here's another thing about public opinion polling on this: people can have an opinion on something and be completely uninformed of the facts of the issue. need some proof? Look in a mirror. this is an emotional button that the CPC is mashing to rile up people who likely never heard of a niqab or cared until Jason Kinney decided to pick a fight over it. I think the first question in those polls should be "what is a niqab?" And if they can't answer that, then they should be divided off into the uninformed column. Then we'll see how much support it has amongst uninformed vs informed people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 They put a policy into place that asked the judges to break the law. To which the judge said, "Yeah. I can't do this. The law won't allow me to even if I wanted to. And besides, it's unnecessary because they're identified and sign the legal documentation prior to the ceremony." And again it's providing Harper with a talking point which allows him to dance around and ignore issues that actually impact the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Nevermind Duffy, candidates who piss into people's coffee mugs, the economy being completely aenemic compared to the rest of the G7 for the last 2 years, screwing over Vets, failing on military procurement, failing to secure markets for oil. None of that matters when two women in the last four years wanted to be able to wear the niqab during their citizenship oath. Edited October 1, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 That's why it's a cool wedge issue. Politics are fun eh? Desperate, disgusting and pathetic is more like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Desperate, disgusting and pathetic is more like it. Then why did JT feel the need to play into it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Andrew Coyne's take: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Because he's a politician in a desperate, disgusting and pathetic election campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Andrew Coyne's take: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous Excellent take on this as usual from Coyne. His line "[the Conservatives and their ilk] are trafficking in their [the 2 Muslim women's] humiliation" sums it up perfectly. I'm an atheist who hates religion and faith. But if people choose to believe this crap and do not effect me with it then whatever. Let them show their face prior to the ceremony and recite the oath and be done with it. To waste legislation on such an issue shows how stupid our country has become: politicize every little thing to create a wedge issue to try and exploit. And then people reward such behaviour. Edited October 1, 2015 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 this is an emotional button that the CPC is mashing to rile up people who likely never heard of a niqab or cared until Jason Kinney decided to pick a fight over it. Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are. Many years ago, Canadians were up in arms over the prospect of Quebec allowing air traffic controllers to speak French to incoming aircraft. You wouldn't think that would become a big issue, but it did. It was huge. The federal Liberals were forced to back down temporarily and strike some kind of phony commission so the bad feelings would die down. Why did it become an issue? It was symbolic. English Canadians were fed up with all the sucking up to Quebec and the French, and lashed out on this issue. The niquab is similar. Canadians, by and large, are fed up with Muslim extremism and are appalled at the idea we are bringing such people into Canada and granting them citizenship, much less accommodating their backward cultural values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Andrew Coyne's take: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous I think Coyne might have been drunk or on hallucinogens when he wrote that. There is no link between extremist or fanatical religious beliefs and a willingness to commit terrorism? Is he nuts? I saw him on the CBC the other day, getting all red faced about this, displaying every inch of his outraged political correctness. Chantal Hebert basically treated him like he was a silly boy who needed to take a chill pill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are. Harper himself talked about it in this ad: <<Ils veulent des nouveaux citoyens qui prennent le serment à visage découvert.>> Besides, it would not even be an issue if the Tories hadn't been so bent on fighting the courts on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Harper himself talked about it in this ad: <<Ils veulent des nouveaux citoyens qui prennent le serment à visage découvert.>> Besides, it would not even be an issue if the Tories hadn't been so bent on fighting the courts on it. Why wouldn't it be an issue when Quebec is getting set to ban it in all interactions with government agencies, including schools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are. So wait: are you reading a different MLW than me? Many years ago, Canadians were up in arms over the prospect of Quebec allowing air traffic controllers to speak French to incoming aircraft. You wouldn't think that would become a big issue, but it did. It was huge. The federal Liberals were forced to back down temporarily and strike some kind of phony commission so the bad feelings would die down. Why did it become an issue? It was symbolic. English Canadians were fed up with all the sucking up to Quebec and the French, and lashed out on this issue. The niquab is similar. Canadians, by and large, are fed up with Muslim extremism and are appalled at the idea we are bringing such people into Canada and granting them citizenship, much less accommodating their backward cultural values. Well, if the number of women this applies to is any indication, it's not a rational fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are. Many years ago, Canadians were up in arms over the prospect of Quebec allowing air traffic controllers to speak French to incoming aircraft. You wouldn't think that would become a big issue, but it did. It was huge. The federal Liberals were forced to back down temporarily and strike some kind of phony commission so the bad feelings would die down. Why did it become an issue? It was symbolic. English Canadians were fed up with all the sucking up to Quebec and the French, and lashed out on this issue. The niquab is similar. Canadians, by and large, are fed up with Muslim extremism and are appalled at the idea we are bringing such people into Canada and granting them citizenship, much less accommodating their backward cultural values. Are you kidding? Harper never shuts up about it, especially when he is in Quebec. It serves him well from having to discuss real issues. And as to English being spoken by ATC, it's far from symbolic. You don't have to be a pilot to understand it's a safety issue to be able to know what is happening in the airspace you are travelling in. English has been declared the international language of aviation for decades, as determined by ICAO. Lets forget the niqab and deal with...oh how about the economy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Why wouldn't it be an issue when Quebec is getting set to ban it in all interactions with government agencies, including schools?You do see Conservatives talking about it, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Are you kidding? Harper never shuts up about it, especially when he is in Quebec. It serves him well from having to discuss real issues. And as to English being spoken by ATC, it's far from symbolic. You don't have to be a pilot to understand it's a safety issue to be able to know what is happening in the airspace you are travelling in. English has been declared the international language of aviation for decades, as determined by ICAO. Lets forget the niqab and deal with...oh how about the economy? And yet, you can now speak French in the airspace over Quebec, because the Liberals were pandering to the French voters. The niquab is a big issue in Quebec given the Quebec LIBERALS are set to ban wearing it in all interactions with government, including schools. It gets brought up all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) You do see Conservatives talking about it, then? I honestly don't watch Quebec political behavior, esp since most of it is in French. I've never heard it mentioned in English except as a response to an attack over the issue. Today being an example. The Post has two front page stories on it from an outraged NDP supporter in Alberta and Coyne. In neither case was the issue brought up by a Tory. Edited October 1, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are. It's all Harper talks about in Quebec any more. And a nice person translates it into English as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 So wait: are you reading a different MLW than me? Oh, was it a conservative supporter who started this topic? Well, if the number of women this applies to is any indication, it's not a rational fear. As has been pointed out before, symbols can often arouse emotions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's all Harper talks about in Quebec any more. And a nice person translates it into English as well. I find that extremely unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Oh, was it a conservative supporter who started this topic? About a Conservative policy which many conservative supporters on this board have applauded, yes. As has been pointed out before, symbols can often arouse emotions. And has been pointed out before (by you even) the general public is pretty dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I've never heard it mentioned in English except as a response to an attack over the issue. Today being an example. The Post has two front page stories on it from an outraged NDP supporter in Alberta and Coyne. In neither case was the issue brought up by a Tory. This just seems disingenuous. The Tories were the ones who brought in the policy, had it struck down by the court, appealed the ruling, had the appeal dismissed, and vowed to bring back the policy if re-elected. I'm not sure what 'mentioning' or 'talking about' it would entail but it is their policy that they have been fighting for. They made it an issue. So, yes, the Opposition brings it up and opposes it: they are not inventing an issue out of thin air, nor are they just lying back and ignoring the government's actions. Edited October 1, 2015 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.