So What’s A Progressive Voter To Do?

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

alan smithee wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Singh as he dresses everyday on the campaign trail would not be allowed into the Quebec National Assembly but Elizabeth with her nice Christian cross around her neck would be allowed in no problem but heaven forbid anyone call it xenophobia or racism.

 The rednecks in Quebec live in Quebec City and the regions. These are the degenerates that elected CAQ.

This issue is all about the CAQ, La Meute and regional bigots.

Singh can wear his turban, a Jewish person can wear their yulemuka (pardon the incorrect spelling) and a muslim can wear a hijab. If you follow what is going on in Quebec with Loi 21. it is deeply unpopular with those living around the Island. I can`t see how CAQ will enforce this law. My guess is they can`t and it was just a nod and wink to their core supporters La Meute.

Jagmeet wears his kirpan everyday and would not be allowed into the National Assembly with it on.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Singh as he dresses everyday on the campaign trail would not be allowed into the Quebec National Assembly but Elizabeth with her nice Christian cross around her neck would be allowed in no problem but heaven forbid anyone call it xenophobia or racism.

 The rednecks in Quebec live in Quebec City and the regions. These are the degenerates that elected CAQ.

This issue is all about the CAQ, La Meute and regional bigots.

Singh can wear his turban, a Jewish person can wear their yulemuka (pardon the incorrect spelling) and a muslim can wear a hijab. If you follow what is going on in Quebec with Loi 21. it is deeply unpopular with those living around the Island. I can`t see how CAQ will enforce this law. My guess is they can`t and it was just a nod and wink to their core supporters La Meute.

Jagmeet wears his kirpan everyday and would not be allowed into the National Assembly with it on.

I`m not disputing that. At the National Assembly they MIGHT get away with it but to enforce this all over the province will be near impossible if not totally impossible.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I only said he couldn't get into the NA so I am not sure what strawman you thought you were pummeling.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

 

 

 

Quote:

Yes, but hurt Bombardier?

Might hurt the aircraft division but would help the rail division based in Thunder Bay.  Although personally I think it should be nationalized.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

radiorahim wrote:

Quote:

Yes, but hurt Bombardier?

Might hurt the aircraft division but would help the rail division based in Thunder Bay.  Although personally I think it should be nationalized.

Given over the last few decades we have bailed it out for more than its worth I think we should already own it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I only said he couldn't get into the NA so I am not sure what strawman you thought you were pummeling.

There was no straw man. That's only in your mind. I was telling you that provincially this law cannot survive.

If for some reason I was Singh and went to the NA and was told to take off my turban, I wouldn't comply and I'd call their bluff. It's not a realistic law. It has no legs to stand on. Do you really think they'd arrest him if he refused? Not a chance in hell

Misfit Misfit's picture

radiorahim wrote:
We had a via rail service that ran from Saskatoon to Regina to Winnipeg and return. It was cancelled. We need more of this.

 

 

Quote:

Yes, but hurt Bombardier?

Might hurt the aircraft division but would help the rail division based in Thunder Bay.  Although personally I think it should be nationalized.

Yes. Agreed.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

alan smithee wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I only said he couldn't get into the NA so I am not sure what strawman you thought you were pummeling.

There was no straw man. That's only in your mind. I was telling you that provincially this law cannot survive.

If for some reason I was Singh and went to the NA and was told to take off my turban, I wouldn't comply and I'd call their bluff. It's not a realistic law. It has no legs to stand on. Do you really think they'd arrest him if he refused? Not a chance in hell

Boy try to get a coherent argument together before you post, your losing it. I am not talking about Bill 21 and never was.

Quebec's top court has upheld the right of the National Assembly to prohibit people from entering with a kirpan.

Two members of the World Sikh Organization of Canada were challenging a unanimous motion adopted in the national assembly in February 2011.

The motion stated that security personnel had the right to refuse entry to anyone who did not want to remove the religious symbol.

Balpreet Singh and Harminder Kaur did not want to part with their kirpans as they headed into a legislature hearing to submit a brief in January 2011.

Originally, they argued the motion was unconstitutional but then changed their position to say it was legal but non-binding.

But Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Patrick Healy rejected their arguments in a decision Monday as he upheld a lower-court ruling that said the national assembly has the right to establish its own rules in accordance with parliamentary privilege.

Superior Court Justice Pierre Journet affirmed the authority of the legislature to "exclude kirpans from its precincts as an assertion of parliamentary privilege over the exclusion of strangers."

