PCB

No it's not. Norway's economy is grounded on a free market system.

how can you be racist against a religion? It's a question of religious freedom, not racism. And PCB, our board constitutional lawyer, said that what Harper was doing was constitutionally wrong. And he was right. But it wasn't racist. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I also don't think anyone has been tied into an "ideological pretzel." My issue was that is was not and is not fair to treat Syrian refugees as if they are categorically antithetical to our country and that there was a false dichotomy being created between having 25,000 refugees here this year and there not being proper security checks done. That hasn't been established, at all. Moreover, I'm not sure what to think about the no unaccompanied men policy, but I'm not definitively for it simply because Trudeau has announced it. If anyone is interested, the New York Times posted an article on the US security process for syrian refugees. I imagine Canada's is somewhat similar, but I'll guess we'll find out more tomorrow.

No you're facts were unsubstantiated. This has been demonstrated. That you refused to post a source, demonstrates how little you understand about debate. And when I went to the effort of reading your source, it did not support what you said. I agree there is a middle ground, and common sense is a term that has little to no meaning in this context. That you see fit to cast doubt on people much more versed in areas then you because of common sense, demonstrates how little you understand. I've been civil despite the fact you have insulted and acted childish towards me in this and other threads. But you have posted statements that are demonstrably xenophobic. You clearly take pride in keeping up to date on world events and attempting to understand the underlying issues. Rather then skewering the internet, you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on topics like the history of immigration in Canada, what a legitimate source is and how to form an argument because you have demonstrated an understanding of none of these areas.

Your arrogance is palpable. Your "common sense" does not outweigh another's opinion, or for that matter, fact. How do you not feel embarrassed to say I "did not counter your argument?" I demonstrated the facts you presented regarding homosexuality and anti-semitism are unsubstantiated. "One of the Paris killers was a refuge" so we should treat an entire people differently. That is what you are saying. Dude, you need to think about the principle you're expounding right now. It has no place here.

Nope! Is it too much for you? You don't believe it? It's crazy but true. Don't even need polls. Use common senseSyrians being radical? Can't be. Lol "Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia. Nope. Because you neither want to apply common sense or use the procided facts. So you lose. Thanks! Back to my wine. http://www.therebel.media/poll_syrian_refugees_hate_jews_gays It's an Ezra Levant site but he included the poll TUP was referring to. Took me 10 seconds to find. Google is your friend. I just read the poll. It contains absolutely 0 information about Syrian refugees views about homosexuality or Judaism. None. That’s why I couldn’t find it. In fact, there is no empirical evidence provided that supports that article’s claim that “41% are jew-hating, America hating bigots,” or that 97% are-gay hating, probably woman-hating bigots.” The language itself demonstrates the sentiment underlying this article though, “jew-hating,” “gay-hating,” “probably woman-hating bigots.” No empirical, legitimately done polling, would use language such as this. But who needs empirical evidence anyways, as Unknown said, we “Don’t even need polls,” “common-sense” is enough. And when he did provide this “evidence,” he exaggerated the percentage of individuals, in this non-existence poll, who hate Jewish people by 20%. Not to mention he modified the percentages by adding + to each one. Why if he is trying to engage in a debate rooted in objectivity and common sense, is he exaggerating the, again, nonexistent percentages or trying to distort how high they are? That is what one what does when they are trying to prove a point. In this case, that point is that Syrian refugees are incompatible with his conception of our country. And to ISO and KBF, I am not against security measures, those are clearly necessary. But that is beyond the scope of what I’ve pushed back against. I’ve countered Unknown’s argument that Syrian refugees are nearly categorically incompatible with Canada. So I stand by what I’ve said previously. And quite frankly to post and allow unsubstantiated information to be proliferated like this is unfair to Muslims and refugees.

Nope! Is it too much for you? You don't believe it? It's crazy but true. Don't even need polls. Use common sense Syrians being radical? Can't be. Lol "Don't even need polls. Use common sense." That is what you have just said to support your belief that a majority of a people are antithetical to you and your conception of Canada. That, unknown, is called xenophobia.

Post the link.

I could push back on what you said in multiple ways, but, for the sake of argument, please post your sources.

I did and the implication is that because of certain individuals, we should categorically close our borders to an entire group of people, Syrian refugees. This interpretation is supported by the post you made and I quoted below. If I've misunderstood, it's because you lack clarity in your writing, not because I lack common sense.

No, I just don't paint entire groups of people with the same brush or justify treating entire groups of people differently because of certain individuals within that group.

Speak for yourself when you say this and please don't use the pronoun "our," because you certainly don't speak for all of us. And the principal that you're expounding, that we should discriminate against an entire group of people because of certain individuals sharing commonalities with that group, is a dangerous one.

Hoping for someone who has clearly made a football relevant again in Ottawa, which is only a good thing for the league to get injured. Classy.

