Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.
matthewwhatever said:
...because when Canadian Labour Congress Youth and the Canadian Federation of Students lead a protest against something, it's surely indicative of a larger trend, and not, you know, a bunch of whiny NDP types doing the only thing they know how to do.
Click to expand...
It's not so much the protest but Trudeau's response to it. It was whiny and not gracefully responded to. In any case the economy is stagnant and there's not enough money to take care of everything and that's becoming obvious. That's how honeymoon's usually end for new governments. About a year was a pretty good run.

The acrimonious debate between the provinces and the federal government over health spending is another example that the honeymoon has ended.

As for electoral reform, I think you're vastly overestimating popular appetite for changing how we vote
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the popular appetite. I'm taking about me stuck in a damn two party system like I'm in the damn US or something.
 
I sure hope the honeymoon is finally over so we'll stop hearing about its impending conclusion.

It would also be wonderful if "sunny ways", "selfie", "because it's current year" and all their variations were never uttered again, or at least stopped being used by journalists. It's been a year. It's no longer cute and clever.
 
CazTGG said:
So...a year in, how do y'all feel about Justin Trudeau and the new Liberal government i.e. what he's done/hasn't done, progress on certain issues and failure to address others, etc.?
Click to expand...
When his government finally gets to the point of action, I think they generally act decisively and in a well-thought-out manner. They're definitely prone to consultations to the point of paralysis on the way there, though.

In particular, they really should not have completely halted judicial appointments until they overhauled the review process (and when they did overhaul it, it was a bunch of changes everybody figured they were going to make from Day 1).
 
I feel like my impression of the Trudeau government has been influenced heavily by popular media's depiction of him as this celebrity-like figure. I wish the media would report more on Trudeau and his government's achievements since they came to power instead of showing us photos of him taking selfies with fans or hanging with Obama. This is a not a failure of Trudeau himself, but perhaps more a reflection of what the media feel the people want. Given how people of my generation are lapping this shit up, perhaps they're not wrong.

Actually looking into things a bit deeper, it seems like he's achieved a few important things since taking office, but most of his larger promises remain unfulfilled most likely because these things take time. I'm willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt for now, but in 3 years time I'd hope more progress has been made on electoral reform. I don't particularly care that reform is not high on the average citizens' agenda, this is an important issue and if handled correctly could lead to a much fairer political system in Canada where more views are represented in parliament.
 
CazTGG said:
So...a year in, how do y'all feel about Justin Trudeau and the new Liberal government i.e. what he's done/hasn't done, progress on certain issues and failure to address others, etc.?
Click to expand...

I'd give him a B letter grade. There are things to disagree with, but I'm agreeing a lot more than disagreeing.

I'd echo the concerns of others that for someone who has a massive majority government he didn't get a heck of a lot done and there's a concern there. One policy announcement that squeaked in before the one year cutoff was the announcement that there'd be a Federal carbon tax imposed on any province that didn't come up with their own system. I don't think this goes nearly far enough, but I understand that the actual necessary solutions don't seem to be politically viable at this time, and I'll take what I can get. If he hadn't announced this I'd be giving him a D and wondering what the hell he's saving all his political capital for.

The other major policy announcement that I strongly agree with is the measures to cool the housing market and limit the government's exposure to the housing market if it failed. Toronto and Vancouver obviously have housing bubbles and this could be incredibly damaging to the country if they burst. Harper/Flaherty started the bubble going in 2005 with policies that relaxed lending, and while rules were tightened over time they never went far enough. I'm pleased that Trudeau/Morneau did the right thing here.

Trudeau's sky high popularity numbers coupled with his relatively shallow amount of first year accomplishments I think says a lot about how incredibly tired Canadians were with Harper's style and how disconnected they were with him. People are happy with Trudeau because he so much better fits the aspirational vision for how Canadians see themselves and their country then Harper ever did. The fact that Trudeau is an international novelty adds to this further. Who doesn't excitedly click on any article about Canada in the NYT? As a small country it's rare that you're talked about.

The pleasant surprise of seeing Trudeau doing things Harper would never do will start to wear off in the second year as it all becomes the norm, not just from Trudeau, but I expect from savvy Conservative politicians as well. If the expectations for the economy remain low he'll be able to coast, but if things decline or people begin getting antsy about the low rate of growth Trudeau will have to deliver on policy to maintain his popularity.
 
