PM Harper, for once he is right..
- Thread starter polara69
- Start date
SenoritaBella
VIP Member
- Jan 2, 2012
- 194
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Dakar
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 08-01-2014
- AOR Received.
- 12-02-2014
- File Transfer...
- 25-02-2014
- Med's Request
- 02-11-2015
- Med's Done....
- 18-09-2013
- Passport Req..
- 02-11-2015
- VISA ISSUED...
- hopefully soon
- LANDED..........
- hopefully soon
I disagree with the gov't on this one. The oath ceremony is not an event to make a statement against an important tenet of one's religion. First, the issue was with identification and when that became moot, it's now about "equality". What makes some people think Muslim women don't feel equal or want to be "equal" in ways that are contrary to their beliefs?
It's very interesting to hear people talk of equality when women in Canada still earn 75 cents vs $1 dollar for men for the same job. Becoming Canadian does not mean giving up your cultural and/or religious identity but joining the pie and bringing your own contributions. The irony is, in the Discover Canada book, one of the influential figures says something along these lines or similar.
There is a reason the PM has lost 2 court challenges (and countless others) and he will lose this one again at the Supreme Court because it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are already on the hook for about $300,000.
It's very interesting to hear people talk of equality when women in Canada still earn 75 cents vs $1 dollar for men for the same job. Becoming Canadian does not mean giving up your cultural and/or religious identity but joining the pie and bringing your own contributions. The irony is, in the Discover Canada book, one of the influential figures says something along these lines or similar.
There is a reason the PM has lost 2 court challenges (and countless others) and he will lose this one again at the Supreme Court because it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are already on the hook for about $300,000.
Some men never go out in public without a shirt on. For them, being a little uptight about their bodies, being shirtless in public is embarrassing and uncomfortable. If such a man were required to attend their citizenship ceremony shirtless, that man would be uncomfortable and self conscious during the entire ceremony. Afterwards, the thing one would remember most about the ceremony would be that one was shirtless, self conscious and uncomfortable -- instead of remembering the joy of becoming a citizen.
I am not, by any means, minimizing the impact of being forced to show one's face when one is accustomed to being veiled in public, nor am I comparing it to a man going shirtless. But all I had to do was consider the above example to begin to understand why it is wrong to force someone to remove their face covering during the citizenship ceremony. Either we are a multicultural country or we are not. Either we are tolerant of our differences or we are not. Either we rise above our petty prejudices or we do not.
I am not, by any means, minimizing the impact of being forced to show one's face when one is accustomed to being veiled in public, nor am I comparing it to a man going shirtless. But all I had to do was consider the above example to begin to understand why it is wrong to force someone to remove their face covering during the citizenship ceremony. Either we are a multicultural country or we are not. Either we are tolerant of our differences or we are not. Either we rise above our petty prejudices or we do not.
I didn't move to Saudi Arabia, nor to Rome. I moved to Canada. The saying, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" is a saying that, in this context, conveys xenophobia and intolerance.polara69 said:
To follow your example, should everyone in Canada be forced to be Christian, afterall, when in Rome. How about heterosexual? How about being forced to wear flip-flops and jeans? Where, exactly, do we draw the line? Isn't it MORE desirable to live in a country where we're all allowed to be who we are, each of us cherishing the heritages that make up our backgrounds?
Even those who agree with Harper and Kenney about what should be the law, should nonetheless realize that Kenney's rule, subsequently written into the applicable PDIs (see PDIs for Oath of Citizenship), is contrary to current citizenship law. And that is what the court's ruling is about: that the rule was contrary to the Citizenship Act and Citizenship Regulations. (While some media sources have confusedly referred to "regulation" when actually referring to the "rule" about facial coverings, to be clear a Regulation is law, adopted as such pursuant to the prescribed process for adding or amending the Regulations. The rule regarding facial coverings while taking the oath, initially issued in a directive by Jason Kenney when he was Minister of CIC, is not consistent with or supported by the existing statutes and regulations. In other words, the rule is illegal.)
The Minister of CIC cannot change the law by issuing a directive. Even if it is a law which should be changed.
The decision, an easy one actually, made by Justice Boswell in the Federal Court, and this past week upheld by three justices in the Federal Court of Appeal, is NOT about Charter rights. It is about what is prescribed by the Citizenship Act and Citizenship Regulations.
There is virtually no doubt about Harper and Kenney being wrong. The rule is contrary to existing law.
What should be the policy is a different question. Reasonable people can disagree about what the policy should be. Reasonable people cannot, however, legitimately argue that the Minister can implement policy contrary to current law.
