Acts of Terrorism megathread

[crazy canuck]

Meh - that case really turned on some hand-waving "lawyers are special" kind of reasoning.

The case started out as a challenge to Trinity's covenant that each student had to agree to.  Trinity took the position that it had a constitutional right to impose the covenant on its students to create a christian community of study. 

You may not have liked the result but you demean the important position on Freedom of Religion that was dismissed by the SCC by saying it was just a lot of hand waving.

[Malthus]

only religion is an absolute right in canada.

I kind of don't think that's entirely true..  I doubt you have a legal right to practice human sacrifice in Canada because your religion calls for it.  I suppose I could be wrong about that, but probably not.

It hasn't been tested in court yet, so I don't know

There's an interesting case in court right now, where two individuals are sueing the government for leaving them at the mercy of a religious education that leaves them ill prepared for the real world.  We'll see how that goes.

Actually it has - well not human sacrifice but something much more benign - the right to study in a christian community.  And the party asserting that their freedom of religion should prevail lost - look up the Trinity Western Case.

Indeed.

Viper may not be aware of the reasons of the Court in that case, but it is as far from Canada having religion as an "absolue right" as possible.

From the majority:

[101]                      In saying this, we do not dispute that "[d]isagreement and discomfort with the views of others is unavoidable in a free and democratic society" (C.A. reasons, at para. 188), and that a secular state cannot interfere with religious freedom unless it conflicts with or harms overriding public interests (para. 131, citing Loyola, at para. 43). But more is at stake here than simply "disagreement and discomfort" with views that some will find offensive. This Court has held that religious freedom can be limited where an individual's religious beliefs or practices have the effect of "injur[ing] his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own" (Big M, at p. 346). Likewise, in Multani, the Court held that state interference with religious freedom can be justified "when a person's freedom to act in accordance with his or her beliefs may cause harm to or interfere with the rights of others" (para. 26). Being required by someone else's religious beliefs to behave contrary to one's sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful. Being required to do so offends the public perception that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

[Razgovory]

No,  You really wanted this to a Muslim.  I'm sorry that it wasn't.

You wish, you anti-Francophone bigot and self-confessed nutcase.
I pointed out quickly it was the far right. Violent islamists are unlikely to deliberately target other muslims in Europe.

There was a problem with your post so I pitched in to help.  It was the least I could do.

"Help" from the former Erdogan groupie and still pro-islamist, anti-Charlie self-confessed nutcase ? Nein, Danke!


I did not believe it was organized crime when replying to the Galego Larch, a special kind of Hispanic, like me.
How you jumped to conclusions is not that surprising from you, though usually you wait until Mosque Day for your anti-Francophone cyberjihad. Boring day or what?

Yeah, I don't hate people based on their language or religion.  I'm not a Trumpist.  Why would I support that sort of mindset in other countries?

[Valmy]

Yeah, I don't hate people based on their language or religion.  I'm not a Trumpist.  Why would I support that sort of mindset in other countries?

Yeah you might hate the game, but don't hate the players. Besides critisizing oppressive religions is more about helping those who are going to have the misfortune of being born into them, rather than hating them.

Edit: Or at least should be more about that...

[viper37]

only religion is an absolute right in canada.

I kind of don't think that's entirely true..  I doubt you have a legal right to practice human sacrifice in Canada because your religion calls for it.  I suppose I could be wrong about that, but probably not.

It hasn't been tested in court yet, so I don't know

There's an interesting case in court right now, where two individuals are sueing the government for leaving them at the mercy of a religious education that leaves them ill prepared for the real world.  We'll see how that goes.

Actually it has - well not human sacrifice but something much more benign - the right to study in a christian community.  And the party asserting that their freedom of religion should prevail lost - look up the Trinity Western Case.

Indeed.

Viper may not be aware of the reasons of the Court in that case, but it is as far from Canada having religion as an "absolue right" as possible.