Tiktaalik said:
I'd give him a B letter grade. There are things to disagree with, but I'm agreeing a lot more than disagreeing.

I'd echo the concerns of others that for someone who has a massive majority government he didn't get a heck of a lot done and there's a concern there. One policy announcement that squeaked in before the one year cutoff was the announcement that there'd be a Federal carbon tax imposed on any province that didn't come up with their own system. I don't think this goes nearly far enough, but I understand that the actual necessary solutions don't seem to be politically viable at this time, and I'll take what I can get. If he hadn't announced this I'd be giving him a D and wondering what the hell he's saving all his political capital for.
Click to expand...
Seems like all the commissions, consultations are starting to come due, so we'll hopefully see more of the results in the near-future. Like I said, I think that when the government acts, their actions are usually well-considered, even if they're laggard in getting there.

Sooner or later the government will be announcing their plans for new fighter jets, etc. When was the last government for whom military procurement was not a huge boondoggle?
 
CazTGG said:
So...a year in, how do y'all feel about Justin Trudeau and the new Liberal government i.e. what he's done/hasn't done, progress on certain issues and failure to address others, etc.?
Click to expand...

I do like many of the things he's done and the beliefs he's stood up for; defending citizenship and pledging to overhaul Bill C-51, the warm welcome he's given refugees entering our country, his decision to go with a gender balanced cabinet and diverse set of ministers, his pledge to strengthen ties with Indigenous communities, his support of LGBTQ people, etc. I'm not well versed in economics, but I think CETA could be a good thing (though I'm open to hearing why it wouldn't!). On the other hand, I think Bill C-51 still has some problematic elements, I have heard that Indigenous communities aren't seeing much improvement in their living conditions despite his pledge, and I'm not a fan of TPP which he supports (though, once again, not well versed in economics. My understanding is that CETA is much less problematic compared to TPP). I was also disappointed by his recent comments on electoral reform and hope that he will continue to push for it. And hopefully marijuana legalization will come before the end of his first term.

When it comes down to it, I think Trudeau's well-intentioned and genuine, and I really want to see him succeed in office. Despite the warm welcome he received last year he still has a lot to do and there are ways in which he can improve, and I'm hoping that'll happen over the next three years.
 
He started out promising and I hope consultations and negotiations are going well.

I think everything's going to take a longer time than we want, so we have to be willing to be patient without tearing everything down that we're preparing for in spite, but I think keeping the pressure on and celebrating progress will help keep the momentum up.

Hopefully in partnership/support with the US, a lot more will get done too. Though I am not sure how that will go down if protectionists are on the forefront of things.
I only have a basic understanding of what people mean when they complain about "neoliberalism", but maybe it's because those people themselves barely understand their own talking points.
 
Tiktaalik said:
I'd give him a B letter grade. There are things to disagree with, but I'm agreeing a lot more than disagreeing.

I'd echo the concerns of others that for someone who has a massive majority government he didn't get a heck of a lot done and there's a concern there. One policy announcement that squeaked in before the one year cutoff was the announcement that there'd be a Federal carbon tax imposed on any province that didn't come up with their own system. I don't think this goes nearly far enough, but I understand that the actual necessary solutions don't seem to be politically viable at this time, and I'll take what I can get. If he hadn't announced this I'd be giving him a D and wondering what the hell he's saving all his political capital for.

The other major policy announcement that I strongly agree with is the measures to cool the housing market and limit the government's exposure to the housing market if it failed. Toronto and Vancouver obviously have housing bubbles and this could be incredibly damaging to the country if they burst. Harper/Flaherty started the bubble going in 2005 with policies that relaxed lending, and while rules were tightened over time they never went far enough. I'm pleased that Trudeau/Morneau did the right thing here.

Trudeau's sky high popularity numbers coupled with his relatively shallow amount of first year accomplishments I think says a lot about how incredibly tired Canadians were with Harper's style and how disconnected they were with him. People are happy with Trudeau because he so much better fits the aspirational vision for how Canadians see themselves and their country then Harper ever did. The fact that Trudeau is an international novelty adds to this further. Who doesn't excitedly click on any article about Canada in the NYT? As a small country it's rare that you're talked about.

