Solving Canada's Problems

[Cannuck]

What part of "It's a weapon" didn't you understand?

I understand what "it's a weapon": means. I'm trying to understand what your issue with it is. The SCC says it is allowed to be worn in schools by Sikh students and since you seem to think (given some of your responses on other threads) that any decision by the SCC is infallible (and once made, we must simply move on and accept it), I'm just trying to understand what your "problem" is with the kirpan.

If you are angry that my daughter is not allowed to carry one, then is your anger with the SCC in that it doesn't view every Canadian as equal?

 

[CDNBear]

The SCC says it is allowed to be worn in schools

No, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does.

 

[anticon]

But"love" is also a weapon, should we ban love then?

 

[Cannuck]

No, the Charter of rights and freedoms does.

Semantics

You seem to be dodging the question of what your issue with the kirpan is. I can only assume you really don't have one.

 

[CDNBear]

Semantics

Not at all. The SCC determined that the constitution established they could wear it in schools.

They didn't make law, they upheld it.

 

[Cannuck]

Not at all. The SCC determined that the constitution established they could wear it in schools.

They didn't make law, they upheld it.

They could have also decided that the kirpan did not represent a religious symbol and that Sikhs (given that many, if not most, do not wear them) were not required to wear them....but of course all that really is irrelevant to this discussion if we don't know what your problem with the law is.

 

[CDNBear]

They could have also decided that the kirpan did not represent a religious symbol and that Sikhs (given that many, if not most, do not wear them) were not required to wear them...

That's not how their faith sees it. Nor how the Charter of Rights and freedoms, is applied.

...but of course all that really is irrelevant to this discussion if we don't know what your problem with the law is.

What law is it you think I have a problem with?

 

[Cannuck]

That's not how their faith sees it. Nor how the Charter of Rights and freedoms, is applied.

Applied...yes....interesting choice of word.

What law is it you think I have a problem with?

I have no idea as you won't clarify. Since you brought it up, I can only assume you have a problem with some kids bringing "weapons" to school and some kids not.

 

[CDNBear]

Applied...yes....interesting choice of word.

I say it all the time, wording is extremely important.

I have no idea as you won't clarify.

I already did, the SCC upheld a Constitutional right to freedom of religion. My issue is with the primary law, not the body that is charged to ensure it's enforced.

Don't you agree?

Since you brought it up, I can only assume you have a problem with some kids bringing "weapons" to school and some kids not.

I have a problem with all kids carrying weapons in schools. Don't you?

 

[jgarden]

There is always a "disconnect" between external institutions responsible for making/interpreting the rights of Canadian citizens and those responsible for implimenting them.

With respect to " kirpans," instead of having it settled through the courts, why not run a "pilot" in several schools or school districts to either confirm or dispell the public perception that it represents a potential danger.

The results of a "pilot" would carry much more "weight" with the public than an imposed "top down" decision from Ottawa based on "the letter" of the law rather than what makes sense - given the circumstances!

 

[CDNBear]

Somebody failed the test...

Kirpan attack in Brampton renews concerns

 

[Cannuck]

I say it all the time, wording is extremely important.

That's because you play word games.

I have a problem with all kids carrying weapons in schools.

Irrelevant. They can. So, according to your logic, you just need to deal with it. Funny how your thinking changes when you aren't on the receiving end of special rights....too funny.

 

[CDNBear]

That's because you play word games.

No, I understand that wording and words are important, not playthings. I leave the latter to people who can't formulate a valid response.

Irrelevant.

So you've said. You've just failed to make a case for it, is all.

They can. So, according to your logic, you just need to deal with it.

Of course. Because the law is being upheld. That's very important to me. It's what separates us from despotic states and mob rule.

Funny how your thinking changes when you aren't on the receiving end of special rights....too funny.

Not at all, my support of freedom, out weighs my opinion all the time. Although I'd love to know what special rights I get. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

 

[Cannuck]

I have a problem with all kids carrying weapons in schools.

So, since this is a thread about problem solving and you have a "problem" with kids carrying weapons, how do you purport to solve this problem?

Or is this just more of your word games?

 

[CDNBear]

So, since this is a thread about problem solving and you have a "problem" with kids carrying weapons, how do you purport to solve this problem?

Petition the gov't to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Or is this just more of your word games?

Did you miss another question? I didn't miss your erroneous accusation.

 

[Cannuck]

Not at all, my support of freedom, out weighs my opinion all the time.

Petition the gov't to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So you support freedom but want to amend the COR to take away a right already granted to another. You are quite clearly a liar. You say it all the time, wording is extremely important.

 

[CDNBear]

So you support freedom but want to amend the COR to take away a right already granted to another.

You asked me how to solve a problem, you didn't ask me if I would. And since the only thing I, personally, have ever asked the gov't to do, was when I emailed Elections Canada and begged them to never adopt electronic voting. I've done nothing that would impede upon anyones freedoms.

You really should try and read what you type, as well as what is written in the replies.

You would avoid making such silly errors in the future. At the very least, you could ask for clarity, before you start throwing around childish insults and name calling.

I'd still like to hear what special rights I have. Why is it you make accusations, but never seem to address or clarify how it is, that you come to such assumptions?

 

[Cannuck]

You asked me how to solve a problem, you didn't ask me if I would.

Word twisting yet again. You were asked "So, since this is a thread about problem solving and you have a "problem" with kids carrying weapons, how do you purport to solve this problem?

It's quite clear you've been caught with your lie. Accept it and move on.

 

[CDNBear]

Word twisting yet again. You were asked "So, since this is a thread about problem solving and you have a "problem" with kids carrying weapons, how do you purport to solve this problem?

It's quite clear you've been caught with your lie. Accept it and move on.

If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you would have asked for clarification instead of blathering on about how you think you've bested somebody

 

[Tonington]

And since the only thing I, personally, have ever asked the gov't to do, was when I emailed Elections Canada and begged them to never adopt electronic voting.

Bastard! I wish they would, you can e-file your taxes, but not your vote...