Flossy would think nothing of going to a formal diner dress in a clown suit and expect to be let in the door.....go figure.
Supreme Court dismisses Harper's appeal as Niqab ban deemed Unlawful
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It's really fun watching you back pedal and trip over yourself.
Keep up the good work,
PS - Are you willing to lend out your clown suit for immigration hearing purposes?
Are those things a citizenship ceremony?
Are you willing to lend out your nazi general outfit?
It's a legal procedure not a grad party.
You aren't Canadian until you FACE a judge and take the oath.
You aren't Canadian until you FACE a judge and take the oath.
According to the article, I think it is over. Seems the Conservatives caved in the courtroom which I find odd given that the majority of Canadians think this result is wrong........
Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey told court that the government never meant to make it mandatory for women to remove their face coverings for citizenship ceremonies — a position that left both the judge and Ishaq's lawyers scratching their heads.
The admission appeared to be a climbdown from the Conservative government's past position on the issue
Outside court, Ishaq questioned the federal government's new line.
"If it's not mandatory I would simply say, why they are fighting for it? Just let me go," she said
The poll indicated that 88 per cent of Canadians strongly or somewhat support the “requirement that people show their faces during Canadian citizenship ceremonies.”
At the same time, 72 per cent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat agree with Harper’s comment about the niqabs and burkas being symbols of oppression.
Most Canadians say faces shouldn’t be covered at citizenship ceremonies: poll - National | Globalnews.ca
The conbot lies continue... Check out all those dishonest immigration ministers and of course, yours truly...
At Tuesday's half-day hearing in Ottawa, a Justice Department lawyer told court that the government never meant to make it mandatory for women to remove their face coverings for citizenship ceremonies — a position that left both the judge and Ishaq's lawyers scratching their heads.
The controversial edict was a regulation that had no actual force in law, Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey told a Federal Court of Appeal hearing.
Lorne Waldman, the lawyer for the woman at the centre of the case, dismissed Southey's argument, saying everyone from former immigration minister Jason Kenney , his successor Chris Alexander and even Prime Minister Stephen Harper have said in public they see it as a mandatory policy.
http://m.mykawartha.com/news-story/5843117-court-dismisses-federal-appeal-over-niqab
At Tuesday's half-day hearing in Ottawa, a Justice Department lawyer told court that the government never meant to make it mandatory for women to remove their face coverings for citizenship ceremonies — a position that left both the judge and Ishaq's lawyers scratching their heads.
The controversial edict was a regulation that had no actual force in law, Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey told a Federal Court of Appeal hearing.
Lorne Waldman, the lawyer for the woman at the centre of the case, dismissed Southey's argument, saying everyone from former immigration minister Jason Kenney , his successor Chris Alexander and even Prime Minister Stephen Harper have said in public they see it as a mandatory policy.
http://m.mykawartha.com/news-story/5843117-court-dismisses-federal-appeal-over-niqab
Last edited:
Yes I read the whole article on 2 sites to make sure it was accurate and yes it seems the CONS certainly backtracked about wanting to make the removal mandatory which again leaves me to wonder why they flip flopped on this when the majority agree with the CONS.on this subject.
Not sure who the CONS are trying to appease except possibly the Muslim community....
Not sure who the CONS are trying to appease except possibly the Muslim community....