Smallc Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 What? I was making a personal attack. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 Let's stop pretending that all immigrants are alike. They're not. But that's exactly what you're doing, pretending that all Muslims are alike. Quote
capricorn Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 Part of the beauty of our charter is that it protects certain individual rights, regardless of which way the wind is blowing this week or next regarding majority wishes. Setting aside what might happen in charter challenges to the Supreme Court, it should come as no surprise to those parties who discard the wishes of the majority to be discarded on election day. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 Setting aside what might happen in charter challenges to the Supreme Court, it should come as no surprise to those parties who discard the wishes of the majority to be discarded on election day. Anyone who is likely to cast their vote based on something as inconsequential as this issue, probably always has, and always will, vote the same way they always did. Quote
capricorn Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 We should not be bombing them causing their displacement and mass migration. Don't you think Assad had some role in the mass migration of his country's citizens? We would not need to consider taking in refugees if we stayed out of the conflict. So in your opinion, we should let innocents be slaughtered rather than take some of them in, if we are not engaged militarily in that country? Wow! Would you also have the same opinion if we were involved in a humanitarian capacity? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
capricorn Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 Anyone who is likely to cast their vote based on something as inconsequential as this issue, probably always has, and always will, vote the same way they always did. Your view that it is inconsequential is your own and you cannot presume to know that it is inconsequential to others. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
waldo Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 I think many Canadians are turned off by the Liberals and the NDP going counter to the stated wishes of the majority of Canadians who do want the niqab removed when the oath of citizenship is taken. Your view that it is inconsequential is your own and you cannot presume to know that it is inconsequential to others. clearly you don't even understand the issue; you've simply accepted the purposeful distraction Harper is fronting. You completely miss the distinction between the period/event of actually taking the oath and the separate ceremony afterwards. In recent days it has been revealed that since the law was put into effect only 2... 2... persons have objected to removing the veil during the actual taking of the oath (something that is done in private... versus the public ceremony). All of this purposeful Harper Conservative distraction over 2 persons that have actually refused to remove the veil during the oath... only 2 persons that have not been granted Canadian citizenship. . Quote
capricorn Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 clearly you don't even understand the issue; Clearly, you're not in my head to be able to conclude this. you've simply accepted the purposeful distraction Harper is fronting. Not at all. My comments on this issue are more with regard to parties disregarding the opinion of the majority rather than the merits of asking niqabed women to show their face when taking the citizenship oath in the presence of others taking the oath. You completely miss the distinction between the period/event of actually taking the oath and the separate ceremony afterwards. In recent days it has been revealed that since the law was put into effect only 2... 2... persons have objected to removing the veil during the actual taking of the oath (something that is done in private... versus the public ceremony). All of this purposeful Harper Conservative distraction over 2 persons that have actually refused to remove the veil during the oath... only 2 persons that have not been granted Canadian citizenship. Conversely, why are some people hyperventilating over an issue that will be decided by the Supreme Court anyway? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 On revoking citizenship of dual citizens, what if the other country gets wind of what's going on and revokes it first? I suspect they are in no pressing need of more jihadis. I heard two lawyers, Jackman and Taub, debating the issue on CBC radio. That poor lady Taub sounded very doddery and made a bunch of irrelevant statements about the Holocaust. A new spokesperson should be sought. Quote
waldo Posted October 1, 2015 Report Posted October 1, 2015 Clearly, you're not in my head to be able to conclude this. no - I concluded as much... that you didn't even understand the issue... based on your own words where you spoke of the, "niqab removal as a part of the oath taking". Again, the issue is removing it during the public ceremony... not the actual private oath taking. Conversely, why are some people hyperventilating over an issue that will be decided by the Supreme Court anyway? I suggest you direct your question to Harper - yes? Quote
eyeball Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I believe so strongly in electoral reform then that I actually voted for Reform in the late 90s, early 00s. Me too. I actually voted for a fundamental Creationist. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Good piece on the citizenship debate here by Kady: http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-if-citizenship-revocation-is-your-ballot-box-issue-you-might-want-to-read-this It would surprise me if at least one foreign country does not revoke citizenship on one of these guys before Canada does. Sending these people back is not exactly a friendly gesture - to the UK for example or 'our ally' (when contracts are involved) Saudi Arabia. What happens when somebody does that to us? Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Good piece on the citizenship debate here by Kady: http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-if-citizenship-revocation-is-your-ballot-box-issue-you-might-want-to-read-this It would surprise me if at least one foreign country does not revoke citizenship on one of these guys before Canada does. Sending these people back is not exactly a friendly gesture - to the UK for example or 'our ally' (when contracts are involved) Saudi Arabia. What happens when somebody does that to us? So my take on this is if they're doing it, we better as well! Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 So my take on this is if they're doing it, we better as well! I think we have a responsibility to manage these people ourselves if they were raised in Canada. They are our problem. Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I think we have a responsibility to manage these people ourselves if they were raised in Canada. They are our problem. I have no issues jailing them for life, other than the cost, but I'm willing to pay for the cost. The issue is that our judicial system can't do so. One of them is eligible for parole in 2016. Unreal. Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I have no issues jailing them for life, other than the cost, but I'm willing to pay for the cost. The issue is that our judicial system can't do so. One of them is eligible for parole in 2016. Unreal. They should be classed as dangerous offenders and detained indefinitely. Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 They should be classed as dangerous offenders and detained indefinitely. I agree. But who would pay for it? Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 I have no issues jailing them for life, other than the cost, but I'm willing to pay for the cost. The issue is that our judicial system can't do so. One of them is eligible for parole in 2016. Unreal. The actual issue is that the judicial system can do so, and that's who it should be left to. Not politicians. Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 The actual issue is that the judicial system can do so, and that's who it should be left to. Not politicians. But when it fails? Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 But when it fails? Nothing's perfect, but they have no particular ax to grind like politicians do. Who would you prefer to be tried by? Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Nothing's perfect, but they have no particular ax to grind like politicians do. Who would you prefer to be tried by? Obviously the judicial system, but when someone is convicted of terrorism, and is eligible to be freed by 2016, clearly our judicial system has failed. Given the lack of the ability to fix that system, if it came down to them roaming our streets or to be deported from Canada, I vote the latter. Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
Argus Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 "Almost nobody" isn't the same as "nobody" so you've only proved my point. You seem to require very little evidence to 'prove' your beliefs to yourself. I can assure you others think differently. And as I have already pointed out, it's not like there is unanimity in Canada about legalizing or even softening laws on marijuana. So in that way our laws accurately reflect the will of the people. Which is -- uncertain. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 They should be classed as dangerous offenders and detained indefinitely. I take it you're one of the one third of Canadians who don't pay taxes... ? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) I take it you're one of the one third of Canadians who don't pay taxes... ? Maybe, maybe not, but perhaps part of the third who doesn't mind running a deficit to pay for mr. terrorist to live for free in prison. Edited October 2, 2015 by angrypenguin Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
Argus Posted October 2, 2015 Report Posted October 2, 2015 Maybe, maybe not, but perhaps part of the third who doesn't mind running a deficit to pay for mr. terrorist to live for free in prison. It strikes me as much more practical, once he's served his sentence, to strip him of citizenship and ship him off to who cares where. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.