Feds won't force veiled women to uncover to vote

[Borg]

That's fine smallc. Nobody is arguing that. What people are arguing is that we shouldn't have to make exceptions to practical election laws that deter fraud so as to appease a draconic relgious law spawned half a world away.

........ but citizenship is a priviledge.

Once upon a time - it has been cheapened by folks like smallc

Excuses for everyone

No such thing as responsibility anymore

Borg

Edited June 26, 2009 by Borg

[Smallc]

Voting is a right in Canada, but citizenship is a privilege.

I agree with you in principle...but:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

I don't think this law would have worked. It is in conflict with more than one part of the Charter.

[Smallc]

Excuses for everyone

No such thing as responsibility anymore

Neither of those things are true and you (should) know it. We have learned to be more tolerant, but we still are responsible for most aspects of our own lives. We live in a culturally divers culture, and not everything is so cut and dry.

[Moonbox]

I agree with you in principle...but:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

I don't think this law would have worked. It is in conflict with more than one part of the Charter.

The problem with your point is that a religion can be interpreted a million different ways. Religious law in parts of the Islamic world allow fathers and husbands to kill their wives for adultery. Obviously what we're talking about is very different, but clearly this is a case where practical law would trump religious law in Canada.

We very clearly have already decided that immigrants aren't allowed to present their own religious laws as exempting them from Canadian law so where do we draw the line and, further to this point, how far are we going to allow the 'religions' of immigrant Canadians to affect our laws and customs?

[jdobbin]

Is there no ID that indicates citizen

In general, no. If you are born in Canada, you do not require any photo ID of any kind if you don't require it. Your Social Insurance Number does not count as ID for citizenship nor does it have a photo.

[jdobbin]

Does this mean I can vote witha bag over my head? Somehow I don't that would be allowed.

Yes, you can. There were a few voters who voted with a mask on. One of the political parties actually had an ad for it.

When I vote, they ask for my voter registration and ID. (license ect).. well the last time I voted that is how it happened.

But you are not required to have a photo. So ergo, no need to show your face.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

So what if the person votes 5 times with different ID

Do you believe that happens in great numbers? Think about that: it would require five voter's cards and five separate pieces of ID and someone to verify you are who you are.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

And I'm all for doing that - and if necessary, grandfathering the right of people who are already here to keep their face hidden. That would at least solve the problem going forward and I think would be accepted by a huge majority of Canadians. But we're so politically correct - tripping over each other and afraid to be criticized...that we never take any action.

Likely to be unconstitutional. Two separate rules? And it would also require a list of who was grandfathered and who was not. Simply put, a registry.

[Argus]

The veil issue turned out to be confusing because how can you tell who a person is if they don't have a picture ID? And if you require a photo ID, you then seem to require it as a citizen. Many people don't have photos if they don't drive anymore. And not everyone has a passport.

As far as I'm concerned, they aren't Canadian in any way, shape or form, so the issue shouldn't even arise. They should simply not be permitted to vote.

[jdobbin]

As far as I'm concerned, they aren't Canadian in any way, shape or form, so the issue shouldn't even arise. They should simply not be permitted to vote.

But using what law? If you are required to see someone face to vote, how do you know it is them unless they have photo ID?

[scorpio]

As far as I'm concerned, they aren't Canadian in any way, shape or form, so the issue shouldn't even arise. They should simply not be permitted to vote.

Do you include Hutterites who do not have photo ID?

[Argus]

Do you include Hutterites who do not have photo ID?

It's not about photo id, it's about hiding your face.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Argus

[jdobbin]

It's not about photo id, it's about hiding your face.

But why is seeing the face needed when there is nothing to compare and verify it to?

[Remiel]

To make a different kind of argument, I would not begrudge anyone who was horribly disfigured the right to vote without uncovering their face.

[Remiel]

This may all be rendered moot if they implement internet voting.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/657595

Edited June 27, 2009 by Remiel

[Oleg Bach]

It's not about photo id, it's about hiding your face.