From the majority:

[101]                      In saying this, we do not dispute that "[d]isagreement and discomfort with the views of others is unavoidable in a free and democratic society" (C.A. reasons, at para. 188), and that a secular state cannot interfere with religious freedom unless it conflicts with or harms overriding public interests (para. 131, citing Loyola, at para. 43). But more is at stake here than simply "disagreement and discomfort" with views that some will find offensive. This Court has held that religious freedom can be limited where an individual's religious beliefs or practices have the effect of "injur[ing] his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own" (Big M, at p. 346). Likewise, in Multani, the Court held that state interference with religious freedom can be justified "when a person's freedom to act in accordance with his or her beliefs may cause harm to or interfere with the rights of others" (para. 26). Being required by someone else's religious beliefs to behave contrary to one's sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful. Being required to do so offends the public perception that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

yes, I used an hyperbole to describe the current political climate.
no, I do not believe human sacrifices would be tolerated by our politicians.
but they have no problem tolerating backward education practices in the name of freedom of religion:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/28/exstudent_of_ultraorthodox_jewish_school_system_in_quebec_wants_compensation_for_poor_education.html

[crazy canuck]

Viper, read before posting. The case we are talking about resulted in the reverse conclusion of what you say the law is.

[viper37]

Yeah, I don't hate people based on their language or religion.  I'm not a Trumpist.  Why would I support that sort of mindset in other countries?

because you don't see a problem with religious extremism, as demonstrated by your past love of Erdogan.  You fail to see where it leads, and when finally confronted with the truth, it's too late to do anything.  In that, you are exactly the same as a Trumpist, willing to tolerate the intolerable.

[Barrister]

Meh - that case really turned on some hand-waving "lawyers are special" kind of reasoning.

The case started out as a challenge to Trinity's covenant that each student had to agree to.  Trinity took the position that it had a constitutional right to impose the covenant on its students to create a christian community of study. 

You may not have liked the result but you demean the important position on Freedom of Religion that was dismissed by the SCC by saying it was just a lot of hand waving.

Sure I can.  There was a binding, on point authority, Trinity Western I.  That involved the exact same covenant, exact same term.  The only difference was that TWI involved the school opening a teacher's college, not a law school.

In TWII they never said TWI was wrongly decided.  It's not that TWI was from long ago when gay rights weren't recognized - it was from 2001.  It was just that lawyers are special.

[viper37]

Viper, read before posting. The case we are talking about resulted in the reverse conclusion of what you say the law is.

there is the law.  and there is what you chose to prosecute.
If the law was really enforced, there would have been no case like the one I posted.
It is not really surprising for a country that has never prosecuted fgm.
we are very touchy on religious practice.

[Eddie Teach]

Viper may not be aware of the reasons of the Court in that case, but it is as far from Canada having religion as an "absolue right" as possible.

Wrong, as far as possible would be to outlaw religion.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, I don't hate people based on their language or religion.  I'm not a Trumpist.  Why would I support that sort of mindset in other countries?

because you don't see a problem with religious extremism, as demonstrated by your past love of Erdogan.  You fail to see where it leads, and when finally confronted with the truth, it's too late to do anything.  In that, you are exactly the same as a Trumpist, willing to tolerate the intolerable.

Erdogan seems pretty mainstream as Muslims go.

[The Brain]

Viper may not be aware of the reasons of the Court in that case, but it is as far from Canada having religion as an "absolue right" as possible.

Wrong, as far as possible would be to outlaw religion.

Is that possible?

[Valmy]

Is that possible?

I don't think so, but China is giving it a shot.

[crazy canuck]

Meh - that case really turned on some hand-waving "lawyers are special" kind of reasoning.

The case started out as a challenge to Trinity's covenant that each student had to agree to.  Trinity took the position that it had a constitutional right to impose the covenant on its students to create a christian community of study. 

You may not have liked the result but you demean the important position on Freedom of Religion that was dismissed by the SCC by saying it was just a lot of hand waving.

Sure I can.  There was a binding, on point authority, Trinity Western I.  That involved the exact same covenant, exact same term.  The only difference was that TWI involved the school opening a teacher's college, not a law school.

In TWII they never said TWI was wrongly decided.  It's not that TWI was from long ago when gay rights weren't recognized - it was from 2001.  It was just that lawyers are special.

I have already explained, at the time, why that other authority was not binding.  I don't really care to dance that dance again.

[Malthus]

yes, I used an hyperbole to describe the current political climate.
no, I do not believe human sacrifices would be tolerated by our politicians.
but they have no problem tolerating backward education practices in the name of freedom of religion:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/28/exstudent_of_ultraorthodox_jewish_school_system_in_quebec_wants_compensation_for_poor_education.html

The linked case seems more about the abuse of the litigation and welfare systems than anything else. Dude is 38 years old, had 4 kids, and lives off welfare; claims his Hassidic childhood education prevented him from ever learning English or French?  Wants to sue the government for a million dollars?

I have questions.