88% agree with Harper on niqab

[nimrod]

.It is also the fuel to demonstrate they are being persecuted when told
change is required to meet the letter of the law.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE,COGNITIVE DISSONANCE,COGNITIVE DISSONANCE- IT is HARPER WHO HAS TO APPEAL THE LAW -LETTER OF LAW -THE WHOLE LAW -WHAT DON'T YOU GET? She is right under every little bit of the law-backed by our Charter of Rights.Hate her attitude,culture ,religion and customs-just uphold our laws and live and let live ...

 

[gerryh]

.It is also the fuel to demonstrate they are being persecuted when told
change is required to meet the letter of the law.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE,COGNITIVE DISSONANCE,COGNITIVE DISSONANCE- IT is HARPER WHO HAS TO APPEAL THE LAW -LETTER OF LAW -THE WHOLE LAW -WHAT DON'T YOU GET? She is right under every little bit of the law-backed by our Charter of Rights.Hate her attitude,culture ,religion and customs-just uphold our laws and live and let live ...

You want to quote that law please that you, and mf, keep talking about.

 

[nimrod]

You want to quote that law please that you, and mf, keep talking about.

Go read for yourself -and you will read-Harper says they will appeal the law.What part of Harper will appeal do you not understand?

 

[gerryh]

Go read for yourself -and you will read-Harper says they will appeal the law.What part of Harper will appeal do you not understand?

Harper is appealing a lower court ruling. He is NOT "appealing" any "law".

 

[nimrod]

Harper is appealing a lower court ruling. He is NOT "appealing" any "law".

Two things wrong with your statement.He is appealing the law but the tense is wrong.I bet he never actually appeals it as he was already told he was wrong.All the wishing in the world won't change the truth.
I suggest we no longer communicate on this subject as we are too far apart.Nothing more to learn here- except i could win money betting on who you are voting for.Best to move along

 

[gerryh]

Two things wrong with your statement.He is appealing the law but the tense is wrong.I bet he never actually appeals it as he was already told he was wrong.All the wishing in the world won't change the truth.
I suggest we no longer communicate on this subject as we are too far apart.Nothing more to learn here- except i could win money betting on who you are voting for.Best to move along

and you would be wrong again.

Niqab controversy: Judge struck down ban without referring to charter - Politics - CBC News

 

[nimrod]

and you would be wrong again.

Niqab controversy: Judge struck down ban without referring to charter - Politics - CBC News

Like i said -we are too far apart and have nothing further to learn.It is the Federal court his lawyers are appealing to -but i believe it will be lost in the court system and never brought to a decision.I could be wrong-i am sometimes -being a guy who occasionally says/does dumb things.If i ever realize i am wrong on this issue-i will look you up here and give you credit.
Do you think -you could do the same?

 

[gerryh]

Like i said -we are too far apart and have nothing further to learn.It is the Federal court his lawyers are appealing to -but i believe it will be lost in the court system and never brought to a decision.I could be wrong-i am sometimes -being a guy who occasionally says/does dumb things.If i ever realize i am wrong on this issue-i will look you up here and give you credit.
Do you think -you could do the same?

rofl..... both you and mf keep saying that the Harper government broke the law. I and others have asked both of you repeatedly to quote the law that was "broken". That has been the whole of your argument. The Judge, in his decision, does not state that a law was "broken". Obviously you and MF know something the Judge did not. So, quote the law that was broken.

 

[nimrod]

rofl..... both you and mf keep saying that the Harper government broke the law. I and others have asked both of you repeatedly to quote the law that was "broken". That has been the whole of your argument. The Judge, in his decision, does not state that a law was "broken". Obviously you and MF know something the Judge did not. So, quote the law that was broken.

"The minister is not authorized to make law. He doesn’t have that power," said Macklin. "And if he purports to make law or make a rule or command a citizenship judge to do something that takes away from the citizenship judge's discretion, and even more, commands the judge to do something that is directly contradictory [to what] the law says, then the minister himself is acting unlawfully.-Now do i have to give you a dictionary definition of "the minister is acting unlawfully?"

 

[gerryh]

"The minister is not authorized to make law. He doesn’t have that power," said Macklin. "And if he purports to make law or make a rule or command a citizenship judge to do something that takes away from the citizenship judge's discretion, and even more, commands the judge to do something that is directly contradictory [to what] the law says, then the minister himself is acting unlawfully.-Now do i have to give you a dictionary definition of "the minister is acting unlawfully?"

Again, he did not quote what law was broken, and neither have you. As I have pointed out previously, it would not be the first time a lower courts decision get's over turned.

