Should Canada revoke freedom of religion for Muslims?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Obviously you don't know the history of the area and what is going on, if you ask that.
The history of people going with the grain but having their own beliefs has been going on since the dawn of time and has surpassed every oppression tossed at it? Well aware of it.
What are you talking about?
What clause attempts? What attempts were shot down?
You’re arguing that s. 33 is designed to protect the Charter.
Have you not read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Let’s review.
How can that even possibly be construed as to protect the Charter, when it allows the use of exceptions?
The exceptions don't include fear, loathing, ignorance and xenophobia as a reason to envoke the ****ing clause. That's how something as stupid as banning a major world religion is an impossibility.
The notwithstanding clause explicitly allows the use of exceptions for freedom of conscience and religion (since section 2 is allowed to be notwithstood), and there is no restriction on the reasons for invoking the clause. And you know what, I think fear, loathing and ignorance were a major part of Alberta’s invoking of the clause to reject the rights of gays and lesbians.
You’re inventing the constitution as you go along, and that’s not how it works.
Any provincial legislature, or Parliament, can invoke the notwithstanding clause to reject freedom of conscience and religion; this would allow any such legislature to ban a faith or religion without the possibility of challenges to the Supreme Court or any other judicial body.
I’m not saying it should happen, as I feel that Muslims have just as much a place here in Canada as does anyone else, I’m just saying that it’s a legislative avenue of possibility, to respond to your statement that it was impossible.
I hear you Machjo but you may be on a slippery slope, but if not you might want to go the extra step and revoke entry.
It was not shot down, their opposite-sex definition of marriage was in full force and effect for five years. It was only at the automatic expiration of the notwithstanding clause at its five-year-point that the clause lapsed, but it was not shot down at any point by a court (because they do not have the authority to strike down the notwithstanding clause).
Me Gawd! I knew some were going to vote yes. When at first there was no yes vote, I was hopeful that I might have judged wrongly, but clearly the two yes votes show I was right initially; we've got blind hatred for Muslims in these forums among some members.
I said READ CLOSELY....
The very first thing you posted explains everything.
Parliament deemed gay marriage a right under equality which trumped AB's attempt and they no longer had ground to renew.
So like I said before nobody lost a right because the right had yet to be established. Still no rights lost in AB but an attempt to uphold what they thought was a valid claim.
:laughing3: That's a good one.
Canadians who aren't experienced lawyers well-versed in constitutional law could spend two straight years of their lives reading it, trying to decipher all that bs, only to come to the insulting conclusion that it is basically a shopping list of what the government can and cannot do to you, all just for the sake of being able to debate legal technicalities on public forums...
...Or you could realize that the topic is a personal/moral question and not a legal one.
-
Machjo, I know why you started the topic but just posting the question is to suggest that it is open to debate, which it cannot be in an even remotely civilized society.
