Title: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
I got into a debate the other day about the burka and the potential for it to be banned in Canada. For many, this issue is black and white but for me, it is difficult to reconcile based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
One of our charter rights is freedom of religion. Many folks from various religious backgrounds in Canada are free to wear their respective religious garb in public without issue. Some religious groups have fought laws for the right to wear religious items such as Sikhs being able to forgo wearing helmets while riding motorcycles because of their turbans.
That said, many of us see the Islamic religious garment the burka as an unacceptable covering of women and a sign of oppression. It is not a garment we readily accept in our society as it covers the face.
The legal philosophical question around banning the burka remains outside of our personal comfort and with our first Charter right which states:
What limits can we demonstrably justify in a free and democratic society for taking away a person's clothing choice, especially in a religious context?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 11, 2017, 04:59:55 PM
Post by: Renee on April 11, 2017, 04:59:55 PM
Provided laws governing obscenity are not broken, I don't think you can take a person's clothing choice away based solely on western values.
You have to demonstrate that the particular style of dress or article of clothing is detrimental to the welfare and safety of others. That has to be supported almost completely by statistical probability.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 05:11:05 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 05:11:05 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 06:28:15 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 06:28:15 PM
Could Canada Ban the Burka?
It is not a garment we readily accept in our society as. [size=150]it covers the face[/size]
I don't know anything about your First Charter so I can't really do anything but speculate.
Here in the states where we have an ever-growing army of surveillance cameras and a steadily increasing capability to do computerized facial tomography and thus to identify people surveilled by these cameras, and a tendency by much of the population to tolerate these encroachments on personal privacy and other freedoms, I think it is probably only a matter of time before courts may hold that covering the face is intended to defeat these measures and is thus inimical to the society's normal function...and it constitutes a subtle attack on the general welfare.
While I myself do not accept any of that, still I see it coming anyway.
Perhaps this will be the "loophole" if you will, by which the burqa might be outlawed...by setting religious freedom against the public welfare in just this way.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 06:44:43 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 06:44:43 PM
Could Canada Ban the Burka?
It is not a garment we readily accept in our society as. [size=150]it covers the face[/size]
I don't know anything about your First Charter so I can't really do anything but speculate.
I provided the first Charter rule in the OP.
Here in the states where we have an ever-growing army of surveillance cameras and a steadily increasing capability to do computerized facial tomography and thus to identify people surveilled by these cameras, and a tendency by much of the population to tolerate these encroachments on personal privacy and other freedoms, I think it is probably only a matter of time before courts may hold that covering the face is intended to defeat these measures and is thus inimical to the society's normal function...and it constitutes a subtle attack on the general welfare.Quote
I'd like to make A couple points. First, the burqa came long before these surveillance measures. To say a face covering that pre-dates cameras is a means of avoiding surveillance is contrary to the purpose for the garb. The purpose of wearing a burqa is defined as an act of virtue not a means of disguise (an act to conceal one's identity or pretend to be someone else).
Perhaps this will be the "loophole" if you will, by which the burqa might be outlawed...by setting religious freedom against the public welfare in just this way.Quote
What "public welfare" is demonstrably being challenged by a Muslim woman covering her face in public?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 07:08:01 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 07:08:01 PM
I provided the first Charter rule in the OP.Quote from: "RW"
Yes, but since I lack the historical and philosophical familiarity I must modestly profess some ignorance, else be called out as a cheeky ferriner.
I'd like to make A couple points. First, the burqa came long before these surveillance measures. To say a face covering that pre-dates cameras is a means of avoiding surveillance is contrary to the purpose for the garb.
Perhaps, and for that matter you probably don't permit ex post facto laws just like we don't. However, I don't think your argument is ironclad if the society is looking for an excuse.
What "public welfare" is demonstrably being challenged by a Muslim woman covering her face in public?Quote
Just as I said, if "public welfare" is defined as the ability of the State to identify people visually then facial coverings will clearly contravene it.