The pleasant surprise of seeing Trudeau doing things Harper would never do will start to wear off in the second year as it all becomes the norm, not just from Trudeau, but I expect from savvy Conservative politicians as well. If the expectations for the economy remain low he'll be able to coast, but if things decline or people begin getting antsy about the low rate of growth Trudeau will have to deliver on policy to maintain his popularity.
Click to expand...

You know, considering how often you and I have disagreed, I'm amazed at how similar our perceptions are here. I might give him a few extra points for getting CETA across the finish line and for bringing back the census, but on a lot of files, it seems like they're still in the process of figuring out what they want to do.

Trudeau's management style seems much more consultative than anything we've had in years (possibly ever?), which means decisions take a lot longer to be made. I don't think it'd work in a minority government situation, but in a majority, when they have time to implement everything they want without fear of losing a vote, it seems to work. They started out slowly, but as Sean said, it seems like things are starting to pick up.

The one thing I'm most curious about is probably how the Senate is going to work. Whenever Trudeau appoints his Quebec senators (probably in the next week or two), we'll have an independent plurality in that chamber. The Senate was designed with only two parties in mind, so...it'll be interesting to see how they accommodate the shift. It could be amazingly fruitful, but it could also lead to a lot of gridlock, depending on how the new senators interpret their roles.

Pedrito said:
It would also be wonderful if "sunny ways", "selfie", "because it's current year" and all their variations were never uttered again, or at least stopped being used by journalists. It's been a year. It's no longer cute and clever.
Click to expand...

As someone who has to read Canadian political Twitter all day for work, this times one million. The number of people who think that just mentioning the word "selfie" makes for a devastating critique is mind-boggling.
 
I'd probably end up giving Trudeau a B, maybe B-? He's not addressing the two big concerns i have(being a College-aged NDP voter I'd ideally like electoral reform that makes it so that there's better representation and I'd ideally like for some sort of increase in entry level jobs), but I'm a fan of the Refugee situation(mostly, not a fan of them coming to Victoria when it's already got a housing crisis), and the general work made towards the promises so far has me hopeful.
 
too much whining and moaning going on about Year 1,

the Government's job is to govern, not revolutionize. A steady ship, sailing forward

still 3 more years to go, not all promisses will be met.

as long as Trudeau polls high, that's all that matters

I am more worried about the stupid shit going on South of our border with the FBI shit about Hillary's emails giving Trump a boost.

I will get permabanned if Clinton loses.
I made an account bet
 
mdubs said:
The government butchered the assisted dying law in a terrible way. But otherwise I'm happy with them
Click to expand...

You mean the Harper government right? The government that stone walled it in the face of scc decisions and passed the buck to JT who had to ask for an exemption. It's a law about how you die, anyone expecting it to be easy to pass is deluding themselves.
 
Hycran said:
You mean the Harper government right? The government that stone walled it in the face of scc decisions and passed the buck to JT who had to ask for an exemption. It's a law about how you die, anyone expecting it to be easy to pass is deluding themselves.
Click to expand...

That's not what he means, and you'd have to be under a rock to think otherwise.
He may have passed the law, but it was a watered down, likely won't pass legal muster version of a law that disregarded a lot of professional opinions on the matter in terms of who to allow.
 
So, an interesting mix of opinions. Personally, i'm fine with what's been accomplished thus far, even if some of the ongoing process for certain proposals and plans have been glacial. The gender parity cabinet, the investigation of the missing Aboriginal women, the increase in refugees taken in (even if it took longer than intended), to say nothing of the ongoing efforts to improve relationships between the indigenous population and federal government, the and taking the first steps toward the legalization of marijuana are all positives in my book. That said, there's a part of me that's still bitter that Trudeau and several Liberal MPs originally voted for Bill C-51 and are only repealing specific parts rather than the act in its entirety and the confusing slew of news in regards to electoral reform over the past few weeks or so have shown that there's still a lot of work to be done in regards to some of the promises Trudeau and his party have made. I'm also a might disappointed that the blood donation ban's ending was merely a shortening of its term and that he hasn't condemned what Drumpf has said, albeit this is understandable since I imagine that, in the slim chance that if Don becomes president, Trudeau doesn't want to start things off poorly by having to deal with Drumpf's 3 A.M. tweets about Trudeau not being as golden as his father or something). It might have been a slow first year but there's been enough notable accomplishments to provide hope that the next four will deliver even greater, more positive changes for the country.

