Harper and the judiciary: chapter 34

News that the Federal Court of Appeal has allowed a Muslim woman to take her oath of citizenship in full face covering once again emphasizes the extent to which the mores of ordinary Canadians are being suppressed by the actions of our Volvo-drivers in ermine, the judicial caste. No one before 1982 would have thought it wise to propagate the most stringent application of Muslim sexual segregation through court rulings. It would have been impossible but for Trudeau’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has turned out largely to be the Court Party’s Charter of Rights and freedoms to overturn Canadian social customs as they see fit.

In this Harper is merely the stand-in for the average Canadian. The judiciary are not merely repudiating Mr. Harper, they are repudiating you, Mr and Mrs Average Canadian of good faith.

In that regard I wish Mr. Harper would give me some greater reason to vote for him than a steady hand on the economic tiller. I wish he would launch a root and branch attack on the presumptuousness of our judiciary.

Nevertheless, if this turns out to be a campaign issue, I think it would boost Mr. Harper among the people who vote. It is time for Canadians to seize control of this country from its over-mighty judiciary and Harper is the only way they can do it.

Bookmark and Share
Alain

I agree which is why it is imperative for the government to muster up the courage to invoke the not withstanding clause. Unelected judges do not have a mandate for deciding citizenship requirements. To accept this travesty of “justice” is an insult to the majority of Canadians. Everyone I know whatever their usual political leanings are outraged by this. There is no place in Canada for sharia law. If the government just rolls over on this important issue it will be the first time in my adult life that I shall not bother voting. Why vote when unelected judicial activists are able to decide our fate instead of the elected government. I am not alone in coming to this point.

chaos111_99

A muslim mother responds

Ban niqab, burka in all public places

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/15/ban-niqab-burka-in-all-public-places

NOTE the following.

The niqab and burka have nothing to do with Islam.

In November 2004, the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), Tariq Pervaiz Khan, ordered female lawyers not to wear face veils in courtrooms, saying they couldn’t be identified, nor assist the court properly while wearing veils.

old white guy

I don’t care what they wear, the followers of islam should not be allowed in Canada. anyone who’s religion says that it is ok to kill us should not be allowed in Canada. it should be considered a crime to even have Koran in your possession. that friends, is one fact that Canadians are unprepared to address.

Alain

On further reflection I must ask just how does this woman even meet the basic requirements of citizenship, since by this she has demonstrated that she does not respect our values, culture and laws with equality of the sexes being pretty basic. What she has demonstrated is that she intends to thumb her nose at her host country and its citizens and intends to impose foreign hostile and incompatible beliefs and behaviour on Canada and Canadians. Citizenship for foreigners is NOT a right; it is a privilege which must be earned. This alone should disqualify her from Canadian citizenship.

Alain

What do you not understand about foreigners becoming naturalised Canadians? I wrote nothing whatsoever nor even hinted about anyone already a citizen be it by birth or naturalised.

G

The canadian courts’ record with the Harper government speaks volumes about the ..supposed… impartiality of judges. The judiciary in this country have, without admitting it become another branch of opposition.

A friend once said, “If you roll a pair of dice 20 times and it comes up craps every time, then the dice are obviously loaded.

The shear number of judicial decisions against the conservatives is heavy evidence for judicial hostility and if that’s the case then the judge’s claim that they are impartial is a lie.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *