France starts ban on full-face veil
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
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.
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.
Bears got beef...
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.
You spelled I and am wrong.
In your own handwriting on your wall, guess that makes both accusations valid. lol 'tard.
CDNBear May 9th, 2009lol, this thing is frickin super quick again!!! So what did I miss and where do I have to go to stir up some sh!t?
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.
Now, go prove I'm a liar, that's the one you keep throwing out there when you get your panties in a knot, and keep failing top prove. Time and time again.
Good luck.
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)
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?
I lived in Ottawa for almost twenty years. Trust me when I say the answer to both those questions is big, resounding NO!
Basically, I think the not withstanding clause sounds really scary on paper but in practical terms, I can't see anyone truly getting away with anything by using it. The only way we would, in my opinion, ever totally lose all our rights and freedoms, is if the government is ever overthrown in bloody coup (probability-exceedingly low, imho). And if that ever happens, no amount of legislation would help anyway.
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?
Yeah, but I think it eventually all comes down what is possible vs what is probable.
Any parliament that tried to invoke serious legislation that repressed all the rights under section 2 would be committing political suicide. Heck, they're almost killing each other now across the floor of the House of Commons, I can't imagine an opposition party that wouldn't take something like that and absolutely run with it. Well maybe Dion, he was kind of a mouse, but aside from him.
I've never heard of a politician who was totally unconcerned with being re-elected. So I think the liklihood of that scenario ever really happening is probably slim to none.
But in the event it ever did happen, of couse it would totally suck to be Canadian for those 5 years.
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.
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.
Is that code for-head for the sugar bush when it all goes down?Sorry my bad, I should have said, maple syrup republic?
Just wanna be in the loop.
Every province has fir trees. We are the toilet paper republic.Sorry my bad, I should have said, maple syrup republic?