"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[Posit]

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 or speak for me!

That's not the point. It was a "women's special interest group" that won the right to vote over a male dominated parliament. If they don't represent you, they you must think that voting is not an issue worth fighting for. Believe it or not you are telling us a lot about yourself and your pre-historic ideologies....

[capricorn]

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

Here's one media story on this matter.

http://www.570news.com/news/national/artic...ontent=n090774A

[betsy]

That's not the point. It was a "women's special interest group" that won the right to vote over a male dominated parliament. If they don't represent you, they you must think that voting is not an issue worth fighting for. Believe it or not you are telling us a lot about yourself and your pre-historic ideologies....

I would like to call them simply "women" - this group that had fought for the rights of women to vote - not a "special interest group."

Don't you see the contradiction in that?

Here we are women wanting to be equals of men. And yet you lump us all to this "special interest group."

Why, do men call themselves "special interest group?"

My idealogy may be pre-historic to you....but I find yours ludicrous!

It's laughable! I'd rather be pre-historic, thank you....than contribute to the gross stereotyping of women - that we are all air-heads!

If you as a woman see yourself the equal of man....then you do not belong to any special interest group!

Gee...you make us sound like some sort of a hobby!

You belong in your own right - a woman. An equal of man!

Well, these Muslim women better decide which is more important - their vote or their veil!

Women's group should rally these Muslim women to say "up yours!" to their men who refuse to have them remove their veils....go out and vote without their veils!

There, I've fitted your precious women's group into the discussion.

Anyway...if you want to pursue this discussion, kindly create another thread for it.

Edited September 10, 2007 by betsy

[Pliny]

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.

The only thing that needs to be considered is if someone is using force against you. The government, through legislation, is the sole agency, appointed or not, licensed to use or delegate the use of force. When it uses force unjustly by making laws that cater to special interests, be they corporations, aboriginals, women, gays, religions, races, cultures, the disabled, the enabled, the rich, the poor, the smart, the dumb, the tall, the short, the fat, the thin...whoever, if a law favors anyone over another it is unjust and unfair and unequal treatment under the law. A federal government, especially, must refrain from catering to special interests as it is the ultimate arbiter in justice and cannot be seen to give privilege or favour to anyone, especially to themselves as they often do.

In that light, I must respectfully disagree with using the law to conscript others to allow benefit to someone else.

Communities and municipalities having smaller realms of influence and being more on top of local needs and concerns can make those kinds of laws but they must relinquish involvement in justice issues if they do.

[Pliny]

Here's one media story on this matter.

http://www.570news.com/news/national/artic...ontent=n090774A

Sounds like government - Creating an uproar when there is no problem. You can bet they will be busier than we here on this forum discussing this in the legislature.

[Pliny]

I would like to call them simply "women" - this group that had fought for the rights of women to vote - not a "special interest group."

Don't you see the contradiction in that?

Here we are women wanting to be equals of men. And yet you lump us all to this "special interest group."

Why, do men call themselves "special interest group?"

My idealogy may be pre-historic to you....but I find yours ludicrous!

It's laughable! I'd rather be pre-historic, thank you....than contribute to the gross stereotyping of women - that we are all air-heads!

If you as a woman see yourself the equal of man....then you do not belong to any special interest group!

Gee...you make us sound like some sort of a hobby!

You belong in your own right - a woman. An equal of man!

Well, these Muslim women better decide which is more important - their vote or their veil!

Women's group should rally these Muslim women to say "up yours!" to their men who refuse to have them remove their veils....go out and vote without their veils!

There, I've fitted your precious women's group into the discussion.

Anyway...if you want to pursue this discussion, kindly create another thread for it.

Actually, women prior to being recognized as "persons" had no political rights whatsoever. They did not have the right to vote so were not a special interest in elections to be catered to by politicians. They fought for the right to be persons and to be treated "equally under the law" and thus be granted the right to vote. It did not mean they wanted special treatment above men or that they should lobby for privilege once they won the right to be called "persons equal under the law". I note there is a federal portfolio for the status of women but not one for the status of men. Must be an oversight.

