ANYBODY BUT HARPER, all other parties to repeal C36
- Thread starter squeezer
- Start date
Because the Dippers and Fiberals won't touch the sex workers rights with a 10 foot pole.Why women wearing Niqab rights are more an election issue than sex workers rights ?
And are simply pandering for votes,...and also being gutless,...by their stance on the Niqab issue during a citizenship ceremony.
Question, do you feel it is respectful to the population of a country,...for a person being invited to be a citizen of a that new country,...to cover their face during the citizenship ceremony,...???
FAST
Since you wanna talk about immigrants rather than sex workers:
I Am Quitting the Conservatives Because of Stephen Harper's Politics
By the time you read this column, my membership in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario will likely be revoked. I will no longer be a director of the Toronto Centre Conservative Association.
This is not because I am no longer useful to the once-proud party of Bill Davis, John Robarts and, yes, Christine Elliott, but because I am coming out against comrade Stephen Harper -- our party's federal counterpart.
...
Since Harper became our Prime Minister, he has made Canada less welcoming of the world's destitute refugees and created an exclusive society for new immigrants. The appointees that are put in charge of deciding the future of our immigrant population, as Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicators, have become partisan and less humane in their approach. As reported by the Toronto Star's Nicholas Keung, some are even rejecting 100 per cent of the asylum seekers that appear before them, as a Harper appointee, David McBean, managed to do so.
This is not just wrong, but borderline xenophobic.
Considering a few poll done showed that a whopping 85% of Canadians were opposed to being allowed to cover your face during the swearing in ceremony I'd say it is a much larger issue to the electorate.Why women wearing Niqab rights are more an election issue than sex workers rights ?
It appears to actually be hurting the NDP in Quebec considering a 17 point drop there for them since his stand on it was made public.
So you are happy with the fact that the 1st thing an immigrant does, after becoming a citizen of Canada,...is to show disrespect for your country,...well,...I am NOT.I wouldn't say it's respectful but the constitution of this country protect their right to do so.
It's like to say farting in public isn't respectful but not against the law to do so
And note,...Junior is happy with this disrespect to Canada,...but we all know he is gutless.
FAST
Last edited:
The niqab issue is a dead issue. This is the law on Niqab in Canada. Why are we even discussing it. The federal government didn't even try to defend their position in the Federal Court of appeal. And no I don't find it disrespectful in the slightest.
"In the absence of evidence showing that these beliefs, backed by centuries of practice, are unsubstantiated “myths” that should be excised from the law, we should not take such a radical step. It follows that the view that witnesses can never be ordered to remove the niqab cannot be accepted. The Dagenais/Mentuck approach of finding a just balance between the conflicting rights is not displaced.
[50] At the other end of the spectrum lies the approach that says the courtroom must be a space in which individuals’ particular religious convictions have no place. On this view, if the niqab is an expression of the wearer’s religious views, it has no place in the courtroom. Courtrooms should be “neutral” spaces, operating on “neutral” principles. Changes of procedure on religious grounds should therefore not be allowed, it is argued.
[51] In my view, this option must also be rejected. It is inconsistent with Canadian jurisprudence, courtroom practice, and our tradition of requiring state institutions and actors to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs insofar as possible. Importantly, it limits religious rights where there is no countervailing right and hence no reason to limit them. As such, it fails the proportionality test which has guided Charter jurisprudence since Oakes in 1986.
[52] First, as already discussed, our jurisprudence teaches that clashes between rights should be approached by reconciling the rights through accommodation if possible, and in the end, if a conflict cannot be avoided, by case-by-case balancing: Dagenais. An absolute rule that courtrooms are secular spaces where religious belief plays no role would stand as a unique exception to this approach. No attempt to accommodate the witness’s sincere religious belief would need to be made. No effort to minimize the intrusion on the right would need to be considered. The reconciliation between competing rights that we have advocated case after case would not be attempted. Why? Simply because the venue where the rights clash is a courtroom.
[53] Second, to remove religion from the courtroom is not in the Canadian tradition. Canadians have since the country’s inception taken oaths based on holy books — be they the Bible, the Koran or some other sacred text. The practice has been to respect religious traditions insofar as this is possible without risking trial fairness or causing undue disruption in the proceedings. The Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, now permits a witness to affirm instead of taking a religious oath, but it does not remove the option of the oath from the courtroom.
[54] Third, the Canadian approach in the last 60 years to potential conflicts between freedom of religion and other values has been to respect the individual’s religious belief and accommodate it if at all possible."
edited to add quotation marks.
"In the absence of evidence showing that these beliefs, backed by centuries of practice, are unsubstantiated “myths” that should be excised from the law, we should not take such a radical step. It follows that the view that witnesses can never be ordered to remove the niqab cannot be accepted. The Dagenais/Mentuck approach of finding a just balance between the conflicting rights is not displaced.
[50] At the other end of the spectrum lies the approach that says the courtroom must be a space in which individuals’ particular religious convictions have no place. On this view, if the niqab is an expression of the wearer’s religious views, it has no place in the courtroom. Courtrooms should be “neutral” spaces, operating on “neutral” principles. Changes of procedure on religious grounds should therefore not be allowed, it is argued.
