"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[Melanie_]

The Muslim female can simply not wear the headcovering, the handicapped individual can't just choose to not be a parapelegic.

If elections officials can't identify people voting, it calls into question the realibility of the whole process. Why not just identify yourself to one officer, then wait until their lunch break, come back and vote again with another. Having your identity ready scruntizable by everyone in the room makes that much less possible. "Hey, I've seen you here earlier!"

When I vote, I present ID, show my voter's registration card, and have my name and address stroked off a list. This prevents me from voting more than once. I doubt very much that the polling officer would recognize me if I came back again later, even if it were the same polling officer, but s/he could easily determine I had already voted by checking my name on the list. Someone who wants to bring fake ID and someone else's voting card probably could do so without having to cover their faces.

I agree with Drea; let Muslim women who wear the niqab show their faces to a female polling officer. If there isn't one present, they can wait until there is. All it takes is for one polling officer to verify their identity before they vote.

[Posit]

It still wouldn't matter if Harper had the support of everyone here. He stall can't over-rule the Charter.

Yes, you are accommodating a special interest. No law, that caters to a special interest, should be a law. Installing a wheelchair ramp would be a courtesy. Legislating that wheelchair ramps or assigning parking stalls is a necessity is unfair. I would praise those that make the accommodation of their own accord but it would be their decision as to whether it was necessary to do so.

It isn't a special interest. It is removing a barrier - whether it be a physical barrier or a legal one - that allows the disabled or the Muslim equal access to a facility. That's called "equality" and I realize that it is a foreign concept to Harper and you minions. Equal access to everything is a right you can't put down with your menial wishing.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Posit

[Melanie_]

Do you equate a female muslim with that of a criminal?

Hmmm....actually, maybe not a bad idea. The female officer can identify, AND THEN proceed to do a search under that burka.

Or under that hijab.

Cheers!

That shows the level of respect a Muslim woman can expect from you, Betsy.

On another note...

Hijab

Hijab or ħijāb (حجاب) is the Arabic term for "cover" (noun), based on the root حجب meaning "to veil, to cover (verb), to screen, to shelter"

In some Arabic-speaking countries and Western countries, the word hijab primarily refers to women's head and body covering, but in Islamic scholarship, hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy, and morality.[1] The word used in the Qur'an for a headscarf or veil is khimār (خمار).

Burqa

A burqa (also transliterated burkha, burka or burqua) is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of cloaking the entire body. It is worn over the usual daily clothing (often a long dress or a shalwar kameez) and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household (see purdah).

Niqab

A niqāb (Arabic: نِقاب) is a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijāb. It is popular in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf but it can also be found in North Africa, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

[betsy]

Nobody's forcing these women to vote.

Anyway, you give a special license to muslim women...then what next? What other changes will be required to accomodate other religious or cultural beliefs?

If it is the law, it is the law! No one should be above the law!

Edited September 9, 2007 by betsy

[Melanie_]

No one is asking to be above the law. They would still have to show their faces in order to vote. They just don't have to show it to everyone, just a female polling officer.

[betsy]

That shows the level of respect a Muslim woman can expect from you, Betsy.

That's how you want to interpret it! I find it funny how Drea gave that opening that's hard for me to resist.

Gee...where's your sense of humor?

Anyway, don't speak to me about respect....when you don't seem to understand the meaning of it!

FYI, it swings both ways! And you don't demand it!

On another note...

Hijab

Burqa

Niqab

Puhleez...you don't have to go through all that trouble. Like as if it's a big deal for me whether I used the right word for it or not.

Edited September 9, 2007 by betsy

[sharkman]

Canada is getting wussier and wussier. If a person decides they want to leave their freaking country for whatever reason, that is no concern of the Federal Government. They sat down and said, "where the hell should we move?" They had dozens of choices but decided they wanted to live in the decadent West, a completely foreign and different culture than theirs. They freaking CHOSE this of their own free will. Now that they are in this foreign culture, they want it to change and conform to THEIR culture. There is something completely wrong, and also stupid, about this picture. If you decide to move to a foreign country, PICK ONE THAT ALREADY HAS YOUR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES!!!