[Posit]

Whether you agree or not, the SCoC has upheld the rights of individuals to public establishments, consistently. Therefore if you were in a wheelchair and couldn't get access to the local bar to drown your sorrows, the law - the Charter - says that you as a shop owner must make your establishment available (or provide reasonable and equal accommodation). That is the law.

Equality means that EVERYONE without regard to their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability has equal right to access the same things that any able-bodied Canadian has access to, and cannot be restricted on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. It goes further in allowing governments the authority to prescribe laws which help remove the inherent barriers disadvantaged individuals may face. Thus we are in this discussion and despite Harper's usual temper tantrum, Elections Canada is right in allowing special accommodation for women who wish to wear habjab during voting.

I would like to call them simply "women" - this group that had fought for the rights of women to vote - not a "special interest group." Don't you see the contradiction in that?

You can try to imagine history and recreate you own versions all you want. It was a special interest group that fought the ignorance and prejudice of men in parliament that won that vote. AND it has been the womens' special interest groups that won other recognitions and rights for women that you now so casually take for granted.

You belong in your own right - a woman. An equal of man!

There are lots of men - quite a few here in fact - that would love to deny you your equality and put you back in the kitchens and bedrooms of their homes. While there are still some religions that think that way, including fundamentalist Baptists and Evangelists, fortunately the law is on your side.

But I do see your dilemma. You can't empathize your own equal rights with those who are denied by legal and physical barriers. That doesn't make you pathetic. It just makes you sad. And what is even sadder is that you seem to have no clue as to what your rights are, or where they came from. Truly sad indeed.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Posit

[Posit]

Actually, women prior to being recognized as "persons" had no political rights whatsoever. They did not have the right to vote so were not a special interest in elections to be catered to by politicians. They fought for the right to be persons and to be treated "equally under the law" and thus be granted the right to vote. It did not mean they wanted special treatment above men or that they should lobby for privilege once they won the right to be called "persons equal under the law". I note there is a federal portfolio for the status of women but not one for the status of men. Must be an oversight.

Now you're getting somewhere.

Think of this: In order to gain equal status they had to fight the status quo as a special interest group. When the arguments were raised about allowing women the right to vote and to be recognized as persons, the same arguments you and many others are making here about disallowing rights based on "reasoning" were made by men against women!. And when the law was finally changed, there were many challenges and changes that had to be made to the existing laws to accommodate the concept that women were persons too. Even today there barriers - such as workplace equality in male dominated fileds - that women must still use their "special interest" lobby groups to change laws and attitudes. Without those women would be subservient to men. That is a fact in history.

[sharkman]

No posit, elections Canada was wrong and so are you. This is not an issue similar to the hanicapped access you keep bringing up. Nor is it a woman's issue. Anyone of any culture is free to vote in Canada, but they must be cleared to do so to retain the integrity of an election. Showing up in clothing that does not prevent you from being identified is a simple rule, and one that should not be bent for the exception to the rule. Elections Canada should not be made to pay to accomodate people who do not want to vote by the rules. Again, if you want to wear religious garb and vote at the same time, move to a country where your religion reigns. Oh, wait. In Muslim countries, women can't vote. That is, they don't bother with such things as elections.

Edited September 10, 2007 by sharkman

[Posit]

I'm not wrong about this nor is the SCoC. Religious gear is permitted anywhere in Canada, including election polls. The excuse that someone can't see your face is irrelevent considering you must hand in a Voter Registration Card. They can't ask for anything more UNLESS you don't have a card and they must register you on the spot. Then all you need is two pieces of ID.

Harper is the numbnutz making an issue out of nothing.

[capricorn]

Harper is the numbnutz making an issue out of nothing.

Posit, what does "numbnutz" mean? I could not find a dictionary definition. Thanks.

How is Harper making an issue out of nothing when the conditions and requirements for voting were set by the House of Commons? He was not the first to raise this issue first. It was raised in Quebec in relation to the by-elections.

[jbg]

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!!!

Perfect plain-speaking post. My ancestors came over from Europe, learned English and stopped speaking Yiddish pretty fast. And they started working on Saturdays when necessary. Choices are made. Life's a b***h.

[jbg]

Covering up identity isn't wrong. Forcing someone to identify themselves when it serves no purpose is "unreasonable search" under the Charter.

