I wrote it so of course I’d encourage you to read the whole thing…..
In 2003, citing security concerns, new government regulations were brought in regarding photo identification.
The move changed an existing law that did not require everyone to have photo ID.
A small religious minority group asked for an exemption, they claimed having their picture taken and the ID card created would violate their strongly held religious beliefs and be a violation of their Charter right to freedom of religion.
And of course when that religious minority lost, the progressives now standing up were silent. Find out the rest of the story here…
Hutterites don’t get pissed off and kill people. They are doctrinally pacifists.
I actually do remember the Hutterite case. But, for me, it stands out for a different reason:
At about the same time the Hutterites were arguing their case, there was a similar one going on in Florida (I think) where a Muslim woman didn’t want to uncover her face for her driver’s license photo.
The reason the two cases stand out so strongly in my mind was because of how differently they turned out even though they were happening at the same time. All of the Canadian judges (even at the SC level) accepted premise that there was a conflict between religious freedoms and the right to drive.
In Florida, on the other hand, while the judge agreed that no one can force a person to violate their religious convictions, he held that there was no conflict of “rights” for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a “right to drive.” As that judge pointed out, driving is a privilege and the government is free to come up with whatever arbitrary requirements it likes. He pointed out that there is nothing that can legally stop a government from (for example) creating a rule that says only males over six feet tall who can walk across a room on their hands will be allowed to get a driver’s license. They won’t last too long in government…but it is still theoretically possible to have such a law because requirements for things like driver’s licenses (or becoming a citizen) are not issues of “rights.” They are privileges where our society can come up with whatever hoops-to-jump-through that we like. If you can’t meet those requirements, then petition for them to be changed…but don’t try to call them “rights.”
The Florida judge was right. The Canadian judges were wrong. The problem here is that the Canadian judiciary does not know what the true definition of a “right” is.
I like the utilitarian back to basic living of the amish except for their wishy washy pacifist thinking. There is a time to turn the other cheek like when you’re getting lipped off or something. But for many many years the time has been more than right to start flipping some tables.
Brian, of course you are correct on this issue, but never underestimate the creative twisting of logic of which Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin and her Supreme Court posse are capable. If I were a betting man, I’d bet the courts will allow the ‘faces covered’ ruling to stand.
And according to the Darwinists all life on earth came crawling out of the oceans as some dumb fish thing and all birds are decenent from reptiles and all humans are decendent from apes POPPYCOCK and BULL TWADDLE Darwinian nit-wits
The breaking of Canadian Sovereignty (UN) starts with the role of Citizenship… First Face Covering & then swearing Allegiance to Canada & Queen….Simple 2 step
The British legal principle of been able to FACE your Accuser…. seems to be long gone!
Before you start ranting about Darwinism, you might want to learn exactly what it is first. Even the Vatican agrees it has more credibility than the Theory of Flintstones.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
There, so you don’t have to be so afraid of it anymore.
The Pope decreed did he?? He also ‘believes in’ AGW.
Meh….
I’m with spurwig.(today)
You say that like you believe the Pope has something to do with Christianity.
If & when the SC hears the case of the niqab wearer in the citizenship ceremony, it will probably rule the same way it did in this case:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/12/20/supreme_court_niqab_ruling_veil_can_be_worn_to_testify_in_some_cases.html
“Just as Canada’s federal and provincial governments have wrestled with how far to go to accommodate veiled Muslim women in the voting booth, at citizenship ceremonies, or in public colleges, the high court appeared to struggle as well.
In a deeply split 4-2-1 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday said the dilemma can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis. …”
IMO, it is futile for non-Muslims to keep arguing that the niqab is not a religious requirement. The retort may be on what/whose authority should you dictate what my religious observances are?
Instead, our legislators should have the courage to simply say something to this effect: We in Canada do not accept the custom to cover one’s face in day-to-day interactions and especially on solemn occasions, such as citizenship ceremonies, voting and testifying in court. Our societal norms are that we interact with each other without hiding our identity. If you want to become part of our society, please conform. If you do not wish to do so, here’s your niqab … what’s your hurry …
We didn’t force these mohammedan women to come to Canada.
Simply use the notwithstanding clause to over-ride the Charter. Quebec use it regularly to goose-step on the English. It was put there with the understanding that one day the Supreme Court might go rogue and have to brought back to a level of basic respect of elected officials.
Makes my heart warm to see so many Protestants of conviction around here.
No sarcasm.
Ha, I agree, the Pope has little credibility on scientific matters these days, he’s hardly a welcome spokesperson.
The fact remains there are lots of Christian scientists who believe evolution is a fact, not just this Pope. I believe it was taught in Catholic schools well before socialism crept back into the Vatican. This is not some MMGW bullshit-science, the facts are tested every time something new is discovered, but then what am I doing wasting my time explaining this for, some people only ever believe what they want to believe. Just like SJW’s.
The only reason I responded to sP’s post was to make sure people DON’T get the impression that all Conservatives think that way.
I’ll repeat what I said previously…on more than one occasion. I don’t give a damn if a woman on her own free will wants to walk around in head-to-toe bag 24/7. But, the state and citizens have to have the right to say NO in certain circumstances. No face, no drivers licence; no face, no getting on my airplane; no face, no ballot; no face, no way I’m taking your cheque, etc., etc.
Now, if the state wants to concoct some elaborate screening process with separate “viewing rooms” staffed by unionized female viewers in every agency that dispenses government services where facial and ID confirmation is a requirement for the delivery of said services,(sorry for describing Liberal Heaven) then it can (and under Tinkerbell Trudeau or Chameleon Tom, probably will) do so. But for similar interactions involving the private sector, things obviously have to be different. I said obviously…HRCs ‘obviously’ excluded.
So it boils down to this: the right to say NO. But I can tell you one thing: you can bet your bippy that the red-robed dictators have already contrived a thousand reasons to excuse and exempt these bag-ladies.
WE have many different Religions in Canada and most are are tolerant . I bet most people don’t even know what these Religion believe and could care Less.
I have no idea what the Sikhs or the Hindus believe and I don’t care, as long they don’t expect me to cater to their beliefs.
Then we have ISLAM.
There is absolutely Nothing that their host Country can do for these Parasites except provide Freebees and lots of welfare.
We don’t know how to properly kill an animal for food . We don’t torture it and then bleed it dry and then PAY for an Islamic prayer with Money.
We like to drink beer and worst of ALL -We think that having SEX with baby girls is just plain SICK.
We can’t even begin to imagine in our worst nightmares -chopping of heads and hands and feet and burning people alive and drowning people and tossing homosexuals off a tall building and if they are still twitching then pounding them into a pulp with stones .
And some how— We are supposed to accept the fact that these same people want to wonder around Canada while wearing a MASK.
I would also wear a MASK – if I was a Canadian that believed in this Depravity.
Justin claims “Under a Liberal government there will be no two-tiered citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
A bit ironic for someone whose father campaigned on “Screw the West, we’ll take the rest.”
Hutterites may be Canadians, but some Canadians are more equal than others.
this is as simple as it can get……….how the hell do I know who you are or if you are even the person who is supposed to be taking the oath? jeez, left wing Canadians are getting dumber and the rest of us ha best start slapping some sense into them.