If you want to post lies and utter bullshit about Harper, or anyone for that matter, be prepared to be called a jack-arse! That's just how I roll. If you don't like it, don't read my posts. And better yet, don't post a bunch of bullshit. I don't think I called you a loon for posting all of that legal baffle-gab about the niquab. If I did I apologize. Defining things you disagree with as "bullshit" and things that at least have an element of truth "lies," and then using that as a proxy to name call the people behind those statements does not make them jack arses, like you label them though. It means you disagree with them. Perfect example is you calling the posts I made earlier "baffle-gab." What I posted is the law. You can debate the merits of said law, but it is the law. It's not bullshit, a lie or "baffle-gab," just because you don't like it or because it proves something you said incorrect.

KBF, I like reading some of the political discussion in this section, but I don't understand why you can't seem to have a conversation without calling the person who disagrees with you a fool, a loon, a jack-arse or some kind of other insult. Especially, after you criticized liberals for thinking they're so much smarter than everyone else in another thread.

Frankly, as defined by our Constitution (the supreme law of our Country), you don't understand what the term equality means. Because it certainly does not mean, you taking away her choice to wear a niqab, and it is her choice, as she has said. In fact, the plaintiff has said one of the reasons she came to Canada was because of the freedom to practice her beliefs. Sure, while some woman may be forced to wear it, she is not one of them. And our law would not permit a woman being forced to wear a niqab by her husband. But, all that matters, in her case, is herself and her beliefs. The fact that your solution to women having zero choice to not wear a niqab is to give them zero choice to wear it is ironic. Again, the fact that you say we shouldn't care about someones beliefs or cultures because to you its improper just demonstrates you don't understand what the terms multicultural and equality mean when you state you support/believe in those values.

Not really moral authority. They ran on tough on crime and run successive campaigns. Thats not a moral authority issue. Its a voter issue. And it was the courts that made the Niqab an issue this election. And the 70% of Canadian who agree with the Conservative opinion. I agree the media blew it out of proportion as an issue impacting Canadians though. Its sort of one of those no-brainers that it makes "common sense" and so many Canadians agree, that it really shouldnt have been an issue. But the courts disagreed. Which is the role of the courts, so be it. I'm sorry man, but I'm going here again. I think it bothers me because you clearly are engaged in this country's political system and talk with such an authority, yet you refuse to question your approach to issues. I don't claim to have a strong grasp of macroeconomics, agriculture or other issues being debated in this election. I do know, however, that you misunderstand this niqab issue and that it is definitely not as simple as saying there's a common sense outcome. The courts did not make this an election issue. In fact, they were simply ruling on a Conservative policy to ban niqabs at the citizenship ceremony. This policy conflicted with a regulation that guaranteed individuals religious freedom. It's a simple legal principle that a regulation supersedes a policy. I think even you must admit that as a legal principle that make sense. The Conservatives made it an issue by appealing the case, even though, I'm sure their legal experts, and Harper, knows it's a losing case. Now, ask yourself, why would the government spend money and resources to appeal a case to the Supreme Court when they know they will likely lose? You're also consistently conflating majoritarian politics and morality which does not work for many reasons.

I'm speaking more broadly about replacing substance with style, misdirection and platitudes to appeal to voters.

I think you need to reexamine things, if you see that as a liberal tactic rather than a political tactic that the Conservatives are just as guilty of.

Unknown, I don't agree with all of the liberals's policies, but if the election were today, I would likely vote for Trudeau. Does that mean I don't know/don't care about the issues?

I don't want to say much more either, other than to say that I heartily disagree with the above statement. First of all, I've seen enough rulings and law practiced in Canada to know that the term "legal fact" is about as big an oxymoron as it gets. Second, saying that the slope isn't slippery simply because it won't lead to beatings is in my opinion just plain choosing to focus on small worst case scenario, and ignoring the giant elephant in the room. In fact, your comment displays to me a willingness to be deliberately obtuse, in that while you accuse other Canadians of not being educated, it is you and others here that are not willing to educate yourself about the bigger picture, and what is happening in the world right now. Men being allowed to discipline their wives as they see fit under Sharia Law is a small part of a much bigger issue, and a much bigger slope that is extremely slippery. That's wonderful that a woman is protected in Canada under S.1 of the charter. Great. But Sharia Law is so much more than that. In an effort to be super-tolerant-liberals who want to appear as enlightened as possible to their fellow liberals, other western nations have allowed sharia law to creep into their legal structure, and as such, "legal facts" as you call them have already become much murkier, as the sense of what constitutes religious freedoms is constantly being tested versus what other values are held dear by our society. Have a look at Britain sometime. They've already allowed Sharia Law to be allowed for Islamic disputes in some cases, and the BBC has been reporting that SURPRISE, women are being screwed over in divorce cases. But hey, let's not talk about any slippery slopes, and just focus on worst-case scenarios. To say that there is no slippery slope because Canada won't allow beatings or honor-killings is disingenuous. But that being said, I don't believe that the niquab being worn in a citizenship ceremony matters. That also being said, after having seen what is happening in Europe, in the name of "tolerance", leads me to believe that there is something to be worried about, and just calling people ignorant and bigots, or even saying that they aren't educated, by people who don't seem to want to educate themselves either, is not acceptable either. There is a middle ground, in which everyone's concerns should be listened to, and fully understood, without name-calling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Arbitration_Tribunal I challenge you to go ask any lawyer you know versed in the Charter. They will say the case of beatings is already settled for the reason I mentioned. I also referenced beatings because that is the example you cited. Admittedly, I don't know anything about what is going in the UK regarding sharia law, but I did read the wikipedia article you reference and it says these tribunals are not legally recognized: "The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers to grant a divorce which is valid in English and Welsh law. A talaq can be granted to recognise divorce. A sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on criminal matters but can attempt reconciliation between spouses."