I'm not talking about good logic or fair-minded thinking here. I'm talking about why the Law is frequently an ass, written by asses.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:26:50 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:26:50 PM
Yes, but since I lack the historical and philosophical familiarity I must modestly profess some ignorance, else be called out as a cheeky ferriner.Quote from: "Peaches"
Since when would that stop you? hehe
Perhaps, and for that matter you probably don't permit ex post facto laws just like we don't. However, I don't think your argument is ironclad if the society is looking for an excuse.Quote
I'm looking for that excuse. Is there one?
Just as I said, if "public welfare" is defined as the ability of the State to identify people visually then facial coverings will clearly contravene it.Quote
I'm not talking about good logic or fair-minded thinking here. I'm talking about why the Law is frequently an ass, written by asses.
Would that fall under your homeland security laws?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 07:28:51 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 07:28:51 PM
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 07:34:33 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 07:34:33 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:43:28 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:43:28 PM
What the hell does the burkha have to do with religion, even if you consider Islam a religion. The kranny does not specifically mention the garment. The wearing of a burkha is a Middle Eastern cultural tradition.Quote from: "Herman"
Religious texts do not need to specifically outline symbols or specific garments for them to be protected under the freedom of religion. One could also argue the burka would fall under "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
Islam, whether you like it or not, meets the Canadian legal definition of a religion.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 07:43:47 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 07:43:47 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:45:38 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:45:38 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:49:20 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:49:20 PM
Could the argument be made to justify abolishing religion as a whole under Section 1 of the Charter?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Hrm....
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 07:55:10 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 07:55:10 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:57:27 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 07:57:27 PM
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
What's the purpose of a disguise? Why would people disguise themselves?
Do people have the right to not show their faces in public if they choose?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 08:04:46 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 08:04:46 PM
That is what a burqha is.
Why do you think other countries banned it?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 08:08:41 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 08:08:41 PM
There is a crime on the statutes here, and I am sure there is in Canada to wear an article of disguise in public.Quote from: "Bricktop"
That is what a burqha is.
Why do you think other countries banned it?
The purpose of a burqa is concealment for purpose of virtue not to hide one's identity.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 08:16:36 PM
Post by: Bricktop on April 11, 2017, 08:16:36 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 08:17:17 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 08:17:17 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 08:51:37 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 08:51:37 PM
The purpose of being disguised does not exclude the fact that you are disguised.Quote from: "Bricktop"
No, it does not.
What's the legal definition of disguise?Quote from: "RW"
I think Bricktop covered this. I'd paraphrase his comment to say that the REASON for disguise does not make the disguise something other than a disguise.
And then I'd say that a disguise is a way of presenting oneself so as not to be recognized...or, so that one's identity cannot readily be discerned.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 09:09:20 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 09:09:20 PM
The purpose of being disguised does not exclude the fact that you are disguised.Quote from: "Bricktop"
No, it does not.What's the legal definition of disguise?Quote from: "RW"
I think Bricktop covered this. I'd paraphrase his comment to say that the REASON for disguise does not make the disguise something other than a disguise.
And then I'd say that a disguise is a way of presenting oneself so as not to be recognized...or,so that one's identity cannot readily be discerned.
You could say that about a ball cap, a wedding veil, a scarf, sunglasses, etc though. Where do you draw the line or is it the reason that matters the most?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 09:21:59 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 09:21:59 PM
many of us see the Islamic religious garment the burka as an unacceptable covering of women and a sign of oppression.Quote
We are in the twenty first century. How could anyone not see it for the oppressive prison garment it is.
A woman wearing a burkha is as offensive as this.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 09:27:48 PM
Post by: RW on April 11, 2017, 09:27:48 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
Are we allowed to offend others?Quote from: "RW"
Obviously yes, the burkha is allowed.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 09:47:39 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 09:47:39 PM
You could say that about a ball cap, a wedding veil, a scarf, sunglasses, etc though. Where do you draw the line or is it the reason that matters the most?
I think the intent is what matters. OTOH, if I go into my bank lobby instead of using the drive thru lane, there will be a sign telling me to remove my hat and sunglasses. The purpose of that bank rule is obvious, they want the cameras to see who the hell I am.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 11:10:15 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 11:10:15 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 11, 2017, 11:44:01 PM
Post by: Renee on April 11, 2017, 11:44:01 PM
Are we allowed to offend others?Quote from: "RW"
I am, and there ain't nothin you can do about it bitch....
