[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[garbon]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

[Malthus]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

And will it somehow involve hats and beards? 

[Valmy]

The Liberals are still fighting the good fights, trying to end this recession by spending, spending and spending.  One day it will work!

200 000$ for moving two people, 1 million$ for 40 (French text)

Great government we have there   CC must be very proud of his choice, they will save us! One day!

I am fighting right now to save the State of Texas 20 million dollars on a project and some politician, a Republican no less, wrote me saying that I needed to stop bothering with such a small amount of money 

I was tempted to write back and say 'well if you feel that way I could use a raise'

So I doubt the Government of Canada is losing much sleep over that.

[Valmy]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

And will it somehow involve hats and beards? 

Canada's security will require the bombing of Amritsar.

[Barrister]

I really don't get where you're going with Harjit Sajjan here viper.

Use Google Translate for the article.

The Sikh refused to wear a protective hat, saying it's incompatible with their Faith.  The Port of Montreal provided pictures of another Sikh wearing a protective helmet.  It happens to be Harjit Sajjan.  Could have been someone else, somewhere else, but the defense used it to claim that it wasn't obviously incompatible with the Sikh Faith to wear protective head gear.

The court has recognized that it is a violation of their religion, it is discrimination, but it is superceded by the necessity of protecting themselves and insuring work safety rules (provincial rules) are respected.

Once it gets to the Supreme Court, it will most likely decide that a Federal law (the Charter) supercedes any provincial legislation and as such, excempt the Sikh from wearing protective headgear, while still maintaining the employers responsibility in case of an accident (since it's a provincial law).

Now, if the Court decides that the Quebec's Superior court was indeed right, whose to say the Trudeau government will not make some new rule to circumvent this judgement as a way to reinforce Canadian multiculturalism?

Where to begin...

First of all the Charter is not a "Federal law".  It's the Constitution.  It governs all levels of government.

It's not a matter of freedom of religion automatically trumping any other law.  It's a question of "reasonable accommodation".

If the Supreme Court finds that Quebec Superior Court is right, there's nothing Trudeau can do about it.  It's a question of provincial jurisdiction (as long as it is subject to the Charter).

[garbon]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

And will it somehow involve hats and beards? 

Canada's security will require the bombing of Amritsar.

[viper37]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

I don't know.  It could be anything.  He's unwilling to compromise now, he'll be unwilling to compromise in the future.  That's a risk I would not have taken, personally, for such an important position in government.

[viper37]

So I doubt the Government of Canada is losing much sleep over that.

Imho, there are no small economies.  This is the same party that pestered a Conservative minister for having an 8$ orange juice.

When you lead, you need to show some restraints on your personal expenses.

It's not a matter of money, short of a few billion dollars, nothing would seriously affect Canada's finances.  But it's a powerful symbol that these guys think of themselves as some kind of aristocracy while we pay for their benefits.

[garbon]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

I don't know.  It could be anything.  He's unwilling to compromise now, he'll be unwilling to compromise in the future.  That's a risk I would not have taken, personally, for such an important position in government.

It could be anything? Huh? You are all up in arms because something could possible happen sometime because of a person's religion? There are a lot of people in positions in government who would be unwilling to compromise on some hypothetical issues that don't involve religion.

I'm sorry but unless you actually have more thoughts on this, you are being ridiculous.

[viper37]

If the Supreme Court finds that Quebec Superior Court is right, there's nothing Trudeau can do about it.  It's a question of provincial jurisdiction (as long as it is subject to the Charter).

We'll see.  I don't trust the Libs for one minute.

[viper37]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

I don't know.  It could be anything.  He's unwilling to compromise now, he'll be unwilling to compromise in the future.  That's a risk I would not have taken, personally, for such an important position in government.

It could be anything? Huh? You are all up in arms because something could possible happen sometime because of a person's religion? There are a lot of people in positions in government who would be unwilling to compromise on some hypothetical issues that don't involve religion.

I'm sorry but unless you actually have more thoughts on this, you are being ridiculous.

Robin Camp sat on Alberta provincial court when he asked, 'Couldn't you just keep your knees together?'

This is a fundamentalist religious individual who managed to get up there likely due to his religious convictions and he was unwilling to let his religion aside to exercise his job properly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-judge-judical-review-robin-camp-1.3311574

It's not the first time it happenned, but afaik, it's the first time a judge is put under judicial review for such comments.

It's one of many exemple where religious zealots should not hold any kind of position of power if they're unwilling to compromise on their faith.

[Barrister]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

I don't know.  It could be anything.  He's unwilling to compromise now, he'll be unwilling to compromise in the future.  That's a risk I would not have taken, personally, for such an important position in government.

