• Getting kicked in the face by a goat
• Leaving a baby on a bus
• Having to poop at your friend’s tiny studio apartment
• Accidentally drooling while speaking to a Super Model
• Being kidnapped by a drug cartel
• Swallowing a pill sideways
• Week-long Justin Bieber Music Festival
….but moving is what we are doing! Yep.
What do you think moving is worse than, Dear Reader?
It’s just one poll, election is far away, blah blah blah. But if those BC and PQ numbers are right, Harper doesn’t have far to go to secure another majority. Wow.
Quote:
Shocking! Appalling! Repression! The “Sisters” in question? Why, it’s the Colettine Poor Clare Order of nuns, that’s who.
Here’s a picture of one of them, practically nude:
I look forward to assorted politicians condemning this anti-women group of, er, women.
The full post:
Possible lawbreaker.
BR Ignatieff Veil
Source: The Canadian Press
Mar 27, 2010 3:13
MONTREAL – Michael Ignatieff is weighing in on the Muslim face-covering debate that’s raging in Quebec.
The federal Liberal leader says he supports controversial legislation that would force veiled women in Quebec to uncover their faces when receiving or delivering public services.
Ignatieff says the bill represents a “good Canadian balance” between religious freedom and equal treatment.
Some Muslim groups and other commentators have harshly denounced the bill, branding it as intolerant.
Ignatieff, however, says it’s “ridiculous” to say that Quebec is more intolerant than other parts of the country.
He says all modern societies are grappling with how to reasonably accommodate cultural and religious differences.
***
I’m not “grappling” with this one, personally. I don’t agree, at all, with the position that my party – or the governing party – have taken, here. That likely places me in a small minority, but I’m okay with that.
It’s fair to say, however, that I’m also not overly exercised about what Quebec proposes to do: it’s a poorly-drafted law, one that will face (so to speak) an inevitable constitutional challenge. I just cannot foresee such a law surviving a Section Two Charter review – nor it being regarded as particularly reasonable, under a Section One check.
On the other hand – if I am wrong, and I’m often wrong – and the law survives a Charter challenge, prepare yourself for the inevitable: every kook and bigot with some spare time on his hands may commence litigation against the Sikh’s turban and beard, the Jew’s kippah and the Hasidic’s Jew clothing, the Hindu’s tilak facial markings, the styles favoured by traditional Mennonites and the Amish, or perhaps even the ostentatious display of a nun’s habit. I mean, why not, right? Any one of those things may serve to obscure a person’s identity in some way. Fair’s fair.
There may indeed be occasions when the provision of certain government services reasonably require that we see a person’s face – checking a passport, crossing a border, perhaps even voting – when a person’s bona fides can’t otherwise be confirmed. But, say, popping by a government office to pay a parking ticket? Will the new law prohibit that, too?
I think we’re in rather dangerous territory, here, but I’m interested in your thoughts, as always.
The last elected Liberal leader, that is.
Quote:
Personally, I have always been a Liberal who opposed the anti-niqab hysteria, as here.
I sure don’t recall many other Liberals saying the same thing, at the time. And I particularly don’t remember any member of caucus – say, the one from Papineau – echoing my view, either.
Royal Niblet, currently in Miami, wanted this 1977 Hot Nasties tune to learn the guitar bits. Here it is. The rest of you, carry on as you were.
We could be seeing the Heat beat the Raptors. We could be packing. We could be watching the last House of Cards thing.
Instead, we’ll be at The Menzingers, because they are one of the greatest bands on Earth. Listen.
Dear #USpoli: Fact that 60-something has trouble with an email account isn't a scandal IT'S ENDEARING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Signed, Everyone
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 11, 2015