[51] In my view, this option must also be rejected. It is inconsistent with Canadian jurisprudence, courtroom practice, and our tradition of requiring state institutions and actors to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs insofar as possible. Importantly, it limits religious rights where there is no countervailing right and hence no reason to limit them. As such, it fails the proportionality test which has guided Charter jurisprudence since Oakes in 1986.
[52] First, as already discussed, our jurisprudence teaches that clashes between rights should be approached by reconciling the rights through accommodation if possible, and in the end, if a conflict cannot be avoided, by case-by-case balancing: Dagenais. An absolute rule that courtrooms are secular spaces where religious belief plays no role would stand as a unique exception to this approach. No attempt to accommodate the witness’s sincere religious belief would need to be made. No effort to minimize the intrusion on the right would need to be considered. The reconciliation between competing rights that we have advocated case after case would not be attempted. Why? Simply because the venue where the rights clash is a courtroom.
[53] Second, to remove religion from the courtroom is not in the Canadian tradition. Canadians have since the country’s inception taken oaths based on holy books — be they the Bible, the Koran or some other sacred text. The practice has been to respect religious traditions insofar as this is possible without risking trial fairness or causing undue disruption in the proceedings. The Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, now permits a witness to affirm instead of taking a religious oath, but it does not remove the option of the oath from the courtroom.
[54] Third, the Canadian approach in the last 60 years to potential conflicts between freedom of religion and other values has been to respect the individual’s religious belief and accommodate it if at all possible."
edited to add quotation marks.
Last edited:
Just because 85% of people feel one way or another, don't mistake that for being an important issue......I am somewhat opposed to it, but its not a big deal either way.Considering a few poll done showed that a whopping 85% of Canadians were opposed to being allowed to cover your face during the swearing in ceremony I'd say it is a much larger issue to the electorate.
It appears to actually be hurting the NDP in Quebec considering a 17 point drop there for them since his stand on it was made public.
Anyone who pays for sex and votes for this PM really needs to think long and hard.Harper promises sex trade crackdown, claims Trudeau thinks prostitution is a ‘lifestyle choice’
Tue Sep 29, 2015 - 5:00 pm EST
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/h...kdown-claims-trudeau-thinks-prostitution-is-a
OTTAWA, September 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to extend the government’s 2012 “Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking” for another five years past 2016, expand help for victims, and establish special police units in four major cities.
At the same time the prime minister attacked opposition party leaders Thomas Mulcair of the New Democrats and Liberal Justin Trudeau for wrongheaded responses to the sex trade in Canada.
Harper said that trafficking is often run by criminal gangs who coerce workers into the trade or use threats and force to keep then there. This led into an attack at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who, Harper said, “voted against our legislation to criminalize the activities of pimps and johns. Justin doesn’t understand that prostitution is not a lifestyle choice, but is in almost all cases the result of human trafficking and sexual exploitation.”
As for the New Democrats, Harper claimed they were for “decriminalizing prostitution,” which was a “dangerously ideological” policy that puts the so-called “rights” of criminals ahead of those of “innocent victims.”
“I’m proud of our record to raise awareness and take action against the terrible scourge of human trafficking,” Prime Minister Harper said. “We need to do even more to keep young women out of the hands of predatory criminal gangs and make our streets and communities safer.”
While several groups working to end the sex trade declined to comment, Diane Sowdon, executive director of the Children of the Street Society, applauded the promised expansion while wishing for more support for prevention.
“We really need these specialist police units,” she told LifeSiteNews, “because local police lack the expertise.” She also approved of expanded support for getting sex workers out of the business, but added, “I’d like to see more for prevention and education, which is what we do.”
The government’s existing program provides help for victims, increased police funding across the country, and the integration of existing police responses. The original plan also involves linking up with international efforts to crack down on sex trafficking since many sex slaves are very young, illegal female immigrants whose lack of landed status becomes a lever to keep them enslaved.
The election promise calls for the extension of the original plan for another five years, plus the establishment of new RCMP human trafficking teams in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg, the doubling of funding to help ex-sex trade workers re-integrate in society, and the proclaiming of February 22 as “National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.”
Children of the Streets’ Sowdon said community interest has grown hugely since she co-founded the Coquitlam, B.C. organization in 1995. “Back then we couldn’t get our foot in the school door, even to talk to high school seniors. Now we present to 27,000 children a year. We are in Grade Four classrooms and we cannot meet the demand.” And that is why she wants more support for education.
Correct.Why women wearing Niqab rights are more an election issue than sex workers rights ?
People are fuckin' nuts over this Niqab bullshit.. However, only hobbyists give two shits about sex worker rights.. Sure, maybe everybody has an opinion about C36 if asked, but most people don't sit around the kitchen table talking about the civil liberties of sex workers and their clients..
Sadly there is a noticeable segment of the left who see prostitution being an abuse of women and see banning it as better than providing for security of the women involved. And the Liberals are not likely to make an issue of something that makes the average person uncomfortable.I'm confident the NDP would repeal the bill and introduce new legislation that was actually effective (going after the exploitation of sex workers and under age sex workers). They were strongly against Bill C36 since its beginning and the NDP are generally on the side of labour.....
