From: brewnoser2@gmail.com   
      
   Why?   
      
   1.  Because the courts have already ruled on the issue.  If Harper wants to   
   take it to the Supreme Court, he has to be re-elected first.  Good luck on   
   that one, Harper . . .   
      
   2.  The Quebec Charter of Values, which included the banning of wearing   
   crossed or hijabs in the workplace, was the reason for the fall of the PQ   
   under Pauline Marois, and the rise of the provincial Liberals under Philippe   
   Couillard.   
      
   3.  If Harper's appeal to the Supreme Court fails and it supports the federal   
   court, in allowing the niqab to be worn for oath taking and other ceremonies,   
   the issue is a dead one for ANY party . . .  PQ, Liberals, NDP or the Cons.   
      
   Here's the 'baloney meter' on the issue:   
   _____________________________________________   
      
   Baloney Meter: How meaningful is the Bloc's promise to ban veiled voting, oath   
   taking?   
      
   Duceppe:   
   "The first bill the Bloc Quebecois will introduce is forbidding voting wearing   
   a face covering, oath of citizenship or granting (public) services with a face   
   covering." Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said in Thursday's televised leaders'   
   debate.   
      
   Harper has vowed, if re-elected, to introduce a law that would ban newcomers   
   from taking the oath of citizenship with their faces covered.     
      
   Harper:   
   His government is already seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court a   
   ruling that struck down a ministerial directive requiring new citizens to show   
   their faces   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   while taking the oath.   
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
      
   The Facts:   
      
   Since the Bloc is running candidates only in Quebec, it can't form a   
   government. Thus, the only way the Bloc could introduce legislation is through   
   a private members' bill.   
      
   Duceppe's proposed bill might stand a better chance of success if the   
   Conservatives are re-elected, since they've demonstrated a similar desire to   
   ban face coverings, at least during citizenship ceremonies and while voting.   
      
   But even should a Bloc bill pass Parliament, it would likely wind up being   
   challenged as a violation of the Charter of Rights, which guarantees freedom   
   of religion and equality before and under the law.   
      
   The Experts   
      
   Constitutional law experts believe banning women from wearing veils while   
   taking the citizenship oath or providing public services would almost   
   certainly be struck down by the courts as a violation of religious freedom and   
   equality rights.   
      
   Ottawa University constitutional law professor Errol Mendes concurs: "If they   
   didn't use the notwithstanding clause, it would almost certainly be struck   
   down."   
      
   But here's the tricky bit: the notwithstanding clause can be used to override   
   only some provisions in the Charter of Rights, including religious freedom and   
   equality rights.   
      
   It cannot be used to override democratic rights, including the right to vote.   
   Since Duceppe's promised bill would include a ban on veiled voting, he could   
   find the notwithstanding clause would be of no use to him.   
      
   The Verdict   
      
   Strictly speaking, Duceppe's promise to introduce a bill banning face   
   coverings during voting, citizenship ceremonies and the provision of public   
   services is accurate.  He didn't explicitly say it would be passed or enacted,   
   although that was the obvious    
   implication.   
      
   Given the procedural hurdles facing private members' bills, it's debatable   
   whether such a bill would ever see the light of day.     
      
   Were it to be passed, it's equally debatable whether it would stand up to a   
   charter challenge or whether the government could invoke the notwithstanding   
   clause to get around the charter.   
      
   For these reasons, Duceppe's statement earns a rating of "some baloney."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)