[betsy]

Canada is getting wussier and wussier. If a person decides they want to leave their freaking country for whatever reason, that is no concern of the Federal Government. They sat down and said, "where the hell should we move?" They had dozens of choices but decided they wanted to live in the decadent West, a completely foreign and different culture than theirs. They freaking CHOSE this of their own free will. Now that they are in this foreign culture, they want it to change and conform to THEIR culture. There is something completely wrong, and also stupid, about this picture. If you decide to move to a foreign country, PICK ONE THAT ALREADY HAS YOUR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES!!!

And what's astounding is the stupidity of the NDP...who freakin' suggest that yeah, we should provide a female to accomodate this demand!

And yes, speaking of bloody respect...this is the kind of RESPECT the NDP has for this country! Turning it into a freaking doormat!

Edited September 9, 2007 by betsy

[Pliny]

It still wouldn't matter if Harper had the support of everyone here. He stall can't over-rule the Charter.

It isn't a special interest. It is removing a barrier - whether it be a physical barrier or a legal one - that allows the disabled or the Muslim equal access to a facility. That's called "equality" and I realize that it is a foreign concept to Harper and you minions. Equal access to everything is a right you can't put down with your menial wishing.

It is a special interest. I am saying society should make the accommodation and would if it were civilized. If it requires a law to enforce the accommodation of special interests what does that say about the society.

We all have barriers to overcome, Posit. Are you going to legislate away all barriers for us or just until we have equal barriers.

I believe your concept of equal is that of government attempting to "make" everyone equal not "treating" everyone as an equal.

That is the right you have; to be treated equally. You do not have the right to be made equal to everyone else. No agency can promise that unless it is equality to the lowest common denominator. That means taking away any benefit or advantage that one might have over another, physically, intellectually, and economically. No government can give someone their legs back but they can take the legs away from everyone else. So when you ask for "equality" be careful of what you are asking for you just might get it.

[Melanie_]

You're right, Betsy, respecting others isn't something that anyone can be forced to do. Carry on.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Melanie_

[Posit]

Nobody's forcing these women to vote.

Anyway, you give a special license to muslim women...then what next? What other changes will be required to accomodate other religious or cultural beliefs?

If it is the law, it is the law! No one should be above the law!

I agree Betsy! Let's remove the women's right to vote. Let's remove the Bible from all courtrooms so it is no longer an option. Let's remove all religious symbols from our view on streets and prevent people from praising God, Allah or Buddha outloud so it doesn't offend our sensibilities!

De-christianizing Canada is a difficult task at best. But I'm sure the equality movement will one day be successful of either prying us out from under the thumb of colonial Christian influences, or equalize them with other influences to level the playing field.

I reiterate your sentiment: Lets remove ALL women's right to vote. It would sure solve a lot of problems for those 18th century Anglos, now doesn't it?

[capricorn]

I back Harper on this and say that election Canada was wrong and must reverse itself. If the Muslim women want to mount a Charter Challenge then so be. But let them pay the costs of such a challenge. For now the law stands and must be enforced. That is the way it should be.

I'm with you. Oh, and yes they would have to pay for a Charter challenge because the Court Challenges Program has been eliminated. A decision I fully agree with. Too many frivolous cases were being filed and that program was totally ineffective.

I have heard that in fact, muslims did not request that women wearing burqas be allowed to vote without lifting the veil. Elections Canada is breaking the law in trying to impress us with their political correctness.

[betsy]

No one is asking to be above the law. They would still have to show their faces in order to vote. They just don't have to show it to everyone, just a female polling officer.

So, we have to make sure there is a female polling officer in every polling place!

The contortions we have to go through...not to mention the spendings.... just to accomodate these religious/cultural beliefs seem to be getting a little bit out of hand....