Of course since it is looking like a minority government, we're stuck with it unless the Supreme Court acts.
You know the old curse: Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.Sadly there is a noticeable segment of the left who see prostitution being an abuse of women and see banning it as better than providing for security of the women involved. And the Liberals are not likely to make an issue of something that makes the average person uncomfortable.
Of course since it is looking like a minority government, we're stuck with it unless the Supreme Court acts.
The law before the SCC decision was certainly more liberal than what we have now.
Agreed,...but the point I was trying to make is,...Harper is against the insult of wearing the Niqab during the citizenship ceremony,...Junior is all for it.I have never said that Niqab in citizenship ceremony is acceptable. I was talking about the legalities of it.With the current Constitution it is technically not possible to ban it.
Any new law trying to prohibit it will be thrown out by courts.
Similar to the US supreme Court that ruled they cannot prosecute someone for burning the american flag even if the action is highly offensive to most Americans because it's against the first amendment of free speech
And 85% of the population agree,...so by extension,... 85% of the population feel that Junior is gutless,...!!!
FAST
Just to be clear.. You're an idiot.. Sorry if directly insulting somebody breaks some sort of "rule" here..Agreed,...but the point I was trying to make is,...Harper is against the insult of wearing the Niqab during the citizenship ceremony,...Junior is all for it.
And 85% of the population agree,...so by extension,... 85% of the population feel that Junior is gutless,...!!!
FAST
I guess if you are not a proud Canadian,...that would be your take,... when the FIRST action somebody does when becoming a Canadian citizen,...is to insult your new country by hiding your face.Just to be clear.. You're an idiot.. Sorry if directly insulting somebody breaks some sort of "rule" here..
Sorry,...but you can't insult me,...
FAST
You're still an idiot.. Adhering to your own religion (no matter how fucked up it is, or how much you've misinterpreted it) isn't an insult.. You and I both know this.. You can keep babbling all you want about it.. Nobody (yourself included) actually truly considers it an "insult"... Not even for a second..I guess if you are not a proud Canadian,...that would be your take,... when the FIRST action somebody does when becoming a Canadian citizen,...is to insult your new country by hiding your face.
Sorry,...but you can't insult me,...
FAST
Except there is nothing in the Koran making this mandatory. Nothing. This is a cultural choice. That's why people don't like it.You're still an idiot.. Adhering to your own religion (no matter how fucked up it is, or how much you've misinterpreted it) isn't an insult.. You and I both know this.. You can keep babbling all you want about it.. Nobody (yourself included) actually truly considers it an "insult"... Not even for a second..
Covering your face during what is in essence a legal ceremony Affirming your gift of citizenship is insulting. Inclusiveness and compromise work both ways. And as this isn't a religious matter but a cultural one she should be able to give a little too for one ceremony.
The wearing of a mask signifies to us she has something to hide.
Under the previous law guys were busted in street sweeps and busted for being a found in. The guy did not even have to pay for anything, just being at the location was enough to charge him. Can remember news reports about the busts and guys on TERB joking about the girls and customers ages. The Liberals and the NDP had many opportunities over the years to change the law, suggest changes or run on a platform to legalize prostitution, but they did nothing. The NDP and Liberals are critical of everything the current government has done, that is there job, and is a way to suck people in to thinking they would change whatever issue some voter has.You know the old curse: Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
The law before the SCC decision was certainly more liberal than what we have now.
Nice try.. The fact that many believe that this isn't mandatory for Muslims doesn't change the fact that THESE MUSLIM WOMEN WHO DO PRACTICE IT believe it.. You claim they're insulting us by hiding their faces.. I'm telling you they're doing it because they, mistakenly (if it makes you feel better), believe that their God wants them to cover their faces.. It has nothing to do with insulting "us" or our country's values. In fact, because our country values the freedom of religion, they're actually (in their own fucked up and stupid way) kinda showing their respect for our country by immediately exercising one of their most important rights.. The right to practice their own fucked up religion in the fuck up fashion that they believe their fucked up God wants them to..Except there is nothing in the Koran making this mandatory. Nothing. This is a cultural choice. That's why people don't like it.
Covering your face during what is in essence a legal ceremony Affirming your gift of citizenship is insulting. Inclusiveness and compromise work both ways. And as this isn't a religious matter but a cultural one she should be able to give a little too for one ceremony.
The wearing of a mask signifies to us she has something to hide.
It's not an insult.. It's fucked up and weird, but it's not an insult..
... the fact that THESE MUSLIM WOMEN WHO DO PRACTICE IT believe it.. ..
And if they don't believe it, in some places, they are encouraged to believe.
Somali woman killed for not wearing veil
Good point.. We should prohibit women from VOLUNTARILY wearing the Niqab at our citizenship ceremony because in another country (about 12,000 km away) a woman was killed for choosing NOT to wear it.. lol...And if they don't believe it, in some places, they are encouraged to believe.
Somali woman killed for not wearing veil
Gimme a break..