There are procedures, democratic procedures, for bringing about changes in the law. This is hardly the first time that Harper, Kenney, or Alexander have proceeded to govern by fiat rather than to follow the rule of law.
Leading to the following observations:
There is no irony in the fact that the court's decision is based on what is prescribed by the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations (see Zunera Ishaq and the Minister, that the court ruled (and now affirmed by the Court of Appeals) that Jason Kenney's directive was, essentially, ultra vires, that is contrary to the law itself . . . the court seeing no need to decide whether the rule CIC was implementing was a breach of the Charter, since the rule was simply not supported by the laws governing citizenship.
I say there is no irony in this because Harper and Kenney and Alexander have long acted with little regard for what the law is, governing more or less by fiat. They decide what is right and govern accordingly.
This was the case when Kenney terminated the Permanent Resident applications for many, many thousands of applicants who had been in the queue for years. Not only was that in blatant contravention of the applicable law at the time, but Harper and Kenney knew it was and went ahead and implemented their illegal plan anyway. Why? Why, when they knew the courts would clearly rule against the government about this? They did it to buy time. They did it deliberately despite knowing it was not legal, and did it to buy time. They devised this plan, apparently with little regard for the legalities, and then became aware of the legalities (I'm guessing Ben Perrin played a significant role in this, since he was Harper' go-to guy on immigration), so they went ahead with the plan so they could at least terminate processing applications while that was being argued in the courts (knowing full well they would lose), and in the meantime introduced legislation to amend IRPA to make the termination of the backlog applications legal. It takes time to introduce and pass new legislation, even with a majority in Parliament willing to forego consultations, committee studies, and debate, and other vestiges of democratic process. In any event, Harper and Kenney were willing to do what they knew the law did not allow. Never mind the cost to taxpayers. Never mind the rule of law.
This has been an all-too common pattern.
The rule that prohibited facial coverings during the taking of the oath at a citizenship ceremony has no legal basis, and as the Federal Court ruled, per Justice Boswell (and recently upheld by the Court of Appeals), contradicts the existing law. The rule is merely a directive initially issued by Jason Kenney and more recently written into the Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) (See PDIs for Oath of Citizenship.)
Here's the thing: reasonable people may disagree about the policy. The policy underlying the wholesale termination of the backlog of skilled worker PR applications may have been the best policy. And many Canadians may very well agree with Harper and company that facial coverings should be prohibited during the taking the oath of citizenship.
But implementing policy contrary to existing law, even if it is the better policy, is an abuse of power. And when it is a deliberate, knowing abuse of power it is egregious, and should not be tolerated.
If there were only these isolated instances that would be one thing, but from how Kenney went about terminating the previous parent and grandparent sponsorship program (taking more than two years to later implement a very different program which heavily favours the affluent), lying to the public and claiming he was just implementing a "brief pause" in processing applications, to how Harper rammed Bill C-23 (the mis-named Fair Elections Act) through with minimal consultations or committee study or debate, this government has been persistently undemocratic and acting contrary to the rule of law.
This underlies what so many have been trying to illuminate about Harper's Conservatives: even if you agree with their policies, the way they go about governing is wrong, way, way wrong. Not good for Canada. Not consistent with basic principles of democracy.
Which leads back to the Zunera Ishaq case: again, no matter how many people agree with Harper and Kenney and Alexander about this, that does not justify the government acting ultra vires contrary to the existing law. Even a sitting government is obligated, if it disagrees with the existing law, to change the law, not act contrary to it.
Jason Kenney has announced the government will appeal this to the Supreme Court. One has to ask "appeal on what grounds?" All that Harper and Kenney have said in support of this policy is that Canadians support it or why it should be the government's policy. They really have not even tried to suggest the law is on their side. They know the appeal will fail. But they will appeal anyway. That's an abuse of power.
So why are Harper and Kenney (technically it should be Alexander since he is the Minister of CIC) pursuing this further? It is clearly, absolutely, partisan posturing, totally about election campaign posturing.
Sure, all parties, all party leaders, will engage in partisan posturing, and more so during an election campaign. But this is about abusing Canada's legal system for the purpose of election campaign posturing, about a blatant abuse of power, and continuing to block the citizenship of an individual who has already been determined to be qualified for citizenship.