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 11, 2017, 11:52:25 PM
Post by: Renee on April 11, 2017, 11:52:25 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.
Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?
If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 11:54:50 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 11, 2017, 11:54:50 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.
Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?
If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?
I don't know if that's a good analogy..
Children going door to door on a set day each year asking for candy is different than walking into a bank in April wearing a disguise.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 07:30:35 AM
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 07:30:35 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.
Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?
If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?
I don't know if that's a good analogy..
Children going door to door on a set day each year asking for candy is different than walking into a bank in April wearing a disguise.
The age of the individual and frequency of use of said disguise is irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is it's unlawfulness based on the inability to identify the wearer.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 08:05:59 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 08:05:59 AM
If someone walks into a Shell station at eleven pm wearing a mask, the store clerk's heart probably starts racing
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 08:29:19 AM
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 08:29:19 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.
Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?
If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?
I don't know if that's a good analogy..
Children going door to door on a set day each year asking for candy is different than walking into a bank in April wearing a disguise.
The age of the individual and frequency of use of said disguise is irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is it's unlawfulness based on the inability to identify the wearer.
But even if age is irrelevant, Halloween is only limited to one day, kinda like how fireworks are only allowed on Victoria or a national day. Plｕｓ Ｉ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ there has been cases where a burka was considered as a obstruction of justice where male terrorists disguise themselves in one to flee from the crime scene ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｒｉｖｅｄ．
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 08:29:56 AM
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 08:29:56 AM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 08:31:52 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 08:31:52 AM
ｇａｈ， ｓｔｕｐｉｄ ｆｏｎｔｓ ｍｅｓｓｅｄ ｕｐ ｗｉｔｈ ｍｙ ｃｈｉｎｅｓｅ ｃｈａｒａｃｔｅｒ ｔｅｘｔ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ ｏｎ ｍｙ ｗｏｒｋ ｐｃ， ｌｏｌ．Quote from: "Zetsu"
It happens Zetsu.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 08:46:32 AM
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 08:46:32 AM
ｇａｈ， ｓｔｕｐｉｄ ｆｏｎｔｓ ｍｅｓｓｅｄ ｕｐ ｗｉｔｈ ｍｙ ｃｈｉｎｅｓｅ ｃｈａｒａｃｔｅｒ ｔｅｘｔ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ ｏｎ ｍｙ ｗｏｒｋ ｐｃ， ｌｏｌ．Quote from: "Zetsu"
It happens Zetsu.
ac_smile
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 10:24:25 AM
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 10:24:25 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.
Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?
If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?
I don't know if that's a good analogy..
Children going door to door on a set day each year asking for candy is different than walking into a bank in April wearing a disguise.
The age of the individual and frequency of use of said disguise is irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is it's unlawfulness based on the inability to identify the wearer.
But even if age is irrelevant, Halloween is only limited to one day, kinda like how fireworks are only allowed on Victoria or a national day. Plｕｓ Ｉ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ there has been cases where a burka was considered as a obstruction of justice where male terrorists disguise themselves in one to flee from the crime scene ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｒｉｖｅｄ．
Again, the frequency of the wearing of said disguise is not the issue.
A statement was made claiming that an "article of disguise" is "unlawful". Does that statement apply to ALL "articles of disguise" or are we attempting to single out a religious garment by using a prejudiced POV?
Example....it's Halloween night, a group of adolescents enter a convenience store in costume to pick up some junk food for a party. They are unrecognizable. There are cameras in place around the store and in this case, facial recognition is not possible. The teens purchase a few items and then leave......Did they break the law in any way?
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 10:41:50 AM
Post by: Zetsu on April 12, 2017, 10:41:50 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that whilst the world around us changes, becomes more dangerous, more turbulent and less peaceful, humankind, especially the variety that lives in free and open democracies, believe that a "constitution" or "charter" is so sacrosanct that to change it would be akin to making an alteration to E= MC2.Quote from: "Bricktop"
These charters were drawn up in different times, in a different world, and for different reasons.
The world is at war, and your enemy wears a garment that conceals them from identification as they walk amongst us.
Other countries have banned the burqha, without concern over anachronistic bullshit motherhood statements. So should ours. And yours.