Every person has the right to be invisable...I believe there are those that do not like the hiding of personal identity because it disempowers those that have a lust to control all others. It is harder to intimidate a person behind a veil because you don't know if your efforts to intimidate are effective or not - so this frustrates the intimidator...This is about those that imagine themselves as powerful being preturbed because they are being ignored - If you want - use a finger print to idenitify a veiled face...what's this idea about having to be in someones face?

[Argus]

But using what law? If you are required to see someone face to vote, how do you know it is them unless they have photo ID?

You know, I'm on a committee at work right now which is looking into fraud against the government. One of the points made repeatedly is that fraudsters are very wary of showing their face anywhere. They much prefer to operate at a distance, through mails and over the internet or phone. They don't want to come in and drop off a form and have a clerk look at them. It's not like we take pictures of people who stop by the TSCs but crooks with guilty consciences are deterred regardless.

By the same token, someone going into a public area with lots of people and claiming to be someone else can be quite wary about doing so when who knows who might be standing around and might possibly recognize that they are NOT who they have claimed to be. It will be much more reassuring to them to do so with a mask or veil on.

[jdobbin]

By the same token, someone going into a public area with lots of people and claiming to be someone else can be quite wary about doing so when who knows who might be standing around and might possibly recognize that they are NOT who they have claimed to be. It will be much more reassuring to them to do so with a mask or veil on.

I'd understand if all people had some form of government issued photo ID that it would be necessary to show it when you vote but not everyone does. The National Post is advocating everyone show a photo ID to verify who they are. They say this without even thinking about what sort of photo ID would an 85 year old have if they don't drive or travel? How money will be spent by those wishing to vote? If someone doesn't travel or drive, what sort of government photo ID to they require?

And is this all moot if we can vote online at some point?

[bush_cheney2004]

...And is this all moot if we can vote online at some point?

Oh sure...all those 85 and 90 year olds will just boot up their PCs or PDAs in between shopping for Depends at Amazon.com...and vote.

[Molly]

Oh for pity sake.... you know what happens if you have no paper whatsoever to indicate who you are or where you live?

You take an oath, and/or get someone on the list to confirm it. That's what you do any time there's reason to question.

In this country we have trouble with too few folks voting, not too many. Since there hasn't been a rash of veiled people being one of two or more trying to vote under the same name, or lots of veiled folk voting while not on the list, then it really isn't a problem so far. Until there appears to be such a problem, getting ones tail in a twist over it is seeking an excuse to exercize plain old racism.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In this country we have trouble with too few folks voting, not too many. Since there hasn't been a rash of veiled people being one of two or more trying to vote under the same name, or lots of veiled folk voting while not on the list, then it really isn't a problem so far. Until there appears to be such a problem, getting ones tail in a twist over it is seeking an excuse to exercize plain old racism.

Interesting...then I trust that having ALL VOTERS presenting at the polls under veils would be well received ??

Just sayin'.....

[Molly]

The fact is is wouldn't be a bloody bit different from present. Folks at the polls have no way of knowing the veracity of anything-- whether non-picture ID belongs to the person holding it or not, whether it's valid or forged, whether the person standing in front of them is a citizen....

It is a fact that the system leans heavily on goodwill and personal integrity. So far that trust has been justified.

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

So just a coincidence that the next day EC claims that it wants to experiment with on-line voting? An archaic FPTP system, people voting with masked identities, people voting from the comfort of "their own home"... what's next? Vote by skee ball?

[Mr. Whiteman Esq.]

Interesting...then I trust that having ALL VOTERS presenting at the polls under veils would be well received ??

Just sayin'.....

In my religion men are allowed to cast twenty ballots in an election.

[Oleg Bach]

In my religion men are allowed to cast twenty ballots in an election.

That's why they curbed the mulitiple marriage situtation - one man would have 20 children and would vote as young adults as instructed by the father...the Mormons were stopped under the ruse of morality - when in fact it was about block voting....also - with the idea of electronic voting - we will all be in effect wearing veils.