In his decision, Healy referred to a Supreme Court ruling that said a provincial legislature could invoke the privilege to exclude strangers to prevent journalists from filming in the precincts of the assembly.

"The Supreme Court confirmed that these general principles formed part of Canadian constitutional law and held specifically that the privilege to exclude strangers is entrenched in the Canadian Constitution," Healy wrote on behalf of a three-member panel.

"I make no comment whether the assembly's exercise of the privilege to exclude the kirpan is a wise decision.

"I say only that it is a legal exercise of this category of privilege. If the appellants wish to challenge it, the proper forum is the assembly itself."

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-s-top-court-upholds-kirpan-ban-at-the...

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm losing it? I have been more than respectful with you. I appreciate the info but maybe YOU are losing it. I said nothing that could be miscrued as offensive.

This is a law, regardless of what the courts say, that can't be enforce. 

The day a Sikh,Jew or Muslim is arrested for wearing their religious symbols, the province will be a laughing stock. It should get struck down by the SCoC. And if the assholes who have written laws prohibiting what they dress have a problem with it, Legault could use the not-withstanding clause or he could use it as an issue to revive talk of a referendum .Legault is a seperatist,he's a racist and he's already fucking over the very minorities that helped elect him and his shitty party on the South and North shores.

Bill 21 or not, it goes against the Charter. Look it up.

Misfit Misfit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I'm losing it? I have been more than respectful with you. I appreciate the info but maybe YOU are losing it. I said nothing that could be miscrued as offensive.

This is a law, regardless of what the courts say, that can't be enforce. 

The day a Sikh,Jew or Muslim is arrested for wearing their religious symbols, the province will be a laughing stock. It should get struck down by the SCoC. And if the assholes who have written laws prohibiting what they dress have a problem with it, Legault could use the not-withstanding clause or he could use it as an issue to revive talk of a referendum .Legault is a seperatist,he's a racist and he's already fucking over the very minorities that helped elect him and his shitty party on the South and North shores.

Bill 21 or not, it goes against the Charter. Look it up.

then why was it drafted? Why go to all that work to draft a bill that is unconstitutional and that will be thrown out in the SCoC?

Just a political stunt? Why???

Just to get a referendum on separation??? 

NorthReport

 

It’s time for Fox News to dump the cult of Trump and also time for the Toronto Star to dump the cult of Trudeau

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/entertainment/opinion/2019/09/27/its-time-for-fox-news-to-dump-the-cult-of-trump.html

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Misfit wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm losing it? I have been more than respectful with you. I appreciate the info but maybe YOU are losing it. I said nothing that could be miscrued as offensive.

This is a law, regardless of what the courts say, that can't be enforce. 

The day a Sikh,Jew or Muslim is arrested for wearing their religious symbols, the province will be a laughing stock. It should get struck down by the SCoC. And if the assholes who have written laws prohibiting what they dress have a problem with it, Legault could use the not-withstanding clause or he could use it as an issue to revive talk of a referendum .Legault is a seperatist,he's a racist and he's already fucking over the very minorities that helped elect him and his shitty party on the South and North shores.

Bill 21 or not, it goes against the Charter. Look it up.

then why was it drafted? Why go to all that work to draft a bill that is unconstitutional and that will be thrown out in the SCoC?

Just a political stunt? Why???

Just to get a referendum on separation??? 

Sadly they were elected mostly by the regions.Quebec City/... I wouldn't call it a stunt, it's more parallel with Trump's Wall.

There is no way this law is going to rid people from their religions. Muslim woimrn will still wear the hijab, Jewish people will still be able to wear the you yulmulka (sorry if I butchered the spelling) Sikhs will still be abl;e to wear a turban....what is going to happen if people (anf they will) disobey this law? Arrest them? If so, there will be a religion Gestapo and it will become a national outrage.

Legault's regime was quick to pass loi 21 to appease La Meute and bigots from Quebec City and the regions. And that's their base.

The referendum part I can't forecast.But I believe that if the SCoC got involved or his base sees the law not being enforced, it could stoke the flames of sovereignty. 

This is why.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Quebec National Assembly like any provincial legislature may pass any thing it wants to not withstanding the Charter. Alan Blakeney insisted that clause had to be in the Constitution since he would not sign off on any document that gave the "Queen's" courts the absolute right to override parliament.

Pages