In short...i'm glad Harper's gone.
 
matthewwhatever said:
The one thing I'm most curious about is probably how the Senate is going to work. Whenever Trudeau appoints his Quebec senators (probably in the next week or two), we'll have an independent plurality in that chamber. The Senate was designed with only two parties in mind, so...it'll be interesting to see how they accommodate the shift. It could be amazingly fruitful, but it could also lead to a lot of gridlock, depending on how the new senators interpret their roles.
Click to expand...
It's already started to affect how the Senate operates. If Trudeau gets at least two terms with this process in effect (assuming that nobody retires ahead of their mandatory date), the party standings would be:

76 Independent
24 Conservative
5 Liberal

The last Liberal would leave the Senate in 2029, when PEI's own Percy Downe calls it quits. A lot will also depend on whether the inevitable next Conservative government decides to continue with this process; if so, it may be that at that point the remaining Tory senators disband their caucus and parties cease to exist in the Senate. The remaining Liberals may also do that if their caucus dwindles past a certain point.
 
1) The Parliamentary Budget Office released its analysis of fiscal considerations for legalized cannabis. They're projecting it won't immediately bring in as much money as some people think now, since they'll have to keep prices competitive with the illegal market. They're also projecting more for provinces than the federal government, which may indicate where their thinking is currently headed.

2) Q3 fundraising totals are finally out! A few interesting things:
a) The LPC outraised the CPC by about $100k, and did it from 6,000 more donors. Meanwhile the NDP fell under the $1m mark, which is pretty dire. Understandable, all things considered, but they -- like the other parties -- are still paying off last year's elections. The sooner they can retire that debt, the sooner they can think about 2019, but it shows how hard their ridiculously long leadership campaign is going to be on that party's finances.

b) Maxime Bernier and Kellie Leitch have pretty big financial advantages right now in the CPC leadership race. I don't think either of them will win, but I'd be surprised if they don't do well on the first ballot. Jumping in early was smart. I think people like Raitt and Scheer felt like they could wait, since they didn't have as far to go as those two (and Chong), but they're definitely in a bigger financial hole because of it.
Also, Deepak Obhrai raised $1,100 in total from two donors. Just everything about that statement is hilarious.

gutter_trash said:
I will get permabanned if Clinton loses.
I made an account bet
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is Trump winning would at least have a silver lining?
 
gutter_trash said:
how come none of you guys talking about the cops spying on journalists and hacking their smartphones? I though it would be the sort of stories that some on the Left would pounce upon

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-spy-patrick-lagace-journalist-1.3831584

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalists-police-spying-1.3833507

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stephane-bergeron-quebec-police-journalist-spying-1.3834286
Click to expand...

I didn't realize it was so deep. I thought it was an isolated case. While I don't know about journalists being put on the same level as judges and lawyers, something certainly needs to be done to close the loopholes involved. Totally disgusting overuse of power.
 
gutter_trash said:
how come none of you guys talking about the cops spying on journalists and hacking their smartphones? I though it would be the sort of stories that some on the Left would pounce upon

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-spy-patrick-lagace-journalist-1.3831584

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalists-police-spying-1.3833507

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stephane-bergeron-quebec-police-journalist-spying-1.3834286
Click to expand...

Being honest, I never heard of this prior to you mentioning it. This is pretty appalling and incredibly invasive, i'm surprised it hasn't been covered as much as it should be.
 
Sean C said:
It's already started to affect how the Senate operates. If Trudeau gets at least two terms with this process in effect (assuming that nobody retires ahead of their mandatory date), the party standings would be:

76 Independent
24 Conservative
5 Liberal

The last Liberal would leave the Senate in 2029, when PEI's own Percy Downe calls it quits. A lot will also depend on whether the inevitable next Conservative government decides to continue with this process; if so, it may be that at that point the remaining Tory senators disband their caucus and parties cease to exist in the Senate. The remaining Liberals may also do that if their caucus dwindles past a certain point.
Click to expand...
I know the Harper senators said they'd retire, but if Mike Duffy can stick around after all that bullshit, I wonder if any of them will actually leave short of a big scandal.

Speaking of the senate, I'm still basically boycotting Canadian politics but I find it interesting that Australia has yet another constitutional crisis, and this time because of the same senate rules that made a mess of things here a few years ago.

One senator got charged with a misdemeanor after forgetting to pay a $7.50 bill, which since it's on his record, means that he is technically disqualified from being a senator (much like what happened to Brazeau, but obviously on a much lower scale).