It could be anything? Huh? You are all up in arms because something could possible happen sometime because of a person's religion? There are a lot of people in positions in government who would be unwilling to compromise on some hypothetical issues that don't involve religion.

I'm sorry but unless you actually have more thoughts on this, you are being ridiculous.

Robin Camp sat on Alberta provincial court when he asked, 'Couldn't you just keep your knees together?'

This is a fundamentalist religious individual who managed to get up there likely due to his religious convictions and he was unwilling to let his religion aside to exercise his job properly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-judge-judical-review-robin-camp-1.3311574

It's not the first time it happenned, but afaik, it's the first time a judge is put under judicial review for such comments.

It's one of many exemple where religious zealots should not hold any kind of position of power if they're unwilling to compromise on their faith.

Given my line of work I've heard quite a bit about this particular judge (though he was in Calgary and I have never appeared in front of him).  I've never, ever heard him described as a 'religious fundamentalist', and I don't see why his completely unacceptable comments have anything to do with religion.

[Valmy]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

And will it somehow involve hats and beards? 

Canada's security will require the bombing of Amritsar.

You have to admit that would be a pretty big conflict. Just ask Indira Ghandi's bodyguards. Now why bombing an otherwise insignificant place in India would be key to Canada's security is another matter

[Malthus]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

I don't know.  It could be anything.  He's unwilling to compromise now, he'll be unwilling to compromise in the future.  That's a risk I would not have taken, personally, for such an important position in government.

It could be anything? Huh? You are all up in arms because something could possible happen sometime because of a person's religion? There are a lot of people in positions in government who would be unwilling to compromise on some hypothetical issues that don't involve religion.

I'm sorry but unless you actually have more thoughts on this, you are being ridiculous.

Robin Camp sat on Alberta provincial court when he asked, 'Couldn't you just keep your knees together?'

This is a fundamentalist religious individual who managed to get up there likely due to his religious convictions and he was unwilling to let his religion aside to exercise his job properly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-judge-judical-review-robin-camp-1.3311574

It's not the first time it happenned, but afaik, it's the first time a judge is put under judicial review for such comments.

It's one of many exemple where religious zealots should not hold any kind of position of power if they're unwilling to compromise on their faith.

That's gotta be one of the most bizarre leaps of assumption I've seen yet. 

Robin Camp isn't the stereotypical  Alberta hardcore fundie Christian Viper appears to assume.

In fact, he's an immigrant. An *African* immigrant. Well, a White African immigrant from South Africa. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Camp

A part of his problem appears to be this: he was appointed to the bench based on his strength as an Oil & Gas litigation practice. By his own account, he knew nothing of criminal law.

There is, needless to say, exactly zero evidence he was or is a "religious zealot". Much less, that this mythical zealotry was what got him appointed to the bench!

[viper37]

The day his Faith contradicts with his duties as Defence Minister, I know he will side with his Faith, since he's unable to make the smallest compromise now.

What exactly is involved in this hypothetical day?

I don't know.  It could be anything.  He's unwilling to compromise now, he'll be unwilling to compromise in the future.  That's a risk I would not have taken, personally, for such an important position in government.

It could be anything? Huh? You are all up in arms because something could possible happen sometime because of a person's religion? There are a lot of people in positions in government who would be unwilling to compromise on some hypothetical issues that don't involve religion.

I'm sorry but unless you actually have more thoughts on this, you are being ridiculous.

Robin Camp sat on Alberta provincial court when he asked, 'Couldn't you just keep your knees together?'

This is a fundamentalist religious individual who managed to get up there likely due to his religious convictions and he was unwilling to let his religion aside to exercise his job properly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-judge-judical-review-robin-camp-1.3311574

It's not the first time it happenned, but afaik, it's the first time a judge is put under judicial review for such comments.

It's one of many exemple where religious zealots should not hold any kind of position of power if they're unwilling to compromise on their faith.

Given my line of work I've heard quite a bit about this particular judge (though he was in Calgary and I have never appeared in front of him).  I've never, ever heard him described as a 'religious fundamentalist', and I don't see why his completely unacceptable comments have anything to do with religion.

It was in La Presse. He is from a fundamentalist religious organization that has pushed other judges and politicians too.
His comments stems from most fundies views on rape: it's the fault of the woman.

Les regrets du juge Camp

Mais cette attitude a-t-elle été, au départ, l'une des raisons mêmes pour lesquelles il s'est retrouvé juge? Avant sa nomination, il siégeait au Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, un organisme albertain de droite qui épouse justement les valeurs et les croyances qu'il a exprimées dans la fameuse cause.

But was this attitude, in the beginning, one of the reasons why he was named judge?  Before his nomination, he seated at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a rightwing albertan organization that espouses the values&beliefs he expressed in this case.

This organization seems to specializes in defending extreme christian views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Centre_for_Constitutional_Freedoms