Knowing if someone is eligible to vote is legitimate. Also, insisting that people, when in public, keep their faces visible is perfectly OK. I don't want a lot of faceless, anonymous people roving the street.

[Melanie_]

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.

But I could collect voter cards too, from disinterested white women, and go and vote multiple times at multiple polling stations. If it is against my rights to be asked for photo ID if I have a voter's card, why wouldn't it also be against theirs?

[jbg]

Oh, wait. In Muslim countries, women can't vote. That is, they don't bother with such things as elections.

I wonder what the procedures are in Muslim countries that do hold elections:

1. Malaysia (though the same party's won since 1957);
   
2. Indonesia;
   
3. Pakistan (from time to time, between military rule episodes);
   
4. Turkey (from time to time, between military rule episodes);
   
5. Bangladesh (from time to time, between military rule episodes)
   

I highly doubt that those countries allow people to vote anonymously.

[mikedavid00]

Nor should he. Political correctness is like a cancer on the West. We need to believe in ourselves first.

Wow that's was a short, but great post and I completely agree. It all comes down to that.

[mikedavid00]

And if there are no women volunteers?

Anyway, why should we have a different law to accomodate them?

The solution is simple: you don't want to remove your burka, then don't vote.

You want to vote, then remove that burka. Show your face like everyone else!

I completey agree.

And why are we letting these tax burdens into Canada anyway? If they aren't showing their faces, they can't take part in our society. Are they here to have 5 kids and collect cheques for all of them and then send them to ethnic schools that John Tory is proposing?

Things have gone too far and we have to just cut these tax burdens off from stepping on Canadian soil.

The burka is a burden. hehe

[myata]

I really hope that somebody will take EC to the court over that. E.g by taking ids with no photos on them to the station. What's the point of having a photo, if you can't see the face?

I argued here that everybody is entitled to wear whatever they want, burqa or not. This is a question of equality though. If reliable identification is required to vote, it should be the same level of "confidence" regardless of ethnicity or religion. The opposite would constitute discrimination under the Charter. So if person A does not have to comply with photo (or some other form of physical) identification, why should I be required to?

[Pliny]

Now you're getting somewhere.

Think of this: In order to gain equal status they had to fight the status quo as a special interest group. When the arguments were raised about allowing women the right to vote and to be recognized as persons, the same arguments you and many others are making here about disallowing rights based on "reasoning" were made by men against women!. And when the law was finally changed, there were many challenges and changes that had to be made to the existing laws to accommodate the concept that women were persons too. Even today there barriers - such as workplace equality in male dominated fileds - that women must still use their "special interest" lobby groups to change laws and attitudes. Without those women would be subservient to men. That is a fact in history.

They were not a special interest group before they got the vote because they did not have the vote no politicians had any obligations to listen to them on any issues.

They had no rights. So they were not a special interest group.

No laws had to be changed to accommodate women. They were considered persons and equal under the law. What further laws needed changing? Society had to adjust to the new recognition. Of course, feminists wanted to force the issue and in the sixties started to heavily lobby as a special interest group for privilege.

[jbg]

Wow that's was a short, but great post and I completely agree. It all comes down to that.

Thanks for the compliment. Edited September 10, 2007 by jbg

[Posit]

They were not a special interest group before they got the vote because they did not have the vote no politicians had any obligations to listen to them on any issues.

They had no rights. So they were not a special interest group.

No laws had to be changed to accommodate women. They were considered persons and equal under the law. What further laws needed changing? Society had to adjust to the new recognition. Of course, feminists wanted to force the issue and in the sixties started to heavily lobby as a special interest group for privilege.

Wrong on many counts.

They were a "special interest group" and politicians listened to them because there was political pressure to do so. The purpose of special interest groups is to change the law or policies of government to correct what is perceived as a wrong, or injustice.

Before being granted the vote women were not persons under the law. They had no rights except those that were afforded her by her husband or her parents. Until 1958 native people were not considered "persons" under the law either. They could not enter a bar, or vote in elections, hire lawyers to sue government, or seek public counsel except with the express approval of the Indian Agent. Special interest groups changed that too and they were no considered persons under the law either.

I suppose it is getting near your bed time. I look forward to other fantasies and myths that you dream up tonight so we can consider tomorrow a brand new day....