Even assuming the "vast majority" claim is correct, no, it's not reason to revisit this issue. That's the great thing, in my opinion, about constitutionalism and religious freedom. When your individual freedoms are at stake, like your religious practices, it does not matter what the majority thinks, subject to reasonable limits, you get to practice them. You're trying to use the political process (will of the majority etc.) to counter the judicial process and constitutionalism. However political will does not get to overrule the Charter.

Here, I'll try to give you a straight answer. I can't speak for others in this thread, but I don't think the reason some Canadians disapprove of wearing a niqab while reciting the citizenship oath is because they're bigots. I think, as you and others have said, some Canadians are worried about a slippery slope, oppression and Canadian values. I'll do my best to explain why I don't think we should be concerned about these issues however. And unless the argument progresses to somewhere else, I'll stop responding too because I do think we're spinning our wheels at this point. The slippery slope argument is moot. Wearing a niqab at a citizenship ceremony will not lead to the legalization of beatings in the name of religion because of S.1. in our Charter. That's not a silly answer, it is a legal fact. Oppression, or harm, also is not an issue because this woman has made it very clear she does not feel she is being oppressed and no evidence has been presented in this case to suggest otherwise.; rather, wearing a niqab is part of her religious beliefs. Now, as to the third issue, Canadian values, I can't objectively disprove this argument because values are a subjective thing. But I will say multiculturalism is one of our most important Canadian values and I think multiculturalism councils us to tolerate and accommodate an individual's religious beliefs, like this woman's, even when they are not our own. I've done my best to explain why I don't think these concerns are valid. Because some have these concerns does not make them bigots. I don't think its intuitive to know about clauses like S.1. So I think a lot of blame lies on the politicians for distorting this issue, and others like it, and not talking about it in a substantive way. If politicians talked about things like S.1., I bet fewer Canadians would disapprove of wearing a niqab at citizenship ceremonies. If someone wants to give me another reason why I should be against this woman wearing a niqab while reciting the citizenship oath, I'll listen. But so far, I haven't heard one that can't be disproved.

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question. Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day. I haven't once used the word bigot or called anyone stupid, so there's no need to put words in my mouth. I've simply stated that our Charter protects her right to wear a niqab. When you responded that's a slippery slope to stonings and beatings, I explained why it's not. Personally, I'm glad that we live in country in which, despite how others feel about one's beliefs, an individual is free to practice her beliefs when, as in this case, they have not been demonstrated to harm anyone. And, despite what Unknown Poster may argue, I read the case and the Government introduced no evidence that her wearing a niqab when she recites the citizenship oath harms anyone. So if she isn't spending millions, then why didn't you also state that the government isn't spending millions too? Who exactly is spending millions here? I get it that there would be volunteers helping her for the notoriety, much like the guy helping Omar Khadir. There's a guy who never met a camera he didn't like. The Government is not spending money to support her case. They are spending money to appeal it. They could stop spending on this case by not appealing it.

I doubt she is spending millions, and she has said publicly she's brought this case to assert her religious freedom and rights under the Charter. I think that's as a good a reason as any to bring a case. She had an immigration and refugee firm representing her, which she is likely paying for. And she had intervenors written in support of her by organizations like the CCLA which rely on private donations and do no receive government funding. Not sure why that's an issue.

So the only reason I've seen for why so many Canadians are against the niquab in citizenship ceremonies is because they are dumb ignorant bigots. You honestly think that is it? If so, it's not surprising why the liberal elitists lose election after election. It's likely because legally its a losing issue. If the polls are too believed and the vast majority of Canadians are in favour of the ban, then I would suggest liberals and conservatives are in favour of it. It's not about what the majority thinks however. Again, it's about her beliefs. The niqab is not a symbol of oppression to this individual, it's part of her religious beliefs. And in this thread, the individual arguing the conservative side of the argument, Unknown Poster, has repeatedly said people who disagree with him, like me, lack the common sense necessary to discuss this issue, and, you have called the answer as to why wearing a niqab and beatings are different "silly." If anything, that's elitism.