The Unknown Poster

I don't see how I'm misconstruing what you're saying. Here's the definition of assimilate: "to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes etc., of a group, nation, or the like." You specifically brought up the nations standards in your definition. And my idea of multiculturalism, and the law's, is not to tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. As I said, all rights freedoms are limited by S.1. of the Canadian Charter. And your argument would likely fail: she is willing to unveil for identification purposes to another woman and you can hear her saying the words during the oath. You're completely twisting what I said. What is Canada's standard? I'd say pretty welcoming to other cultures. If wanting other religions and cultures to conform to our welcoming and embrace of multi culturalism is assimilation, then so be it. Sort of warped though. Why does someone coming to this country get to choose who identifies them? What an odd thing. And such a silly thing to argue about. Two women. Good grief. What a waste of time and effort. Oh you dont want to remove that symbol of oppression to take an oath to THIS country? Okay. No citizenship for you. Oh you changed your mind? Cool beans.

I was just at the Minnesota state fair and at one of the kiosks they were selling "western" clothing including leather vests that contained a conceal carry pocket.

Don't miscontrue. Not assimilation at all. Use common sense please. Your idea of multi culturalism might be tolerate all other cultural aspects without limit. But that's clearly not reasonable. You want to make this an extreme thing the other way. It's a foolish argument. Also there is a very good reason for no face covering during the oath. The person taking the oath must be seen actually saying the words or they do not become citizens.

I think defining multiculturalism by your personal standards and expectations, which is what you're doing, is antithetical to the the very idea of multiculturalism. Thats a lame point. Its not an all or none proposition. We cant enjoy each others cultural diversity unless we allow mistreatment of women on religious grounds? Is the multiculturalism of Canada going to disappear because two women dont want to remove their face coverings while taking the oath? Come on... And according to the overwhelming majority, its not MY personal standards. Its the nations.

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. And that opens it waaay up to interpretation. Protecting women and making a point of not allowing a symbol of the oppression of women to be used during the taking of the citizenship oath? Important. Isnt there a clause that allows the government to ignore the court? They should use it. I just read the decision that is at issue, and the Government did not even make the argument that the important objective was preventing a symbol of oppression to be used during the oath. So I'm going to go ahead and say that's not an issue. Considering the woman took this case to court to assert her right to wear her niqab, it seems pretty paternalistic to say she should stop oppressing herself. The only argument the Government made was that unveiling was necessary to ensure candidates were actually reciting the oath. Which doesn't make much sense considering you would be able to hear her speak. Also, beating, like murder, would definitely not be saved by S.1. I was waiting for the "how can she oppress herself" argument. If she is so oppressed she thinks its cool, is that okay? We dont look out for people brainwashed into thinking the abuse they take is deserved? And besides which, who said she cant wear it? Wear it all day long. But coming to THIS country, taking the oat of citizenship? Get off your high horse and take off your veil. Or...if you want to protest the government, try going to some of these really despotic countries and protest...and see what happens. Its a slap in the face to come to Canada and then snub your nose at OUR standards for equality of women. Disgraceful in fact.

I love multiculturalism. But there should be no confusion about the expectations and standards of this country. You are free to practice your religion and culture, more free than some are in their own country. But human rights and equality trumps that. Is your wife allowed to make her own decisions, go where she wants, when she wants with whom she wants? If not, dont come here. The dream should not be to become a melting pot for distasteful cultural "traditions". it should be to be a place where people want to be free and equal. And if their culture works within that, great! If not, change or **** off.

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. Thats what I was thinking of. Sounds perfect for this. The best part is, the vocal minority would be outraged for about three days and then they wouldnt care anymore.

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. And that opens it waaay up to interpretation. Protecting women and making a point of not allowing a symbol of the oppression of women to be used during the taking of the citizenship oath? Important. Isnt there a clause that allows the government to ignore the court? They should use it.

I dont think so. Firstly it would give the Democrats some sense that they are tough (which they usually dont seem like they are). Also, a majority of Americans support a law against mentally ill people getting guns and support a ban on assault rifles and support a national registry of ALL gun sales. Sounds to me like they'd be playing to the majority. ofcourse, issues like this embolden and entrench people so you might get some people who otherwise dont vote choosing to vote because of one issue but you'd think that would be the case on both sides. Play to the majority. Get elected. Go for it Hilary.

Christians are fair game. But dont piss off the Muslims or the radicals will get you. I actually think its a matter of trying too hard to prove we're not racist. This is not an issue of racism whatsoever. Human rights should always trump religious rights first of all. Citizenship oaths and things of that nature pertaining to Canada should be secular. So whether a requirement offends a religious belief or not shouldnt even factor in. This is the rules and processes to become Canadian. Dont like it, dont become Canadian.

Taylor Swift.

All good points. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this. You're right. Only parts of other religions are okay. Its not okay here to beat a woman for going outside on her own. But forcing her to cover up, thats okay. There is a difference to be sure, but if we're arguing religious freedom, then why is there?

Didnt Hedley just do a halftime show a couple of years ago? Does it have to be a Canadian act?

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.

Yeah, the problem is the NRA. If it was up to them, they'd arm 6 year olds & tell them to stand their ground. Just complete dipshits. I don't like Obama but he was right yesterday when he said it's all politics. This is the perfect issue for an out-going President. He has no reason to be nice or fair or whatever. He should publicly humiliate the NRA idiots. He should read the names and home addresses of congressmen who oppose gun control. He should instruct the FBI, ATF, Army or whatever it takes to hunt down illegal arms and get them out of the hands of citizens. The patriot Act is okay but disarming Americans of assault rifles isnt? Ridiculous. Obama can stand up there and clench his jaw all he wants. He needs to lead on this. Worse case scenario the gun nuts all vote Right Wing which they would anyway. Make this THE election issue. You either support illegal guns and assault rifles in the hands of people who want to kill your children or you dont. Go vote.