Another senator was bankrupt, but the government hid his bankruptcy during the election (sort of like Mike Duffy I guess), and since you have to be financially solvent to be a senator (like in Canada, where there's a rule about owning property in order to qualify for the senate) means his seat might have to be vacated.

It's funny watching other Westminster parliaments go through weird procedural messes. Heck, even the Brexit thing had a fun mess today because of the fact that May has to put Article 50 to a vote in the House instead of unilaterally invoking it herself as the PM. For a brief moment, It had people wondering if there might be a snap election just to clarify this issue.
 
The spotlight is on the police but I find the fact that justices of peace authorized these warrants more worrying. I'm currious to know on what grounds?
 
Pedrito said:
The spotlight is on the police but I find the fact that justices of peace authorized these warrants more worrying. I'm currious to know on what grounds?
Click to expand...
they had the ability to shop for like minded judges who say yes to anything,

some of these judges are going to get a smackdown from the National Assembly
 
gutter_trash said:
how come none of you guys talking about the cops spying on journalists and hacking their smartphones? I thought it would be the sort of stories that some on the Left would pounce upon

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-spy-patrick-lagace-journalist-1.3831584

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-journalists-police-spying-1.3833507

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stephane-bergeron-quebec-police-journalist-spying-1.3834286
Click to expand...

I think it's not getting as much national attention because it seems like a provincial issue in a province that, rightly or wrongly, has a bit of a reputation for corruption (see also: the Charbonneau Commission). It's pretty horrible, but it's also kind of in line with what some people expect from the Surete did Quebec.

Though between this story and yesterday's CSIS revelations, the Liberals' promise to bring Parliamentary oversight into a revised C-51 is suddenly looking a whole lot better.

firehawk12 said:
It's funny watching other Westminster parliaments go through weird procedural messes. Heck, even the Brexit thing had a fun mess today because of the fact that May has to put Article 50 to a vote in the House instead of unilaterally invoking it herself as the PM. For a brief moment, It had people wondering if there might be a snap election just to clarify this issue.
Click to expand...

There's still time for them to have a constitutional crisis! They still have parliamentary supremacy as an unwritten constitutional cornerstone, so if the SCUK upholds the ruling but the House of Lords says they can ignore it, then it'll be messy. So if you're #TeamChaos, you can hold out for that.
 
matthewwhatever said:
There's still time for them to have a constitutional crisis! They still have parliamentary supremacy as an unwritten constitutional cornerstone, so if the SCUK upholds the ruling but the House of Lords says they can ignore it, then it'll be messy. So if you're #TeamChaos, you can hold out for that.
Click to expand...

Has there been any instance in British politics, over the past 20-odd years, that the SCUK and Upper/Lower Houses fundamentally disagreed with each other, to the point of ignoring rulings and/or legislating around rulings?

My read on the situation is that this will come to a vote in the House, but May will whip the vote. That, and any potential of the House overriding the will of the people would be damaging to UK politics.
 
irDH4w6.png


lol

Translation: "Remember, this Sunday we set the clock back one hour. And Tuesday, if Trump is elected, we set the clock back a century"

:(
 
Well I don't remember reading about this on their RSS feed :P Thanks, I'll check that out.

Edit: lol @ the sex ed one. And wait is that Scott from Orphan Black in the Heritage Minute (xD)?
 
What do you guys think of the fine given to the scottish man for wearing a ceremonial knife? do you think this will blow up if he argues that it is no different then the religious knife allowed for sikhs? I really hope this turns into a courtcase because Im quite interested how it will be interpreted. But its in Quebec so I dont know how their legal system will go aboot this
 
matthewwhatever said:
There's still time for them to have a constitutional crisis! They still have parliamentary supremacy as an unwritten constitutional cornerstone, so if the SCUK upholds the ruling but the House of Lords says they can ignore it, then it'll be messy. So if you're #TeamChaos, you can hold out for that.
Click to expand...
There is something fun about watching a shit show, particularly if you aren't immediately affected by it. There's a tiny part of me that still hopes that somehow Scotland can figure out a way to gain sovereignty.
 
cryptosporidium said:
What do you guys think of the fine given to the scottish man for wearing a ceremonial knife? do you think this will blow up if he argues that it is no different then the religious knife allowed for sikhs? I really hope this turns into a courtcase because Im quite interested how it will be interpreted. But its in Quebec so I dont know how their legal system will go aboot this
Click to expand...