Of course Kenney is no stranger to abusing power to block the grant of citizenship to qualified PRs. The policies he implemented in secret, in April 2012, led to the virtual shut down of citizenship processing for nearly a year and resulted in years of delay for nearly a half million qualified applicants. Much of OB 407 was eventually revealed as a result of numerous, persistent ATI applications, with some of its more important parts never disclosed to the public, but in the meantime its impact nearly crashed the entire citizenship application process.
The Minister of CIC cannot change the law by issuing a directive. Even if it is a law which should be changed.
The decision, an easy one actually, made by Justice Boswell in the Federal Court, and this past week upheld by three justices in the Federal Court of Appeal, is NOT about Charter rights. It is about what is prescribed by the Citizenship Act and Citizenship Regulations.
There is virtually no doubt about Harper and Kenney being wrong. The rule is contrary to existing law.
What should be the policy is a different question. Reasonable people can disagree about what the policy should be. Reasonable people cannot, however, legitimately argue that the Minister can implement policy contrary to current law.
There are procedures, democratic procedures, for bringing about changes in the law. This is hardly the first time that Harper, Kenney, or Alexander have proceeded to govern by fiat rather than to follow the rule of law.
Leading to the following observations:
There is no irony in the fact that the court's decision is based on what is prescribed by the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations (see Zunera Ishaq and the Minister, that the court ruled (and now affirmed by the Court of Appeals) that Jason Kenney's directive was, essentially, ultra vires, that is contrary to the law itself . . . the court seeing no need to decide whether the rule CIC was implementing was a breach of the Charter, since the rule was simply not supported by the laws governing citizenship.
I say there is no irony in this because Harper and Kenney and Alexander have long acted with little regard for what the law is, governing more or less by fiat. They decide what is right and govern accordingly.
This was the case when Kenney terminated the Permanent Resident applications for many, many thousands of applicants who had been in the queue for years. Not only was that in blatant contravention of the applicable law at the time, but Harper and Kenney knew it was and went ahead and implemented their illegal plan anyway. Why? Why, when they knew the courts would clearly rule against the government about this? They did it to buy time. They did it deliberately despite knowing it was not legal, and did it to buy time. They devised this plan, apparently with little regard for the legalities, and then became aware of the legalities (I'm guessing Ben Perrin played a significant role in this, since he was Harper' go-to guy on immigration), so they went ahead with the plan so they could at least terminate processing applications while that was being argued in the courts (knowing full well they would lose), and in the meantime introduced legislation to amend IRPA to make the termination of the backlog applications legal. It takes time to introduce and pass new legislation, even with a majority in Parliament willing to forego consultations, committee studies, and debate, and other vestiges of democratic process. In any event, Harper and Kenney were willing to do what they knew the law did not allow. Never mind the cost to taxpayers. Never mind the rule of law.
This has been an all-too common pattern.
The rule that prohibited facial coverings during the taking of the oath at a citizenship ceremony has no legal basis, and as the Federal Court ruled, per Justice Boswell (and recently upheld by the Court of Appeals), contradicts the existing law. The rule is merely a directive initially issued by Jason Kenney and more recently written into the Program Delivery Instructions (PDIs) (See PDIs for Oath of Citizenship.)
Here's the thing: reasonable people may disagree about the policy. The policy underlying the wholesale termination of the backlog of skilled worker PR applications may have been the best policy. And many Canadians may very well agree with Harper and company that facial coverings should be prohibited during the taking the oath of citizenship.
But implementing policy contrary to existing law, even if it is the better policy, is an abuse of power. And when it is a deliberate, knowing abuse of power it is egregious, and should not be tolerated.
If there were only these isolated instances that would be one thing, but from how Kenney went about terminating the previous parent and grandparent sponsorship program (taking more than two years to later implement a very different program which heavily favours the affluent), lying to the public and claiming he was just implementing a "brief pause" in processing applications, to how Harper rammed Bill C-23 (the mis-named Fair Elections Act) through with minimal consultations or committee study or debate, this government has been persistently undemocratic and acting contrary to the rule of law.
This underlies what so many have been trying to illuminate about Harper's Conservatives: even if you agree with their policies, the way they go about governing is wrong, way, way wrong. Not good for Canada. Not consistent with basic principles of democracy.
Which leads back to the Zunera Ishaq case: again, no matter how many people agree with Harper and Kenney and Alexander about this, that does not justify the government acting ultra vires contrary to the existing law. Even a sitting government is obligated, if it disagrees with the existing law, to change the law, not act contrary to it.
