kelownabomberfan

It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial provision of the Charter.

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that. To distinguish between not unveiling at a citizenship ceremony and stoning individuals to death, there is a constitutional provision and an accompanying test. Section 1 of the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." For a charter violation to be saved by Section 1, the law must be promote a sufficiently important objective. I think preventing the murder of individuals is a sufficiently important objective to justify depriving an individual, who argues he has such a right, of their religious right to stone their wives. OK - but allowing someone to murder someone else is the most radical case. What if it's just a casual daily/weekly beating? No stoning. Just a little beating. Are you good with that?

So what's next then? What happens when some judge (unelected) decides that not allowing Muslim men to discipline their wives according to sharia law is "unconstitutional"? Where is the end of the slippery slope? Are you going to defend that man's right to beat the snot out of his wife because his religion allows it and some judge no one voted for ruled that he can? I am just trying to find out where the breaking point for people truly lies. Because if you use the excuse that judges dictate what is right and wrong, then you can't turn around and disagree later when you've fallen all the way down the slope. I also don't get how a nativity scene on government property can be constitutionally removed while deeply offending Christians, but it's unconstitutional to say that you have to abide by laws regarding revealing your face because it offends your Islamic faith. I honestly don't think I will ever understand that.

I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, that is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness. Its PC gone absurd. Great point. Is there a private room at government buildings for Christians to have crosses? Is there a private Christmas Concert for those that arent offended by the word? But something that is rooted in the mistreatment and control of women, oh thats religious freedom! No it isnt. Not at all. Can someone murder a gay guy during a citizenship oath too? Do we have a private room for that? God forbid the officer administering the oath learns that the woman was once raped...he'd have to behead her or at least provide a private room for the beheading. Are there female genital mutilation rooms to accommodate that religious belief too? What if a Muslim woman was seeking Canadian citizenship without the approval of her family? Would we accommodate them stepping in and beating her...in a private room ofcourse. You are just being racist. Besides, she'd be lucky if she was just beheaded. The main punishment is stoning (and not the good kind) in a lot of these countries.

I am still trying to figure out how, if you are asking a religion to abide by the laws of the state, that that is to be considered racist. So by this same token, not allowing Christian symbols on government property, like a nativity scene, or even the phrase "Merry Christmas" to appear anywhere in government literature, is the government engaging in racist activity. Either it is also racist, or neither action is racist. The two are not mutually exclusive, but just people deliberately bending over to accommodate one religion, while crapping on another, all in the name of political correctness.

I think that Justin is going to fold and retract his statement about not working with Harper. Let Mulcair ride that stupid train right into the sun.

I've never accused Justin or Tommy the Commie of being very bright, but this was probably one of the dumbest moves either of them could have made. They essentially are putting a gun to voters heads. If they were hoping to pressure voters into choosing the NDP or Liberals instead of the Cons, this move sure has back-fired. How about respecting the Canadian people? If they vote in a Conservative minority, instead of being giant jack-asses, try and work within that construct, instead of being giant man-babies and stating that they won't respect it. What idiots. This above all else really shows to me Justin just isn't ready. And I hope the voters make both of these boneheads pay. EDIT - on Monday the audience at the debate actually chortled when the moderator introduced the visual of Justin sitting in a room with Putin. They giggled because Putin would just laugh and say "This man-child is who Canada sends me? What is wrong with this country?"

I've voted Liberals in the past under Paul Martin when I thought the Alliance/PC merger had created too far a right wing party. Then Stephane Dion moved the Liberals to the left from the center, and Harper moved the Conservatives over to the center right, and because the Liberals vacated that space, the Conservatives keep winning. As of today the Conservatives are only 42 seats from a majority. If the NDP keep imploding, then they will keep moving up. I thought it was a strategically dumb thing to say by both Trudeau and Mulcair that they would immediately bring down a Conservative minority government. Just idiocy. So now if I don't want another election in six months, I basically have to vote Conservative. Just ridiculous. I actually wouldn't mind a Conservative minority, and the Harper to step down. Now that's probably not going to happen if the Conservatives get another majority.

If you honestly care about Saudi Arabia and aren't just trying to make political hay, you must really hate the UN now for making the Saudis the head of the human rights council. Cry about Canada selling them military gear all you want, but then you also should be protesting against the corrupt scumbags that run the UN. The IPCC is a complete corrupt joke.

This is a very nuanced breakdown of the Iran deal. Yes, almost as nuanced as this crap:

Right, just like Obama had to balance giving a massive human rights abuser the ability to make nuclear bombs so he could look cool to his far left-leaning anti-Israel idiots in his government. But of course, when Obama does stuff like giving enriched uranium to human rights abusers its cool, and when Harper sells weapons to a different one he's a jerk. Just like how he's a genius when he sells his GM shares, and somehow Harper is a villain. Politics sure makes for mass hypocrisy.

LOL - Mulcair just got his pee-pee slapped for blabbing on national TV about Saudi Arabia. It appears that he upset his bosses at Unifor, as all of the work being done for Saudi that the weak-kneed commies in this country hate so much provides thousands of union jobs. Perhaps you need to co-ordinate your propaganda better with NDP headquarters before posting it here. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/union-asks-ndp-to-keep-saudi-armoured-vehicles-deal-under-wraps-fearing-significant-job-losses

I'm in 50th place overall! I have a real chance to win a free flight to Winnipeg for the Grey Cup. Yeah I saw that - good luck man! I am rooting for you! I am loading up on Eskimos this week because they are playing a really crappy team. Oh wait...

All I am vying for now is my Joseph Abboud suit!

A poster on another site made a good point. Trudeau and Mulcair are all hot and bothered for Canada to make a big splash at the annual Marxist convention, aka the Climate Change nonsense in Paris, and now Mulcair wants to put in NEP Pt2 into action with an idiotic cap and trade system. Canada needs to have the ability to insert an "opt-out" provision on any agreement that is signed in Paris, especially if enforcing whatever stupid agreement is signed causes huge constraints on our economy. Will Trudeau or Mulcair do that? I don't think so.

LOL - this made me guffaw...

that spot was ridiculous but still, how do you screw up the 3rd and short play? Someone needs to be fired for that.

Great, which means I won't be able to watch it.

Exactly. Just freaking brutal. So Canadian in that respect. Bruno Gerussi would have been proud!

this will only be year 25 of futility. The Argos went 31 years. We're good - this is nothing!

I've wondered that too. Between Torts and Mike Gillis, they managed to destroy the Canucks franchise, probably for the next five years. Torts should be working in a pizzeria, or as a security guard.

My Sunday morning. Hey Tom Brady is on!! Twenty minutes later - switch over to TSN - oh look it's 6-0 Als! Back to Tom Brady...switch back an hour later...oh look it's 22-3 Als! Back to Tom Brady...switch back an hour later...oh look its...oh who cares...Tom Brady is playing!

At the very least, Ian can give Addison Richards some hair tips...

In almost every Rider game this year except for the LDC I keep hearing this guy's voice in my head as I watch the Riders blow another one....