You mean this one? If he wanted to, he could appeal as high as the Supreme Court of Canada, though I imagine it wouldn't play out the same way as Multani v Commission Scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys. In that case, it was ruled a violation of section 2 of the Charter as it was an unfair restriction of the student's religious belief to not allow them to wear the kirpan. While I personally believe they should be allowed to carry it around, I can't think of any specific section of the Charter nor any legal precedent that one could raise in regards to this specific case.
 
cryptosporidium said:
What do you guys think of the fine given to the scottish man for wearing a ceremonial knife? do you think this will blow up if he argues that it is no different then the religious knife allowed for sikhs? I really hope this turns into a courtcase because Im quite interested how it will be interpreted. But its in Quebec so I dont know how their legal system will go aboot this
Click to expand...
Doubt it, it's a fairly clear cut case because it doesn't fall under the protection of section 2a. Would not pass muster as a sincere belief since it is clearly not religious.
 
cryptosporidium said:
What do you guys think of the fine given to the scottish man for wearing a ceremonial knife? do you think this will blow up if he argues that it is no different then the religious knife allowed for sikhs? I really hope this turns into a courtcase because Im quite interested how it will be interpreted. But its in Quebec so I dont know how their legal system will go aboot this
Click to expand...

Don't see how he'd have much of a case. It's not part of a religious outfit, so good luck to him trying to argue for it as some kind of traditional thing.
 
Morrigan Stark said:
Religious people having special rights is some bullshit to begin with, though. Meh all around
Click to expand...
If they aren't unreasonably impacting anybody else (which is the test), I see no issue. It helps insure that our country is welcoming to everyone and encourages the fullest participation possible from its citizenry.
 
Sean C said:
If they aren't unreasonably impacting anybody else (which is the test), I see no issue. It helps insure that our country is welcoming to everyone and encourages the fullest participation possible from its citizenry.
Click to expand...
If it creates double standards where an otherwise non-harmful, non-impacting-of-anyone-else ceremonial knife is banned for others, though, like that Scotsman, that's still BS and not really that "inclusive".
 
Morrigan Stark said:
If it creates double standards where an otherwise non-harmful, non-impacting-of-anyone-else ceremonial knife is banned for others, though, like that Scotsman, that's still BS and not really that "inclusive".
Click to expand...

That's why Im hoping more discussion will occur in legal circles because, besides the fact there was no immediate threat and the scotsman shouldve never been fined, this double standard should be challenged
 
CazTGG said:
You mean this one? If he wanted to, he could appeal as high as the Supreme Court of Canada, though I imagine it wouldn't play out the same way as Multani v Commission Scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys. In that case, it was ruled a violation of section 2 of the Charter as it was an unfair restriction of the student's religious belief to not allow them to wear the kirpan. While I personally believe they should be allowed to carry it around, I can't think of any specific section of the Charter nor any legal precedent that one could raise in regards to this specific case.
Click to expand...
Before I read the article I wondered 'I bet hes one of those people that have it tucked away in his sock.' And he did.
I think people should be able to carry ceremonial knives around, whether its religious or not. But carrying a dagger in sock looks suspect as hell.
 
Morrigan Stark said:
If it creates double standards where an otherwise non-harmful, non-impacting-of-anyone-else ceremonial knife is banned for others, though, like that Scotsman, that's still BS and not really that "inclusive".
Click to expand...
There's a difference between a devout Sikh for whom the kirpan is considered to be a mandated component of their faith system and something that is customary but without any existential significance.

Now, purely in administrative law terms, I think this guy has a fair case to make that it was unreasonable to ticket him for this within the terms of the statute, which states that you may have a reasonable excuse. A ceremonial thing like this, carried in the manner he was wearing it, does not seem unreasonable to me.

Constitutionally I suppose he could argue it violates his freedom of expression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Season 17 | Abbott Teaser | Returns July 9
20
475
bitbydeath replied
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 18 coming in September
21
2K
Synless replied
Effective ways to start investing money
48
3K
devilNprada replied
Long Way Home — Official Trailer | Apple TV+
2
325
AJUMP23 replied
  • Locked
Tate brothers free and on their way to Freedomland
2
50
2K
RJMacready73 replied
Top Bottom