[herbie]

Regardless the proper procedure is to move on to the Supreme Court.
NOT TO ANNOUNCE you will reintroduce the same damn law within 100 days of being elected.
They're merely pandering to the same blockheads, like the Conservative Party that either don't comprehend a Charter of Rights or are intentionally working against the Charter!

[PluggyRug]

Hyack Hyack:

romanP romanP:

Hyack Hyack:

And I am sure there is also a big difference between wearing the niqab by choice as compared to having to wear it because it is demanded in the Quran!

it is not demanded in Qu'ran.

Exactly....

So anyone wearing one does so by choice, not because of religious decree!

ZING!!!

[N_Fiddledog]

[romanP]

Hyack Hyack:

romanP romanP:

Hyack Hyack:

And I am sure there is also a big difference between wearing the niqab by choice as compared to having to wear it because it is demanded in the Quran!

it is not demanded in Qu'ran.

Exactly....

So anyone wearing one does so by choice, not because of religious decree!

regardless, it is still religious headwear. when are Christian nuns going to be asked to remove their habit before voting or taking a citizenship oath? oh right, they're white, so we don't pay attention to them.

a friend of mine summed it up pretty succinctly:

$1:

I'd say the base is there is a lot of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment since 9/11 and that the Tories are exploiting anxieties about an alien other disrupting our way of life with this legislation.

These Conservatives are not historic emancipators of women, nor do they give any fucks about women. In fact, since they closed down the Status of Women office claiming that women are equal to men in Canada (a 'mission accomplished' moment if ever there was one) how can they need to legislate on this?

There were women wearing veils when they closed Status of Women, at a time when women were apparently already equal. How now can they need to move to allegedly protect the rights of women?

[2Cdo]

romanP romanP:

regardless, it is still religious headwear. when are Christian nuns going to be asked to remove their habit before voting or taking a citizenship oath? oh right, they're white, so we don't pay attention to them.

Your verbal contortions are hilarious. The habit doesn't cover the face like the niqab therefore your entire argument is a great big pile of dogshit.

Also, it isn't required by their religion but you insist it is religious headwear.

[romanP]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

romanP romanP:

regardless, it is still religious headwear. when are Christian nuns going to be asked to remove their habit before voting or taking a citizenship oath? oh right, they're white, so we don't pay attention to them.

Your verbal contortions are hilarious. The habit doesn't cover the face like the niqab therefore your entire argument is a great big pile of dogshit.

there are no verbal contortions. just because you insist on remaining ignorant doesn't mean what i'm saying isn't true. the same legislative racism has already happened in Quebec and France in regard to the hijab, using the same bullshit argument.

$1:

Also, it isn't required by their religion but you insist it is religious headwear.

many Christians wear a cross around their neck, but that is not required of them. that is religious jewelry.

do you see people who are not Muslim women wearing these garments? i posted a video in this thread about why Muslim women choose to wear this headwear. you should watch it.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

romanP romanP:

PJB PJB:

Yet another politically correct decision by a Federal Court that is simply too afraid to offend anyone that may appear to be a minority. I find the decision offensive and degrading towards women. It is also an insult to what the Prime Minister so widely defends as National Security. If I covered my face and walked into a bank I would be instantly looked at suspiciously yet some of these women do it proudly. This is not a religious choice but a practice designed to lower the status of women.

it is, in fact, a religious choice, and there is a big difference between a religious garment and a disguise to rob a bank.

Uhhh, you do realize there's a difference between a hijab and a niqab, right?

[romanP]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Uhhh, you do realize there's a difference between a hijab and a niqab, right?

they can serve the same purpose. if a woman decides she doesn't want to show you or anyone else her face, hair, or any other part of her body, that is her decision to make.

[PluggyRug]

romanP romanP:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Uhhh, you do realize there's a difference between a hijab and a niqab, right?

they can serve the same purpose. if a woman decides she doesn't want to show you or anyone else her face, hair, or any other part of her body, that is her decision to make.

So what colour's yours?

[Freakinoldguy]

romanP romanP:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

uwish uwish:

A very unfortunate decision. I can't believe how out of touch our judiciary is with the common folk...

That's true but what scares me even more is the fact that they're a completely separate unaccountable branch of Gov't that makes policies and decisions with no oversight or recourse for the "common folk".

They, in essence are running the country not the elected officials and all anyone who wants a Gov't law, or bill changed has to do is appeal all the way to the Star Chamber and if it's politically correct, it's a done deal.

while i think that law should be more accessible to all, and is written in highly technical jargon in order to make it difficult for those it affects most to be able to interpret it and use it effectively, i can say that those versed well in the law because they have spent considerable time studying it are far better judges of what is and isn't good law than politicians who will use the law as a club to beat down anyone who opposes them or might be a threat to them, such as what our current government does consistently.

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all but that's unlikely to happen given we've become a nation ruled by lawyers.

The problem I have with these appeal courts is that they have taken to using the term "of public importance" to circumvent political decisions and insinuate themselves into everyday life in Canada rather than staying strictly within the framework of the law as they did prior to 1982. As it is now they provide no viable outlet for democratic resolution and impose solutions based solely on their interpretation of the Constitution which would be fine if people didn't want a say in how their country was run.

It's also interesting to note that New Zealand, Australia and the UK deny their judges the power to invalidate legislation. I wonder why?

But on the plus side this decision is being appealed to the SCC by the Gov't which should be hilarious given that august Judiciary has a record of protecting their own underlings decisions over backing any Gov't legislation.

[herbie]

$1:

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all

Yeah, and so should Windows. But there just aren't many people out there who can grasp the basic concepts. Haven't, can't and never will.

[Freakinoldguy]

herbie herbie:

$1:

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all

Yeah, and so should Windows. But there just aren't many people out there who can grasp the basic concepts. Haven't, can't and never will.

Survival of the species.

The law is written by and for lawyers same as windows is written by programmers and both will intentionally keep it complicated because, if everyone completely understood and was able to navigate it, alot of them would be out of a job.

In some ways it's like Doctors before and after the internet. Before the internet they were demigod's now they've just human like the rest of us with all the foibles and complexities of people who can and do make mistakes.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

romanP romanP:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Uhhh, you do realize there's a difference between a hijab and a niqab, right?

they can serve the same purpose. if a woman decides she doesn't want to show you or anyone else her face, hair, or any other part of her body, that is her decision to make.

Awww that's adorable. You actually believe they have a choice.

[herbie]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

herbie herbie:

$1:

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all

Yeah, and so should Windows. But there just aren't many people out there who can grasp the basic concepts. Haven't, can't and never will.

Survival of the species.

The law is written by and for lawyers same as windows is written by programmers and both will intentionally keep it complicated because, if everyone completely understood and was able to navigate it, alot of them would be out of a job.

In some ways it's like Doctors before and after the internet. Before the internet they were demigod's now they've just human like the rest of us with all the foibles and complexities of people who can and do make mistakes.

Making my point for me?

There is only 1 human species, and survival of any species requires it to learn and adapt.

[romanP]

herbie herbie:

$1:

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all

Yeah, and so should Windows. But there just aren't many people out there who can grasp the basic concepts. Haven't, can't and never will.

i would say Windows is probably more complicated than the law. i'm not sure that people who code it understand it. however, if law were written in more accessible language, it would not require a law degree or hiring, at prohibitively great expense, someone who has one in order to be able to understand most of it.

apathy and bitterness will never cause change.