[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I'd go for troubling over amusing but to each his own.

Also, I had thought that this was just in instances where they had already agreed to a legal divorce but then he was being a dick by refusing to give the get.  Should he be assumed to be an asshole if he doesn't think it is right to divorce or wants to still try and make the marriage work?

I mean, a fresh grave? Should be added to the Criminal Code. [/BB]

Generally, if it is a question of a "get" it has already been determined that the marriage is on the rocks. At least, that is my understanding.

All of the cases of refusal I have ever heard about were in cases where the marriage was over and both parties knew it, and all that was needed was the paperwork.

How do you know when a marriage is truly over? I think when your wife hires a few "special" rabbis to jab a cattle prod up your ass to get you to admit it, it can safely be assumed the romance is gone. 

[crazy canuck]

Would Viper require Malala to remove her head scarf before talking to a group of children about the importance of education? 

[Grey Fox]

Like Border Control is letting a dangerous terrorist into Canada.

[crazy canuck]

Like Border Control is letting a dangerous terrorist into Canada.

Viper wouldnt want to take the risk that the children would be adversely affected by the presence of Malala's headscarf.  Grallon simply hates her because she is a Muslim.

[Sheilbh]

A democracy without constitutional protections of rights is the "democracy" of three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that

It's Anglo-saxon way of thinking hitting the wall of Latin thinking within the same country.

I agree.

[Grallon]

Viper wouldnt want to take the risk that the children would be adversely affected by the presence of Malala's headscarf.  Grallon simply hates her because she is a Muslim.

Don't pretend to speak for me as if you knew me.


Have all of you conveniently forgotten that the controversial portion of this charter proposal is essentially about a dress code for civil servants?!

You can start your weeping, hand wringing & gnashing of teeth when the provisions in the Charter pretend to extend to private businesses and to the larger public sphere (streets & public spaces) - where it doesn't belong.  You can start crying afoul when mosques are being shut down and Muslims rounded up in camps.

And while we're at it - do any of you hypocritical Prima Donnas remember that once upon a time the Nazis compelled Jews to identify themselves with 'ostentatious' signs, those infamous arm bands, to really brand them as different?  Here we're trying to do the reverse and suddenly it's a proof of abuse?

And that my fellow Languishites is the demonstration that multiculturalism has true debilitating effects on those subjected to its influence.  Not to mention that is sanctions fragmentation into isolated groups that are prevented to coalesce into something greater than themselves by the suspicion it fosters between them; all of it under the guise of 'respecting individual rights'.  I'd call it 'divide and conquer' if I was cynical...

It is truly astounding to behold such levels of conditioning!  But not unexpected.  We're talking about Canada here after all - a schyzophrenic country that denies any identity of its own - and would drag Quebec down to its own level of befuddled insanity.



G.

[garbon]

Quebec should adopt a province-wide uniform.

[Grallon]

Quebec should adopt a province-wide uniform.

Go away you shallow little twerp!  If it doesn't involve price tags and brand names you are as vacuous as the non existent fish in the non-existent fish bowl sitting on my counter.  And while you're at it - why don't you gobble some more pills so you might be able to have a glimpse of the person you might have been.

Tcha!



G.

[garbon]

Quebec should adopt a province-wide uniform.

Go away you shallow little twerp!  If it doesn't involve price tags and brand names you are as vacuous as the non existent fish in the non-existent fish bowl sitting on my counter.  And while you're at it - why don't you gobble some more pills so you might be able to have a glimpse of the person you might have been.

Tcha!



G.

Anyway, why are you against a uniform? It'd help demolish multiculturalism once and for all.

[Barrister]

And while we're at it - do any of you hypocritical Prima Donnas remember that once upon a time the Nazis compelled Jews to identify themselves with 'ostentatious' signs, those infamous arm bands, to really brand them as different?  Here we're trying to do the reverse and suddenly it's a proof of abuse?

Grallon, I wouldn't make the nazi analogy myself, but now that you've made it, let me point out the flaw in your reasoning.

What both the Quabec Charter, and the nazis, have in common is that both are trying to tell people what they can and can not wear.  Whereas those of us who believe in freedom say "wear whatever the hell you want, it doesn't bother us".

[viper37]

What both the Quabec Charter, and the nazis, have in common is that both are trying to tell people what they can and can not wear.  Whereas those of us who believe in freedom say "wear whatever the hell you want, it doesn't bother us".

I see more akind to an employer's dress code.  It is after all, aimed only at government employees.  I still think it's silly to impose it on people who aren't in contact with the public (and you guys think it's silly to impose it on anyone), but that's the way I see this.

As a prosecutor, you have a proper dress code in court wich you are obligated to wear.  Others have other dress codes.  It's all the same to me.

[Barrister]

What both the Quabec Charter, and the nazis, have in common is that both are trying to tell people what they can and can not wear.  Whereas those of us who believe in freedom say "wear whatever the hell you want, it doesn't bother us".

I see more akind to an employer's dress code.  It is after all, aimed only at government employees.  I still think it's silly to impose it on people who aren't in contact with the public (and you guys think it's silly to impose it on anyone), but that's the way I see this.

As a prosecutor, you have a proper dress code in court wich you are obligated to wear.  Others have other dress codes.  It's all the same to me.

But we make exceptions to court rules all the time.

We have a rule in court that you must stand when the judge enters the courtroom.  But one of my colleagues is a quadriplegic, confined to a wheelchair.  You get where I'm going with this - we make an exception for him to the rule of "you must stand when the judge enters".  Why?  Because the rule is just a formality, and it should bend when there is a legitimate reason to bend it.

My Sikh colleague complies with every other component of the dress code.  He wears barristers robes in superior court.  he wears a suit and tie in provincial court.  The only exception he asks for, and is granted, is he wears a turban (normal rule is "no hats").  But the "no hats" rule doesn't actually impact on how the court system works.  It's just a formality.  So when it comes up against his religious imperative to wear a turban, we make an exception.

[Josephus]

^^^^

A hundred years ago when  I was in journalism school, we spent several weeks in first year covering trials. We noticed early on that when lawyers, and other court room people entered or left the courtroom when the judge was sitting they would bow their heads and nod to the judge.

One day we were covering a trial that seemed pretty boring so we wanted to leave. We werent' sure about protocol. Does everyone have to bow to the judge? Finally, the brave one, Bruce (now Ottawa Bureau Chief with Toronto Star), got up, walked to the door turned to the judge and bowed. The judge, and all the entourage laughed.

We now knew.

[viper37]

We have a rule in court that you must stand when the judge enters the courtroom.  But one of my colleagues is a quadriplegic, confined to a wheelchair.  You get where I'm going with this - we make an exception for him to the rule of "you must stand when the judge enters".  Why?  Because the rule is just a formality, and it should bend when there is a legitimate reason to bend it.

Come on.  Be serious please.  Your quadriplegic could not stand, even if he wanted to.  There is a mega-huge difference between an handicap that prevents you of doing something and a choice.

But the "no hats" rule doesn't actually impact on how the court system works.  It's just a formality.  So when it comes up against his religious imperative to wear a turban, we make an exception.

but why not allow hats for everyone then?  Why allow someone to testify or vote completely veiled?

[Neil]

Because we're not racists.