>>>>>So, hypothetically, you would keep building schools and add special wings to buildings to satisfy all who want special treatment. Man that's tough. I hope you can bear the cost.
>>>
>>>>As you note, it's hypothetical, Sam. We don't build schools for Jehova's Witnesses just because they don't salute the flag. We don't build special schools for Sikhs who wear knives to school. But nakedness is a touchy subject and would need something different. Remember, he said Canada had agreed to accept thousands, including their children.
>>>
>>>Yup it's only hypothetical, but the fact that that's your solution is what puzzles me.
>>
>>Well what other "solution" would there be when we invited them?
>>We would surely know their special needs before we did invite them. I suppose we could have invited them with a '...but your kids who need to go to school naked because of your religious beliefs cannot be honoured...', but that would amount to an "invite" where a 'thanks but no thanks' was expected. That is, not an invite at all, but rather an attempt to look concerned while wanting rejection.
>
>The immigration department and the justice department don't communicate with each other. That's why people who are deported for crimes are able to return here. Immigration may have knowledge of their "special needs", but do they consult the justice system as to whether the special need will be met or not?

I don't think you'll find that there was a law against the kid carrying his knife. I believe I could carry an nice big sheated knife on my belt all over Toronto and be legal. It's not a gun. Crockadile Dundee carried his hidden behind his back in NYC and they didn't arrest him < s >.
And the Justice Department is not the Supreme Court.

>
>Honestly, some special group lobbied and raised funds to buy this ruling and we cannot do likewise.

The Supreme Court is not lobbied. It would become a joke very quickly if there was even a hint of that.

>
>Did I ever tell you about my experience with jury duty? The great experts you're supporting have a wonderful system in place. The take the names of the prospective jurors, put them on 3 x 5 cards, sort them alphabetically and put them into a 4 x 6 hexagonal drum where they are sorted by spinning. There is no way for cards that big to shuffle in a drum that small. I pointed this out to the guards. The agreed. In order to change this, I'd have to hire an army of lawyers.

OK. But that's not the Supreme Court. The issue at hand is a Supreme Court ruling.

>
>The "experts" cannot get that right. They cannot construct a system where intelligence is applied to particular problems, even in their own system. In fact, I was told, even if I was rich and had lawyers aplenty, the chances of getting that changed were very slim.

Again, not the Supreme Court. But, why is the guy who told you that the "expert"... because he told you what you assumed you'd hear?

>
>You're welcome to go on believing in your so-called experts. To me they are every bit as capable of being fools as any one else. Worse, they have shielded themselves behind screens of virtue.

They are experts in the law. Yes, they can make mistakes, and when they do they are very big mistakes. But in this case about the student carrying his religious knife, I don't see a mistake of any kind. Yes, there is the possibility that one such kid will use the knife or have it snatched from him and used. But his religious need was superior to fear and only fear of something bad happening.
Really (and not being silly here) there are lots of things the Supreme Court SHOULD outlaw if fear of harming someone is to be the yardstick. And I'd like to see them start with all forms of radio waves. But cars hurt lots of people. Planes hurt lots of people. Communicable diseases hurt lots of people.

I'm dissatisfied with politics here in a major way too. That's why I voted Green last time - to ensure that none of the regular crooks got any benefit. But I don't believe the Supreme Court has any responsibility for the poor job our politicians are doing.