Jason Kenney has announced the government will appeal this to the Supreme Court. One has to ask "appeal on what grounds?" All that Harper and Kenney have said in support of this policy is that Canadians support it or why it should be the government's policy. They really have not even tried to suggest the law is on their side. They know the appeal will fail. But they will appeal anyway. That's an abuse of power.
So why are Harper and Kenney (technically it should be Alexander since he is the Minister of CIC) pursuing this further? It is clearly, absolutely, partisan posturing, totally about election campaign posturing.
Sure, all parties, all party leaders, will engage in partisan posturing, and more so during an election campaign. But this is about abusing Canada's legal system for the purpose of election campaign posturing, about a blatant abuse of power, and continuing to block the citizenship of an individual who has already been determined to be qualified for citizenship.
Of course Kenney is no stranger to abusing power to block the grant of citizenship to qualified PRs. The policies he implemented in secret, in April 2012, led to the virtual shut down of citizenship processing for nearly a year and resulted in years of delay for nearly a half million qualified applicants. Much of OB 407 was eventually revealed as a result of numerous, persistent ATI applications, with some of its more important parts never disclosed to the public, but in the meantime its impact nearly crashed the entire citizenship application process.
Sorry, that is simply not true, particularly the underlined bit. I understand the temptation to add that because it makes the inequity, real or perceived, ever so poignant.SenoritaBella said:
The "75, 80 or whatever cents for every dollar" statistics are invariably a comparison of the median earnings of male and female full-time wage and salary workers (30 or 35 hours/week and up). When you adjust for hours worked, education, tenure, etc., the wage gap largely disappears.
Not that there aren't valid questions, such as why women end up in jobs that don't pay as well, but framing the issue like you did makes it impossible to diagnose the actual problem.
I will finally get to vote this year, and as a proud Albertan, I lean right (on economic issues anyway). Kenney appears to be Harper's heir apparent, and I just shudder at the thought of him becoming PM one day... although some PC functionaries in Edmonton have told me that he had tried an internal coup some time ago and had fallen out of favour, which is hard to believe given the high profile ministries he's been handed, as well as his role in this campaign.dpenabill said:
At any rate, I would like to see the current leadership of the PCs just go away, and for that to happen they need to lose this election, badly. I just need to figure out who between the Libs and the NDP is the lesser evil. There's also a Marxist-Leninist running in my riding...
SenoritaBella
VIP Member
- Jan 2, 2012
- 194
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Dakar
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 08-01-2014
- AOR Received.
- 12-02-2014
- File Transfer...
- 25-02-2014
- Med's Request
- 02-11-2015
- Med's Done....
- 18-09-2013
- Passport Req..
- 02-11-2015
- VISA ISSUED...
- hopefully soon
- LANDED..........
- hopefully soon
Apples and oranges. In Canada, wearing a veil/face covering is not against the law. In Saudi Arabia, walking around shirtless may be against the law. So it's either Canada outlaws similar dressings (to be consistent with Saudi) or act like the multicultural and welcoming society it claims to be.
So no, when in Rome obey the laws there and when in Canada do same. It's the laws one has to respect not sensibilities borne out of prejudice.
So no, when in Rome obey the laws there and when in Canada do same. It's the laws one has to respect not sensibilities borne out of prejudice.
polara69 said:
In Canada, you have the right to express your opinion. And I have the right to express my opposition to your opinion. Isn't it wonderful?!polara69 said:
I have made no ad hominem attacks against you, I have not attacked <i>you</i>, but rather your positions. Your right to free speech does not protect your speech from critical review or even ridicule.
keesio
VIP Member
- May 16, 2012
- 396
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-O
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 09-01-2013
- Doc's Request.
- 09-07-2013
- AOR Received.
- 30-01-2013
- File Transfer...
- 11-02-2013
- Med's Done....
- 02-01-2013
- Interview........
- waived
- Passport Req..
- 12-07-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 15-08-2013
- LANDED..........
- 14-10-2013
Identification is my only issue regarding wearing outfits that can conceal one's identification. It is said that CIC walks around and makes sure everyone is saying the oath by watching people's lips. How did they resolve this so that it is now moot?SenoritaBella said:
I thought you'd get it by nowtds69us said:
There are two types of people in this forum. The first are genuine citizenship applicants who come here to get information, exchange news and encourage each other. The second are the anti-immigrant racial/cultural supremacist scum who use the forum as a venue to direct their sick hatred towards the to-be and the new Canadians.
So to answer your questions: threads like this are just their way to release some steam
My advice to ignore them all together and continue with your life. There is a proverb in my mother tongue: fire eats itself if it doesn't find anything to eat.