Our Charter was written in 1982. That's hardly "a different world". It's also designed, as shown in our first Charter right, to have our rights, including freedom of religion, limited as DEMONSTRABLY JUSTIFIED in a free and democratic society. That doesn't mean we do what other countries do. That means we have to satisfy our society when it comes to impositions on our people.
So what's the justification?
1982.
35 years ago.
In the interim, we have witnessed 2 wars in Iraq, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the rise of China as the dominant economy, the invention of the smart phone, internet, and drones. We have experienced terrorism under the banner of islam at an unprecedented rate, and the rise of islamic extremism to levels where its practitioners occupy entire countries.
But no...let's stick to our "kumbaya" charters that have no relevance to the modern world.
Islam in its many forms has declared war on the west. The West has a responsibility to protect its citizens, not some fanciful piece of warm and fuzzy ideology enshrined in a worthless piece of paper.
Tell me, would you stroll the streets of Tehran, Kabul, Damascus or Baghdad in your shorts and tank top?
Sorry, my point was that our Charter is designed to stay relevant. That's what Section 1 does. It affords us that flexibility.
Okay, we need to protect citizens. How does not allowing women in Canada to wear the burka accomplish that?
The burqha is by its very definition an article of disguise.
There is NO reasonable justification for its use. It serves no purpose other than to conceal the identity of its wearer.
It is unlawful.
If I might...let's explore this " article of disguise" and it's unlawfulness.
Do you think anything that disguises the identity of the wearer should be considered "unlawful"?
If so, what about the wearing of a Halloween costume? Should that be considered "unlawful"? Does it not disguise the identify of the wearer?
I don't know if that's a good analogy..
Children going door to door on a set day each year asking for candy is different than walking into a bank in April wearing a disguise.
The age of the individual and frequency of use of said disguise is irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is it's unlawfulness based on the inability to identify the wearer.
But even if age is irrelevant, Halloween is only limited to one day, kinda like how fireworks are only allowed on Victoria or a national day. Plｕｓ Ｉ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ there has been cases where a burka was considered as a obstruction of justice where male terrorists disguise themselves in one to flee from the crime scene ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｒｉｖｅｄ．
Again, the frequency of the wearing of said disguise is not the issue.
A statement was made claiming that an "article of disguise" is unlawful. Does that statement apply to ALL "articles of disguise" or are we attempting to single out a religious garment by using a prejudiced POV?
Example....it's Halloween night, a group of adolescents enter a convenience store in costume, unrecognizable. There are cameras in place around the store and in this case facial recognition is not possible. The teens purchase a few items and then leave......Did they break the law in anyway?
I think it's ok if it's on Halloween night, kinda like making fireworks only legal on the national day. Then they should either ban all disguise or at least on private property, or make it legal on Halloween night, duno lol. The problem with Islam is there's some part of it is so messed up I can start to find some resemblance with some devil worshipping cult that are strictly illegal.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 10:55:42 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 10:55:42 AM
Again, the frequency of the wearing of said disguise is not the issue.
A statement was made claiming that an "article of disguise" is unlawful. Does that statement apply to ALL "articles of disguise" or are we attempting to single out a religious garment by using a prejudiced POV?
I don't subscribe to the statement itself since it's too general. I don't think all disguise is necessarily unlawful, nor should it be. But instead of trying to be "lawyerly" or split hairs, I'll just say what I believe.
First, the burqa is by its very function a disguise (just as a halloween mask is.)
Second, if disguise in public were to be criminalized without singling out the burqa, and the law met the test of promoting the general welfare, that law would probably be legally sound.
Third, local law enforcement would probably be selective in enforcing such a law on carefully considered occasions such as Halloween, and no one would mind. Such exceptions could even be written into our hypothetical law without weakening it.
Fourth, I don't even think it would be out of line to write a law SINGLING OUT the burqa and saying that the public welfare and security can easily be endangered by its use...and therefore, we can't afford to allow it worn in public EVEN THOUGH a claim is made that such wearing has a religious basis.
Here in the states, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Although not clearly enumerated in our Bill of Rights, there is a principle well established in case law that holds that my right to extend my arm in a crowd and swing it back and forth ends at your nose.
