Niqab-ban case has cost government $257,000 so far
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The description sounds like a dipper. You sure you got the right page in the dictionary.
New C&P. As soon as it rolls off the presses.
The face covering is not religious.... and should not be allowed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWyQBrs-SI
Well, it's a requirement for the Islamist Terroist Pig groups and supporters that should be all killed....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWyQBrs-SI
Well, it's a requirement for the Islamist Terroist Pig groups and supporters that should be all killed....
I'm feeling all triggered and everything.
but hey, lookie here:
Reopen the Constitution to deal with the Senate and the niqab: NDP candidate | National Newswatch
but hey, lookie here:
Reopen the Constitution to deal with the Senate and the niqab: NDP candidate | National Newswatch
That's funny. Show how little grasp you have on reality.
But the other way around is true. Dippers are con artists.
To be honest, I am fine with my tax dollars going towards this, particularly if they successfully make the ban happen.
I have to disagree. The only times one should be forced by law to remove the covering is, to visually ID themselves prior to being sworn in, when lawfully requested by a LEO, when accessing Gov't services.
If they feel the need to be a human burrito, that's their prerogative.
To take this to court is a publicity stunt for the Conservative Party at taxpayers' expense. It knew from the start that to effectively ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies it will have to open the Constitution which it refuses to do. It's like when Harper opposes homosexual marriages but refuses to touch such laws. He opposes abortion but refuses to touch it. He opposes the niqab but is more interested in huffing and puffing about it in court than really doing something about it. He criticizes the UN but refuses to leave it. He criticizes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but refuses to revise it.
Is it that he likes to straddle both sides of every issue to try to win as many votes as possible or is it something else.
Because of the examples above, he comes across as a huff and puff politician, all talk no action.
Is it that he likes to straddle both sides of every issue to try to win as many votes as possible or is it something else.
Because of the examples above, he comes across as a huff and puff politician, all talk no action.
I believe that the CBC goes through that much tax payer funding in about 1 or 2 hours.
24/7
Edit: 2.5hrs. In 2006, CBC received 946 million from the federal gov. That works out to be about $107,000 per hour.
Last edited:
I think the government should spend money to fight this case. Do you know some of he regulation we have to follow?
1. Tinted windows: the interior of the vehicle and passengers must be complete visible if not you are fined $154 to $525, as well as your windows must allow 70% of the light in.
2. Passport picture: your eyes must be open and clearly visible, mouth closed no smiling. You can wear your glasses if they can see your eyes clearly and without any reflection. Sunglasses or tinted glasses are not allowed. A hat or scarf cannot e worn unless you wear it all the time for religious or medical condition, however you complete face must be clearly visible and neither can project any shadow whatsoever on your face.
3. Drivers permit: your hair must not hide any of your face not the sides of the face. Also not accepted headbands, cellular earphones. Plus the rules in No. 2
These are only a few rules we follow every day of our life but niqab should be allowed for something as important as the citizenship oath!
What about our law on equality of the sexes? The niqab erases the woman in public, where is the equality. The women of Canada fought a long time to be recognized as persons and that finally happened in 1952, only 64 yrs. ago.
1. Tinted windows: the interior of the vehicle and passengers must be complete visible if not you are fined $154 to $525, as well as your windows must allow 70% of the light in.
2. Passport picture: your eyes must be open and clearly visible, mouth closed no smiling. You can wear your glasses if they can see your eyes clearly and without any reflection. Sunglasses or tinted glasses are not allowed. A hat or scarf cannot e worn unless you wear it all the time for religious or medical condition, however you complete face must be clearly visible and neither can project any shadow whatsoever on your face.
3. Drivers permit: your hair must not hide any of your face not the sides of the face. Also not accepted headbands, cellular earphones. Plus the rules in No. 2
These are only a few rules we follow every day of our life but niqab should be allowed for something as important as the citizenship oath!
What about our law on equality of the sexes? The niqab erases the woman in public, where is the equality. The women of Canada fought a long time to be recognized as persons and that finally happened in 1952, only 64 yrs. ago.
1. In order to have gotten to the citizenship oath they will have been through a process that has lasted years and proved their identity many times beforehand. Wearing this thing wont make a difference. If the person turns out to be someone else they will simply be deported as that person didnt go through the process.
2. Men can feel free to wear the same things if they want. Legally no one can force anyone of either sex to wear these things.
So do you like your neighbours going around in masks all day ?
Lets all just wear face toques all day . yeah right good luck in the bank .
I had to take off my glasses for my driver's license renewal photo the last time I went, Yet I have to wear glasses to drive legally.....
go figure....
go figure....