Read that too. Thanks for posting. He (and the other heroes) deserve some recognition. Violence paralyzes a lot of people. Not this former marine who took 7 bullets while charging the shooter. Thats incredible. When I read the story and the shooter stopped to reload, I was thinking "someone tackle him!" But it really does paralyze people. I think the more this happens, the more that night change (like airplane hijackings). But unfortunately most of these shooters want to die anyway so the threat of being over-run by citizen's wont be a deterrent.

If this idiot was doing his job and not looking to get is name in the paper, he would have called the Chief and asked. He chairs the police board and has to ask questions in the media? That's awful. Pick up the phone, you moron, ask your question and voila. Problem solved. Can you imagine? Some citizen asked him, Im sure and his reply was "I dont know. But Im going to call the Winnipeg Sun and demand answers". lol Not qualified for his position.

It really feels that way, doesnt it? Like when asked what they'd be willing to sacrifice to keep their "right" to bear arms, they've accepted that the lives of their children is an acceptable risk. Very sad. Can we harden the law to throw in jail the people who allowed the guns to fall into the wrong hands? For example, I think one of the school shootings involved a young person taking his mom's gun. Is she not obligated to make sure beyond any possibility that the gun falls into the wrong hands? Should she not be held accountable? That might make some people who arent really enthusiasts but want a gun think twice...

A much better headline for Winnipeg would be "Sens' Arrive Late, Stuck In Traffic, Miss Game, 15,000 people angry, City embarrassed" Dummys

Winnipeg Police Service Chief Devon Clunis said officers made the right call in issuing a police escort to ensure an NHL team made it to MTS Centre on time for Tuesday's game. Clunis told the Winnipeg Police Board Friday that the team, which was delayed due to mechanical issues that delayed a flight, paid for the service. It also required no police overtime to provide and occurred at a time when resources were available, said Clunis. "We are a city on the world stage. The NHL is a significant player. If we were not able to assist them to have the game occur on time for our citizens, for the national audience, I am certain we would have had a black eye in terms of the police service, the City of Winnipeg. And so it's important we make a decision like this that we're thinking about the broad scope impact," Clunis told reporters after the meeting. "I thought it was the right decision for our city, for our citizens and it was at absolutely no cost to the city whatsoever." Coun. Ross Eadie (Mynarski) questioned the move during the meeting, asking if it in any way stretched further the high demand for police resources. But Clunis said that wasn't the case. And Const. Jason Michalyshen said the escort did address several safety concerns, beyond merely upsetting local hockey fans. Michalyshen said NHL teams typically arrive hours in advance of a game to avoid backing up buses around MTS Centre as masses of fans flock to the site on foot and by vehicle. "Public safety is our highest priority... That's what we accomplished," said Michalyshen. "Resources were available to assist the Ottawa Senators. We would hope other law enforcement agencies would assist Winnipeg Jets if they found themselves in a similar situation in their jurisdiction." ***If this is big news in Winnipeg, we're doing pretty good as a city.

Yes, they do get accommodated for passport photos and airport lineups. Also, any Muslim woman who follows her religion closely enough to wear a niqab won't be hanging out in beverage rooms. You've missed the main point of this conversation. The Conservatives have already tried to make this law, and had it struck down in court and again in appeal. Soon they'll lose at the Supreme Court. They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights. What a world we live in where a country like Canada thinks its a human right to enforce a symbol of the lack of human rights in other countries. Conservatives are absolutely right (and with the vast majority of the nation behind them) to demand this change. Hopefully they can also change some Supreme Court justices in time to get the right result.

I agree. The issue is nuts and the ease at which they get guns. For one thing, the law should be utterly crippling to people who use a gun in a crime. Thats one thing. Secondly, the issue here is these people arent going to prison because they want and expect to die. There are so many guns in the US that they could ban every firearm and it would take generations to clean it up. But they cant do nothing because it's hard. They have to do stop hand guns and assault rifles. And if that means changing the 2nd amendment because too many Americans fall for the nonsense of it, then so be it. But good luck changing the constitution. Like the Bible, something written by man hundreds (or thousands) of years ago is above reproach. lol

And by the way, I agree pot should be decriminalized. Never smoked. Think it's disgusting. Think it IS a gateway for many people. But it should not be illegal.

Ofcourse the Conservative view point is correct. Its not even a matter of politics. Thats why Mulcair played it both ways because he knows the Cons are right too. Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then? Its not religion. There's a line between religion and stupidity. This crosses it. If someone cant see that, it doesnt mean its my opinion, it means its wrong. And before anyone jumps down my throat that is not my perspective on everything just the common sense things. Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian.

Like the 82% of Canadians who agree with the ban. By the way, it's been mostly the Bloc taking those votes, not the conservatives. The conservatives have taken some, but not most. Those 82% are all racists. Well if you are Anti-Harper they are. The fact its 2 people isnt the issue. The fact its important to a majority of Canadians is. The fact it went to court made it visible. And the fact is, The Conservatives are correct. Unless I missed the lawsuit about uncovering your face to get a DL or a passport photo..or go into a bar for crying out loud. If someone wants to adhere to a mysognistic thing, an anti-woman thing, they can do that. Walk around. Be in your home. Go to McD's. But citizenship oath? if you value this county and its ideals and morals and standards, you take off your ******* veil and say it.