[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.  They're Mennonites, so they would refuse to swear an oath on the Bible.

No one is forced to swear on the Bible.  I didn't during my only time in court.

That wasn't the case 100+ years ago.  In fact the reason it changes was due to religious groups like Hutterites / Mennonites.

[Grallon]

And another federalist scumbag caught!

Here's a solultion - exceptional tribunals and a few dozen scaffolds working 24/7 for a few months - that should help clear the air in this rotting burrough. 



G.

[Jacob]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.  They're Mennonites, so they would refuse to swear an oath on the Bible.

No one is forced to swear on the Bible.  I didn't during my only time in court.

It's almost as if the mores and habits of a country changes over time as the citizenry and their values change. Perhaps in twenty years, or maybe even five, people in Quebec will decide that Sikhs wearing turbans is no big fucking deal; just like you no longer have to swear on the bible in court.

[viper37]

IIRC this guy was put in place because they kicked the old guy out for corruption. To the montreal poster, does your mayor have any real power, or is he like the Toronto one who can't really do anything?

The old guy was kicked because there was corruption going on and he never seemed to acknowledge it, even try to correct the problem.  Montreal is a leftist city that was governed by a leftist mayor.  As such, holding gay games and aquatic games was more of a priority than correctly managing the public finances of the city.

He was never accused of anything, except of being blind&deaf when everyone around seemed corrupt. No one as named him on anything so far.  But he was no longer the man of the situation.  I just wish we had such power at the provincial or federal level to destitute an MP.

[viper37]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.  They're Mennonites, so they would refuse to swear an oath on the Bible.

No one is forced to swear on the Bible.  I didn't during my only time in court.

It's almost as if the mores and habits of a country changes over time as the citizenry and their values change. Perhaps in twenty years, or maybe even five, people in Quebec will decide that Sikhs wearing turbans is no big fucking deal; just like you no longer have to swear on the bible in court.

Possibly, but by then maybe any hat or hair cover will be allowed for anyone playing soccer?

We did remove religion from our public school.  The new course about ethics&religions seems just as dumb though.

[viper37]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.  They're Mennonites, so they would refuse to swear an oath on the Bible.

No one is forced to swear on the Bible.  I didn't during my only time in court.

That wasn't the case 100+ years ago.  In fact the reason it changes was due to religious groups like Hutterites / Mennonites.

There aren't that many Mennonites in Quebec

But I agree it must be recent.  I remember that when I was in Elementary school, we were tought that altough we could swear on our honor rather than the Bible, our testimony would be negatively viewed.  Good riddance, imho.

This is the kind of thing I like: make a change and make it for everyone.

[viper37]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.

Quebecers resisted the draft too.  We were branded as traitors and people protestiong were arrested.  Did the same happen to them? I guess not.  This is the kind of thing that I dislike: unequal rules& double standards.

[Malthus]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.  They're Mennonites, so they would refuse to swear an oath on the Bible.

No one is forced to swear on the Bible.  I didn't during my only time in court.

That wasn't the case 100+ years ago.  In fact the reason it changes was due to religious groups like Hutterites / Mennonites.

There aren't that many Mennonites in Quebec

But I agree it must be recent.  I remember that when I was in Elementary school, we were tought that altough we could swear on our honor rather than the Bible, our testimony would be negatively viewed.  Good riddance, imho.

This is the kind of thing I like: make a change and make it for everyone.

Here, you can either "swear" or "affirm", and either are just as valid. No-one gives a shit which you do.

[Admiral Yi]

What does the "ana" in Anabaptist mean?

Serious question.

[garbon]

What does the "ana" in Anabaptist mean?

Serious question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist

Anabaptists (from Neo-Latin anabaptista, from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- "over again" and βαπτισμός "baptism")

The name Anabaptist is derived from the Greek term anabaptista, or "one who baptizes over again."

[Barrister]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.

Quebecers resisted the draft too.  We were branded as traitors and people protestiong were arrested.  Did the same happen to them? I guess not.  This is the kind of thing that I dislike: unequal rules& double standards.

Perhaps you should actually do some research instead of just assuming.

[crazy canuck]

Here, you can either "swear" or "affirm", and either are just as valid. No-one gives a shit which you do.

But the point is that is a recent change.  Well I guess I shouldnt say recent since I am starting to get on in age but it had been a recent change when I started practicing law.  Prior to that one could affirm but there was some question whether the affirmation carried the same weight as an oath.

Jacob's point is a good one.  The change occurred to accomodate a then minority group who did not with to swear an oath on the bible.  Now it is very common to see.

[viper37]

Here, you can either "swear" or "affirm", and either are just as valid. No-one gives a shit which you do.

yes, but I'm talking about something I was told 30 years ago
I know it does not make a difference today.

[viper37]

Yes.  They're pacifists, so resisted he draft.

Quebecers resisted the draft too.  We were branded as traitors and people protestiong were arrested.  Did the same happen to them? I guess not.  This is the kind of thing that I dislike: unequal rules& double standards.

Perhaps you should actually do some research instead of just assuming.

But you said they were treated differently.  I assumed they were given a free pass on resisiting the draft.  Otherwise, they received the same treatment as everyone else... 

[viper37]

Jacob's point is a good one.  The change occurred to accomodate a then minority group who did not with to swear an oath on the bible.  Now it is very common to see.

But the change was for everyone.  It wasn't exclusively for non christians.  You could be Christian and not swear on the Bible.  Equal treatment for everyone.