Kirpan Policy for Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs Introduced for B.C. Courthouses

[Wetcoaster]

It's politics, dude. Note that the same BC government forked out millions to bring a film festival to score points with the Indian community.

[Buggernut]

Nothing to do with politics.

[Wetcoaster]

Of course, pandering to special interests does.

What do you think the general Canadian population's opinion on this is? Are they for this double standard? If anything, they should and probably do feel resentful that they are held to a lower level of trust than the Sikhs are as far as carrying sharp pointy objects into courtrooms, regardless of religious beliefs, even if the chances of them being abused are small.

You really should try and think outside the box of this sacred Constitution of yours. You might think it makes us better than those Americans, but did the people of Canada really get any vote and say on whether exceptions of this sort should be made to "accomodate" other religious beliefs, or would that be "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner" to you?

[Buggernut]

You equate compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with "pandering to special interest groups"?? That is a very odd formulation.

As explained numerous times in this thread there is no "double standard". The whole point of the Charter is it allows a minority to protect its rights (such as religious freedom) and to do so you must of course be a member of that minority group. That seems to be something that you continually fail to comprehend. That is not a "double standard" it is simply a fact of how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to operate.

[Wetcoaster]

From a logical, physical and literal standpoint, it is a double standard. One guy can take in a blade, and another can't. And no, it's not a matter of not understanding it. It's a matter of not accepting it. As a nonreligious secularist pragmatist, I believe there should be no bending the rules for any religion. If it's not a medical requirement, it should not be admitted. The state should neither make exceptions for nor against any religious groups.

[GLASSJAW]

It is not a double standard form any standpoint. You have demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic concepts through this thread.

You can believe what you wish but that does not change reality. The first thing that would have to happen to reach your vision of Canada would be to remove the guarantee to freedom of religion. I do not see that happening anytime in the near future but you are free to have at it and try to amend the Charter.

Education about basic democratic values and our Constitution is brainwashing?

If so it seems you would have benefited greatly from such "brainwashing".

The patriation package was voted upon as I set out. You do understand what a representative democracy is, do you not?

[Wetcoaster]

every time I read a wetcoaster post, it starts with something like this

[Buggernut]

It is not a double standard form any standpoint. You have demonstrated an inability to comprehend basic concepts through this thread.

You can believe what you wish but that does not change reality. The first thing that would have to happen to reach your vision of Canada would be to remove the guarantee to freedom of religion. I do not see that happening anytime in the near future but you are free to have at it and try to amend the Charter.

[Buggernut]

You would be mistaken.

In this case the concepts have been laid out clearly numerous times in the thread and the lack of comprehension is evident.

[Wetcoaster]

No, it means that I don't agree with them and don't take the Constitution for gospel, unlike yourself.

[Wetcoaster]

It is a double standard if you take religion to be irrelevant, which is exactly what we, in a modern, secular and enlightened society should be striving for in the 21st century. Freedom of religion is fine, but no law or public institution should have to cater to the specific aspects of any. Maybe a couple of more generations of this forced and socially engineered "multiculturalism" will bring about so much conflict that they'll one day impose the French approach to secularism.

Teaching them about values is one thing. Instilling the values (as mentioned in that quote) into them is something else altogether.

So politicians got to vote on our behalf, not we the common ordinary people. I'm pretty sure this form of "democracy" failed to actually bring about the will of the people on this particular issue, among plenty of others.