In other words, public safety trumps the "free" exercise of even specifically delineated rights.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 11:13:34 AM
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 11:13:34 AM
Again, the frequency of the wearing of said disguise is not the issue.
A statement was made claiming that an "article of disguise" is unlawful. Does that statement apply to ALL "articles of disguise" or are we attempting to single out a religious garment by using a prejudiced POV?
I don't subscribe to the statement itself since it's too general. I don't think all disguise is necessarily unlawful, nor should it be. But instead of trying to be "lawyerly" or split hairs, I'll just say what I believe.
First, the burqa is by its very function a disguise (just as a halloween mask is.)
Second, if disguise in public were to be criminalized without singling out the burqa, and the law met the test of promoting the general welfare, that law would probably be legally sound.
Third, local law enforcement would probably be selective in enforcing such a law on carefully considered occasions such as Halloween, and no one would mind. Such exceptions could even be written into our hypothetical law without weakening it.
Fourth, I don't even think it would be out of line to write a law SINGLING OUT the burqa and saying that the public welfare and security can easily be endangered by its use...and therefore, we can't afford to allow it worn in public EVEN THOUGH a claim is made that such wearing has a religious basis.
Here in the states, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," If the US wanted to outlaw the burqa, it could still do so by finding a way to remove the burqa from a religious context. One obvious way would be to note that in some cases, wearing and detonating an explosive vest or belt is an expression of religion also...but it's not a protected act BECAUSE it endangers the lives and safety of others. [size=150]or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/size]
Although not clearly enumerated in our Bill of Rights, there is a principle well established in case law that holds that my right to extend my arm in a crowd and swing it back and forth ends at your nose.
In other words, public safety trumps the "free" exercise of even specifically delineated rights.
Okay, I agree with everything you just said BUT for the explosive vest thing. There are a lot of different articles of clothing that can hide explosive devices or weapons that have no religious affiliation.
Where does that qualification of being a danger to the welfare of the general public begin and end?
In one of my previous posts in this thread, I stated that any legislation banning something like a burka, will require reasonable proof of the statistical probably that it is a danger to the public.
Now, millions of women across the globe wear these God damn black bags and so far it seems that a very, very small percentage are packing exploding underwear. Given that, where would we find the basis that says a burka is any more dangerous to the public than the average trench coat?
The basis would have to come from the religious affiliation of the wearer and that brings us right back to the quandary of barring an article of clothing based on religious prejudices.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:20:35 AM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:20:35 AM
Can a burqa be used during a crime to conceal a criminal? Yes. But so can a hat, a scarf, a robe, a dress, a trench coat - none of those things are outlawed.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:21:21 AM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:21:21 AM
Again, the frequency of the wearing of said disguise is not the issue.
A statement was made claiming that an "article of disguise" is unlawful. Does that statement apply to ALL "articles of disguise" or are we attempting to single out a religious garment by using a prejudiced POV?
I don't subscribe to the statement itself since it's too general. I don't think all disguise is necessarily unlawful, nor should it be. But instead of trying to be "lawyerly" or split hairs, I'll just say what I believe.
First, the burqa is by its very function a disguise (just as a halloween mask is.)
Second, if disguise in public were to be criminalized without singling out the burqa, and the law met the test of promoting the general welfare, that law would probably be legally sound.
Third, local law enforcement would probably be selective in enforcing such a law on carefully considered occasions such as Halloween, and no one would mind. Such exceptions could even be written into our hypothetical law without weakening it.
Fourth, I don't even think it would be out of line to write a law SINGLING OUT the burqa and saying that the public welfare and security can easily be endangered by its use...and therefore, we can't afford to allow it worn in public EVEN THOUGH a claim is made that such wearing has a religious basis.
Here in the states, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," If the US wanted to outlaw the burqa, it could still do so by finding a way to remove the burqa from a religious context. One obvious way would be to note that in some cases, wearing and detonating an explosive vest or belt is an expression of religion also...but it's not a protected act BECAUSE it endangers the lives and safety of others. [size=150]or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/size]
Although not clearly enumerated in our Bill of Rights, there is a principle well established in case law that holds that my right to extend my arm in a crowd and swing it back and forth ends at your nose.
