This would never fly here, Charter guarantees fundamental freedom of religion. If they tried it, and I don't see that ever happening, I can't see the SCC upholding it.
Because this is a PG13 forum. besides, the rumours of my small penis were greatly exaggerated. I wouldn't want any of my fellow male members to feel insecure or lacking.Why is this critter wearing gonch?
Are you back to that weak claim? I've asked you to prove at least a dozen times, and yet, you haven't once even tried.How lucky for them, they get a self-confessed **** disturber and a proven liar.
You spelled I and am wrong.What a pitiful man/boy you are.
In your own handwriting on your wall, guess that makes both accusations valid. lol 'tard.Are you back to that weak claim? I've asked you to prove at least a dozen times, and yet, you haven't once even tried.
Ummm, is there anyone here that doesn't know I'm a cannibal troll? It says so right under my name on my avatar. Tard< your words.In your own handwriting on your wall, guess that makes both accusations valid. lol 'tard.
Go review your 9/11 support that has you not challenging the theory that hot sagging floor joints (and joints) have enough pulling power to pull in both the inner and outer box columns to the point of collapse. Use your 12 certificates to back up your authority to agree/disagree with that premise, you chose to support a version any welder would know was inaccurate. Tard goes with tardy, a little behind everybody else. In your case that is so far behind you think you're ahead. It isn't your comments that make you a low-life, sometimes content means everything, now FO.
You are absolutely correct about the not withstanding clause, but, it's always been my understanding that invoking the not withstanding clause is time limited. (Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't study constitutional law)The charter does not guarantee freedom of religion.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
Freedom of religion is in Section 2.
And besides, moderate Muslims will insist that the burqa and niqab are not part of their religion and only a cultural tradition. The Supreme Court would have to decide that it was necessary to the free exercise of Islam to strike down the law that way. They'd be better off trying to use free expression.
Is it a matter of security? Maybe. Is it a problem though? I kinda doubt it. In France, it is very obviously a xenophobic reaction. One of the penalties for being caught in public wearing a niqab is having to attend French citizenship classes. While this doesn't even seem like much of a penalty, the idea behind that ban is obviously state enforced assimilation. State encouraged assimilation seems fine, but making non-assimilation a criminal offence seems to me to have gone a little too far.
Yes, and do you see a politician with those kind of cahones lurking around Ottawa? Or even in the wings waiting for his/her chance?Essentially, any government who chooses to invoke will eventually have to face the electorate over the matter, no?
I lived in Ottawa for almost twenty years. Trust me when I say the answer to both those questions is big, resounding NO!Yes, and do you see a politician with those kind of cahones lurking around Ottawa? Or even in the wings waiting for his/her chance?
You are absolutely correct about the not withstanding clause, but, it's always been my understanding that invoking the not withstanding clause is time limited. (Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't study constitutional law)
I think the clause essentially just prevents legislation from being challenged under the charter, but since it's time limited it has to,eventually, start all over again. And no parliament or provincial legislature can go more than 5 years without an election.
Essentially, any government who chooses to invoke will eventually have to face the electorate over the matter, no?
Yeah, but I think it eventually all comes down what is possible vs what is probable.You're right. There is a time limit and it's not a coincidence that that time limit is the same maximum amount of time allowed between elections. The notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to things listed as "democratic rights" (section 3) under the Charter, which includes voting and 5 year limits on Parliament. Section 3 doesn't include the most important democratic rights, however. Those are under Section 2: free speech, free press, assembly and association. You can't have a democracy without these. Free speech especially is fundamental to democracy. And legal rights are also subject to the notwithstanding clause. So in five years you'll get a chance to vote, but during the campaign you will not have any free speech or a free press, nor will you have the right to life, liberty or security of person, you can be arbitrarily detained, no fair trial, no presumption of innocence. What good is Section 3 without these rights?
That kind of act would have the net result of uniting now divided ideologies, in an all out assault on the Hill. Via mass protests, or physical violence.But in the event it ever did happen, of couse it would totally suck to be Canadian for those 5 years.
Hey, you may be on to something.That kind of act would have the net result of uniting now divided ideologies, in an all out assault on the Hill. Via mass protests, or physical violence.
Any able bodied person that sits idly by, while our rights are stripped away, doesn't deserve them.
Thankfully, we don't live in a banana republic, so the chances are virtually nonexistent.
Hey, you may be on to something.
Forget healthcare. This is how we unite the nation!
Q-Do we invite Quebec? (Just kidding, )
Joking aside, of course we do absolutely need to be vigilant and keep an eye on government. They will not be held accountable unless we hold them accountable. We need to remember that our rights also come with responsibilities, like voting.
I don't think we can grow bananas here so that clinches it.Thankfully, we don't live in a banana republic, so the chances are virtually nonexistent.
Is that code for-head for the sugar bush when it all goes down?
Every province has fir trees. We are the toilet paper republic.