 

[nimrod]

Again, he did not quote what law was broken, and neither have you. As I have pointed out previously, it would not be the first time a lower courts decision get's over turned.

You are pretending you don't know which law is being broken.That is part of the link you just sent to me. You do realize ,and anyone clicking on the link YOU sent will be able to read that it is INDEED-the law about our citizenship oath.
Here is the last words of the article YOU sent-

Taking all that into consideration, Boswell ruled that the ban on wearing a niqab was unlawful.

I rest my case and know the answer to MY question If it was proven you were wrong -would you admit it?

You can pretend or say something else or just leave it to the sounds of crickets -you are black and white-using your own article 100% WRONG

 

[CDNBear]

You are pretending you don't know which law is being broken.That is part of the link you just sent to me. You do realize ,and anyone clicking on the link YOU sent will be able to read that it is INDEED-the law about our citizenship oath.
Here is the last words of the article YOU sent-

Taking all that into consideration, Boswell ruled that the ban on wearing a niqab was unlawful.

I rest my case and know the answer to MY question If it was proven you were wrong -would you admit it?

You can pretend or say something else or just leave it to the sounds of crickets -you are black and white-using your own article 100% WRONG

Funny, you still haven't cited what law was broken.

 

[nimrod]

Funny, you still haven't cited what law was broken.

Listen-what do you people want?I am not going to go digging thru --and i don't even know if we can find case law to show you it is law number such and such.
The public statement by public officials is right there - is right in the CBC article he sent.
If you wanna play ridiculous word games with a published CBC article that is talking about the law on the niqab ban that jerryh sent go right ahead.
I will just note that Jerryh last parting shot was a duuhhh statement ...which says
As I have pointed out previously, it would not be the first time a lower courts decision get's over turned yes gerryh (that's how our court system works for EVERY lower court decision on a law.)
IT GETS APPEALED TO A HIGHER COURT BY SOMEONE WHO WANTS THE LAW/DECISION CHANGED.
Now why don't you say "your mother wears army boots or its equivalent and no longer bother me with professional grade denial...

 

[CDNBear]

Listen-what do you people want?I am not going to go digging thru --and i don't even know if we can find case law to show you it is law number such and such.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but you won't find a law, number such and such, or otherwise.

"Unlawful" doesn't necessarily mean to break the law.

The public statement by public officials is right there - is right in the CBC article he sent.

I read the article, and at no point did the judge say the minister broke the law. That's all in your head.

If you wanna play ridiculous word games with a published CBC article that is talking about the law on the niqab ban that jerryh sent go right ahead.

You're the one playing word games. The alternative is, you don't understand simple english.

I'll ignore the rest of the stupidity in your post, as I explain what the judge actually said...

The judge said the minister can not simply change the act, as his offices manual would have citizenship judges do. That would be unlawful.

The judge did not cite the charter or any law, he ruled on simple adherence to the fact that the Citizenship Act, is a law passed by Parliament and it naturally trumps the policy manual published by the minister.

 

[SLM]

Listen-what do you people want?I am not going to go digging thru --and i don't even know if we can find case law to show you it is law number such and such.
The public statement by public officials is right there - is right in the CBC article he sent.
If you wanna play ridiculous word games with a published CBC article that is talking about the law on the niqab ban that jerryh sent go right ahead.
I will just note that Jerryh last parting shot was a duuhhh statement ...which says
As I have pointed out previously, it would not be the first time a lower courts decision get's over turned yes gerryh (that's how our court system works for EVERY lower court decision on a law.)
IT GETS APPEALED TO A HIGHER COURT BY SOMEONE WHO WANTS THE LAW/DECISION CHANGED.
Now why don't you say "your mother wears army boots or its equivalent and no longer bother me with professional grade denial...

Ishaq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - Federal Court

Citizenship Act

Making an argument based on one's interpretation of a written article, which is itself an interpretation of events, doesn't really do the issue justice.

Now why don't you say "your mother wears army boots or its equivalent and no longer bother me with professional grade denial...

Or, you know, you could. You seem to really, really like to get the last word though.

 

[CDNBear]

Ishaq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - Federal Court

I doubt he'll read it.

 

[SLM]

I doubt he'll read it.

Yeah I'm just tired of everybody reading into this more than what it's actually about. It's been turned into this huge election style issue, which is only being done by the big parties to deflect away from other more pressing issues, and everybody just laps it up.

It's been overblown enough, time to deflate it a little.

 

[CDNBear]

 

[SLM]

That's a big pin! 8O

 

[CDNBear]

That's a big pin! 8O

I'm a big guy.