In other words, public safety trumps the "free" exercise of even specifically delineated rights.
Okay, I agree with everything you just said BUT for the explosive vest thing. There are a lot of different articles of clothing that can hide explosive devices or weapons that have no religious affiliation.
Where does that qualification of being a danger to the welfare of the general public begin and end?
In one of my previous posts in this thread, I stated that any legislation banning something like a burka, will require reasonable proof of the statistical probably that it is a danger to the public.
Now, millions of women across the globe wear these God damn black bags and so far it seems that a very, very small percentage are packing exploding underwear. Given that, where would we find the basis that says a burka is any more dangerous to the public than the average trench coat?
The basis would have to come from the religious affiliation of the wearer and that brings us right back to the quandary of barring an article of clothing based on religious prejudices.
Great minds and all ... bitch.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
Okay, I agree with everything you just said BUT for the explosive vest thing. There are a lot of different articles of clothing that can hide explosive devices or weapons that have no religious affiliation.
True. and the explosive vest is really a horse of a different color. The matter of how you go about keeping explosives out of a crowd is a lot more complex than the wearing of a burqa.
Where does that qualification of being a danger to the welfare of the general public begin and end?Quote
Excellent question, and one that will be hard to answer in dealing with anarchy and terrorism in general.
I understand you, but I'm not sure that sort of proof is needed in the US in order to support such legislation. I think the key argument here will be that law enforcement is inconvenienced/hampered by disguise, and that the resulting risk is unacceptable.In one of my previous posts in this thread, I stated that any legislation banning something like a burka, will require reasonable proof of the statistical probably that it is a danger to the public.Quote
Now, millions of women across the globe wear these God damn black bags and so far it seems that a very, very small percentage are packing exploding underwear. Given that, where would we find the basis that says a burka is any more dangerous to the public than the average trench coat?Quote
When speaking of the burqa I am only concerned with the bag over the head. The body bag, as I understand it, is a different garment and not one I've been talking about. Also, I hope I didn't mislead you with the explosive vest thing. I'm still confining my argument against the burqa to its veiling of the face and head.
The basis would have to come from the religious affiliation of the wearer and that brings us right back to the quandary of barring an article of clothing based on religious prejudices.Quote
Yes, but unlike all other religious costumes the burqa does veil the face. I'm saying that the wearer can claim it's a religious choice but the state can say that it's not a choice we can allow, religion or no.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:48:19 AM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:48:19 AM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 11:53:32 AM
Post by: Renee on April 12, 2017, 11:53:32 AM
Yes the state can say that but here it needs to be "demonstrably justified". What demonstrably justifies the limitation?Quote from: "RW"
As Peaches said, it would have to be up to law enforcement to make the case that it hampers their ability to keep the public safe.
Here in the US any legislation subscribing to that premise would undoubtedly end up challenged in the courts. Then it would be up to judicial branch of the government to sort it out.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 01:49:05 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 01:49:05 PM
Yes the state can say that but here it needs to be "demonstrably justified". What demonstrably justifies the limitation?Quote from: "RW"
I don't know your jurisprudence well enough to touch the question. Whatever "demonstrably justified" means in Canada, it has no clear parallel here.
One of the phrases we like in the States is "clear and present danger." Lawyers love that kind of bullshit because it both sounds awesome and guarantees them lots of future work.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 01:51:42 PM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 01:51:42 PM
Yes the state can say that but here it needs to be "demonstrably justified". What demonstrably justifies the limitation?Quote from: "RW"
I don't know your jurisprudence well enough to touch the question. Whatever "demonstrably justified" means in Canada, it has no clear parallel here.
One of the phrases we like in the States is "clear and present danger." Lawyers love that kind of bullshit because it both sounds awesome and guarantees them lots of future work.
It means it requires some kind of demonstrable justification just like it says. Law makers need to be able to offer
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 02:18:24 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 02:18:24 PM
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 02:28:15 PM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 02:28:15 PM
As long as you keep using "demonstrably" to explain "demonstrably justifiable" I will remain in the dark. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just unclear on what sort of demonstration is involved other than persuasion and words. I've seen references to statistics and stuff...is that what is implied?Quote from: "Peaches"
Sorry, I am being lazy with my words.