[WestViking]

So when we made accommodations for people in wheelchairs, we we accommodating a special interest. Used to be we said "You wanna vote?WALK to the voting station!" But that wasn't fair so we installed wheelchair ramps.

The muslim woman is completely within her rights to request a female registrar if she is required to show her face/hair. If there is no female registrar she should have the option to wait until there is one so she can cast her vote.

How is this impeding on anyone?

Leafless if you suspect a woman is shoplifting under her garments (a hijab, a big winter coat, or a long skirt can hide stolen items) do the male police search her or do they bring in a female officer?

They bring in a female officer.

We already accommodate for the female thief, why not accommodate for the female muslim?

By bringing in a female officer to search the female thief, are we destroying our culture? LOL

Geez people, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill

There is no Canadian law requiring Muslim women to wear a Hiijiab, burka or any other garment. There is a Canadian law requiring all person who vote to identify themselves. Those who refuse to show their faces forfeit the right to vote. There is no problem to solve and nothing to 'accommodate'.

[Pliny]

Whether you agree or not, the SCoC has upheld the rights of individuals to public establishments, consistently. Therefore if you were in a wheelchair and couldn't get access to the local bar to drown your sorrows, the law - the Charter - says that you as a shop owner must make your establishment available (or provide reasonable and equal accommodation). That is the law.

yes. that is the law even if there are no handicapped individuals in a wheelchair for a hundred miles. that is the law.

Yes. You can be told what to do with your private property. That is the law.

There is no justice. There is only catering to special interests, minorities and/or the underdog who will then vote for you. People without a vested interest or special status aren't interested enough to vote and are generally ignored or told they will get a tax break that amounts to $50 a year per person and adds up to a billion dollars the big-hearted government will sacrifice for you.

Equality means that EVERYONE without regard to their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability has equal right to access the same things that any able-bodied Canadian has access to, and cannot be restricted on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. It goes further in allowing governments the authority to prescribe laws which help remove the inherent barriers disadvantaged individuals may face. Thus we are in this discussion and despite Harper's usual temper tantrum, Elections Canada is right in allowing special accommodation for women who wish to wear habjab during voting.

If equality means that, then anyone can crash in my spare bedroom whenever they like. You are way too sloppy in your statements to be taken seriously in a legal sense or any sense. Gosh I will have to get a lobby group together and lobby to have my inherent barriers removed. I am rapidly becoming disadvantaged. Tthe government, for instance, only hires visible minorities these days. Where will it end?

[Posit]

I guess you've never read the Charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)

I dumbed it down a bit for you. My bad. Next time I start throwing the legalese at you. Be sure to follow along and use a dictionary to look up the bigger words....

Equality means that EVERYONE without regard to their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability has equal right to access the same things that any able-bodied Canadian has access to, and cannot be restricted on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. It goes further in allowing governments the authority to prescribe laws which help remove the inherent barriers disadvantaged individuals may face. Thus we are in this discussion and despite Harper's usual temper tantrum, Elections Canada is right in allowing special accommodation for women who wish to wear habjab during voting.

[Pliny]

Wrong on many counts.

They were a "special interest group" and politicians listened to them because there was political pressure to do so. The purpose of special interest groups is to change the law or policies of government to correct what is perceived as a wrong, or injustice.

Before being granted the vote women were not persons under the law. They had no rights except those that were afforded her by her husband or her parents. Until 1958 native people were not considered "persons" under the law either. They could not enter a bar, or vote in elections, hire lawyers to sue government, or seek public counsel except with the express approval of the Indian Agent. Special interest groups changed that too and they were no considered persons under the law either.

I suppose it is getting near your bed time. I look forward to other fantasies and myths that you dream up tonight so we can consider tomorrow a brand new day....

Lookup what a special interest group is. It is a group that lobbies for special privilege or consideration above the interests of others.

Women were not lobbying for special privilege or consideration they were lobbying for equality under the law. Not until they wanted special laws for themselves could they be considered a special interest group. Lobbying for equal treatment under the law is different than lobbying for privilege, largesse and/or special consideration.

I don't know when natives got the vote. Was it 1958 they were recognized as persons, equal under the law, and became subjects of the Queen and citizens of Canada? Well, they certainly are a special interest group now.