What you guys don't seem to get is that we are a society of various cultures! You accomodate one group....you have to accomodate the others!

[Melanie_]

How hard can it be to have a female polling officer at each polling station? Is that really a stretch?

[Pliny]

That shows the level of respect a Muslim woman can expect from you, Betsy.

On another note...

Hijab

Burqa

Niqab

Thanks for the clarification of those terms.

betsy is only suggesting that the laws of society should be applied equally to all and that special interests should not deserve special treatment.

The choice to have special treatment for Muslims remains in Islamic or predominately Islamic countries. But the level of respect a Muslim woman gets in those societies is probably less than what betsy would consider giving.

[betsy]

I agree Betsy! Let's remove the women's right to vote.

I reiterate your sentiment: Lets remove ALL women's right to vote. It would sure solve a lot of problems for those 18th century Anglos, now doesn't it?

If that is how you interpret what I'm saying....hey, what can I say?

If you think I'm going to waste my time correcting your mis-interpretation....and lead you through a step-by-step explanation...uh-uh. Sorry. Too busy.

You can just go right ahead and continue to interpret it in any way. Just don't blame me....

[Posit]

It is a special interest. I am saying society should make the accommodation and would if it were civilized. If it requires a law to enforce the accommodation of special interests what does that say about the society.

We all have barriers to overcome, Posit. Are you going to legislate away all barriers for us or just until we have equal barriers.

I believe your concept of equal is that of government attempting to "make" everyone equal not "treating" everyone as an equal.

That is the right you have; to be treated equally. You do not have the right to be made equal to everyone else. No agency can promise that unless it is equality to the lowest common denominator. That means taking away any benefit or advantage that one might have over another, physically, intellectually, and economically. No government can give someone their legs back but they can take the legs away from everyone else. So when you ask for "equality" be careful of what you are asking for you just might get it.

In true form pliny, the Charter is a barrier to freedoms. Essentially is limits real freedoms to only those accepted by moral contract. So in essence the only thing we can do is apply a "Charter template" over any action which people find offensive and see if the act offends a Charter right. And no I'm not advocating that the government is trying to make everyone equal. That's absurd and simplistic interpretation. You can't make a disabled man a lesbian woman, nor can you use the law to make a blind man see. However, we can use the law to conscript others to allow equal access to the services they offer, by saying that you cannot keep someone out of your establishment just because it will cost too much to provide a wheelchair ramp.

In the case of requiring someone to remove a religious ornament just because you can't see their eyes is equally absurd, when THEY can be accommodated without any pain to the electoral officers. Next, thing you'll be demanding that men pull down their pants so you can determine if they are cut or uncut to verify who they should be voting for.....

The law is never absolute and must always face its challenges. Without challenges we would never have justice.

[betsy]

How hard can it be to have a female polling officer at each polling station? Is that really a stretch?

It's the principle!

You modify or tamper with a law to accomodate one....you end up with a screwed up system, eventually!

As I say, we are a mulit-cultural society! We have to have one law for EVERYONE!

[Pliny]

I have heard that in fact, muslims did not request that women wearing burqas be allowed to vote without lifting the veil. Elections Canada is breaking the law in trying to impress us with their political correctness.

That is a revelation, if true! It would explain the origin of the conflict.

[Posit]

Thanks for the clarification of those terms.

betsy is only suggesting that the laws of society should be applied equally to all and that special interests should not deserve special treatment.

The choice to have special treatment for Muslims remains in Islamic or predominately Islamic countries. But the level of respect a Muslim woman gets in those societies is probably less than what betsy would consider giving.

Did you know that "Women" are considered to be a special interest group? The have a special Secretariat, and a number of organizations that lobby government on behalf of women. So you are suggest, along with Betsy that we should eliminate this special interest group and let women's advocacy - including removing barriers to equal employment and pay equity - stand on its own merit?