Okay, take gun laws. You could point to tangible evidence that supports outlawing guns by providing statistics on crime and how it affects liberty and security of person, etc.
You need to establish there is a betterment to society by imposing limits to freedoms and that these limits are reasonable in our society.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 05:31:51 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 05:31:51 PM
As long as you keep using "demonstrably" to explain "demonstrably justifiable" I will remain in the dark. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just unclear on what sort of demonstration is involved other than persuasion and words. I've seen references to statistics and stuff...is that what is implied?Quote from: "Peaches"
Sorry, I am being lazy with my words.
Okay, take gun laws. You could point to tangible evidence that supports outlawing guns by providing statistics on crime and how it affects liberty and security of person, etc.
You need to establish there is a betterment to society by imposing limits to freedoms and that these limits are reasonable in our society.
Makes good sense. Here, we often write bad laws -- for emotional reasons or agenda-driven reasons, and then the courts end up having to sort it out.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 05:33:39 PM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 05:33:39 PM
As long as you keep using "demonstrably" to explain "demonstrably justifiable" I will remain in the dark. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just unclear on what sort of demonstration is involved other than persuasion and words. I've seen references to statistics and stuff...is that what is implied?Quote from: "Peaches"
Sorry, I am being lazy with my words.
Okay, take gun laws. You could point to tangible evidence that supports outlawing guns by providing statistics on crime and how it affects liberty and security of person, etc.
You need to establish there is a betterment to society by imposing limits to freedoms and that these limits are reasonable in our society.
Makes good sense. Here, we often write bad laws -- for emotional reasons or agenda-driven reasons, and then the courts end up having to sort it out.
I notice the creation of laws that are not only emotional but ones that are impossible to enforce. I say that without being able to recall an example off hand so take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 05:44:13 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 05:44:13 PM
I notice the creation of laws that are not only emotional but ones that are impossible to enforce. I say that without being able to recall an example off hand so take it with a grain of salt.
I'll give you one historical example here in my state. Beginning in the Reagan era, the eighties, some ten years after Roe v Wade, my state legislators passed a law that did not make abortion illegal, but saddled it with many ridiculous prerequisites that were clearly designed to limit or truncate the ability of many women to obtain an abortion. Someone immediately put together a test case, it went through the state appellate courts to the state supreme court and the law was voided in the court's Opinion.
The next year, they passed another anti-abortion law, almost word for word but with a few changes. Again the test case, again the legal process, the appeals, and again the supremes tossed out the new law.
For something like five or six consecutive years, the legislature wasted money in this way. It wasn't even the case that the group of legislators sponsoring and re-sponsoring the bills really believed in what they were doing, they happened to be from districts where the electorate was outraged over Roe v Wade and they were just unabashedly pandering to the voters in order to get re-elected.
It didn't end until the Dems got control of a key committee which just stopped passing the new bills out of committee and let them die there.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 06:48:46 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 12, 2017, 06:48:46 PM
Because we are talking about the philosophy of law.Quote from: "RW"
No, his post was blatantly partisan politics.
I have moved other posts that were overtly political from the main board.
He's talking about LAW and the process of setting laws which is political.
If you want to move this thread, I have no problem with that but his post is perfectly on point per the discussion of this thread.
I read his post, I know what he's talking about..
I'm not moving his post, just giving a reminder we have a sub for that kind of post.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 09:27:14 PM
Post by: RW on April 12, 2017, 09:27:14 PM
I have no problem with his response and I'm the author of the thread. If something in this thread belongs in Politics then the whole thread does.
Title: Re: Philosophy of Constitutional Law
Post by: RW on April 13, 2017, 09:50:57 PM
Post by: RW on April 13, 2017, 09:50:57 PM
In Canada, prostitution is technically legal. You are allowed to exchange money for sex. What you are not allowed to do is talk about the exchange of money for sex in public or the view of public or impede the flow of traffic as seen here:
213. Offence in relation to prostitutionQuote
213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Definition of "public place"
(2) In this section, "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.[size=85]Criminal Code of Canada[/size]
Personally, I think this is an unreasonable limit on freedom of speech.