[sharkman]

I agree Betsy! Let's remove the women's right to vote. Let's remove the Bible from all courtrooms so it is no longer an option. Let's remove all religious symbols from our view on streets and prevent people from praising God, Allah or Buddha outloud so it doesn't offend our sensibilities!

De-christianizing Canada is a difficult task at best. But I'm sure the equality movement will one day be successful of either prying us out from under the thumb of colonial Christian influences, or equalize them with other influences to level the playing field.

I reiterate your sentiment: Lets remove ALL women's right to vote. It would sure solve a lot of problems for those 18th century Anglos, now doesn't it?

Are you planning on getting serious anytime soon?

You obviously want Canada to change to some kind of far left socialistic utopia which Canada is not, and never will be. This is not a woman's right issue pal, playing the women's lib card is just more MSM sillliness. It's particularly rich defending a culture that way which presently considers women property to be owned. Need I mention female circum... never mind, let's all just bend over backwards for every immigrant who wants a Canada shaped into their own culture.

[betsy]

The law is never absolute and must always face its challenges. Without challenges we would never have justice.

Not on this case. Justice my foot.

Edited September 10, 2007 by betsy

[geoffrey]

"ALL PARTIES"?

Who do you speak for geoffry?

All parties in the House of Commons, to be more clear.

When I vote, I present ID, show my voter's registration card, and have my name and address stroked off a list. This prevents me from voting more than once. I doubt very much that the polling officer would recognize me if I came back again later, even if it were the same polling officer, but s/he could easily determine I had already voted by checking my name on the list. Someone who wants to bring fake ID and someone else's voting card probably could do so without having to cover their faces.

You don't show ID at a polling booth, it's actually against your 'rights' to be asked to if you have a voter card. If you had one person of this ethnicity collecting a bunch of voter cards from disinterested others, they could easily vote numerous times.

I agree with Drea; let Muslim women who wear the niqab show their faces to a female polling officer. If there isn't one present, they can wait until there is. All it takes is for one polling officer to verify their identity before they vote.

Fine, but then they should be required to bring photo ID so we can absolutely verify that they weren't at the station when the polling officer wasn't there.

Either way, we are bending way too much for religious interests. Covering up your identity is wrong. There is no rational reason for it, so we have no obligation to uphold this. Religion shouldn't be an excuse for devient behavoir and added expense and trouble to the taxpayer.

[betsy]

Did you know that "Women" are considered to be a special interest group? The have a special Secretariat, and a number of organizations that lobby government on behalf of women. So you are suggest, along with Betsy that we should eliminate this special interest group and let women's advocacy - including removing barriers to equal employment and pay equity - stand on its own merit?

Speak for yourself!

As a woman I don't see myself as a "special interest group!" I am a person! Exactly the same as that of a man!

And most of these so-called women's group do not represent nor do they speak for me!

BTW, your FN women did not fare much better than a chattel....until recently.

And that's thanks to this current government!

Anyway, let's get back to the topic.

Edited September 10, 2007 by betsy

[Posit]

All parties in the House of Commons, to be more clear.

You don't show ID at a polling booth, it's actually against your 'rights' to be asked to if you have a voter card. If you had one person of this ethnicity collecting a bunch of voter cards from disinterested others, they could easily vote numerous times.

Fine, but then they should be required to bring photo ID so we can absolutely verify that they weren't at the station when the polling officer wasn't there.

Either way, we are bending way too much for religious interests. Covering up your identity is wrong. There is no rational reason for it, so we have no obligation to uphold this. Religion shouldn't be an excuse for devient behavoir and added expense and trouble to the taxpayer.

Fine then! Go ahead and keep making up the law as you go along and ignore the REAL law, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Covering up identity isn't wrong. Forcing someone to identify themselves when it serves no purpose is "unreasonable search" under the Charter.

And the House of Commons doesn't control how the Charter is written or interpreted. They are subjects of the law - EQUALLY - just like everyone else.