"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[geoffrey]

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

Wrong. Identifying yourself for voting is definitely reasonable. Find ANY judge that disagrees with me and I'll be very suprised.

By the way, covering up is wrong when the other option is being shunned by your community or worse. Strict Islam is clearly a form of spousal abuse.

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.

Right. Again, find a judge that disagrees with Harper (and Dion, and Duceppe and to some extent Layton) and I'll be really impressed. All judges in Canada, no matter how radical, will uphold the law requiring people to have an identity to vote.

[betsy]

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.

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.

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.

For all your insistence to turn this discussion into a women's rights group....then why the hell do you support the abuse of Muslim Women?

Furthermore, you support the continuation of this abuse right here in a democratic society that offers them the EXCUSE TO SHED OFF THE SYMBOL OF THE SHACKLE THAT BINDS THEM, helping them do so without the feelings of guilt that may come with it!

That veil coming off is a big step towards freedom! Even for only a few minutes. You don't seem to get that.

YOU of all people, since you seem to be one of the champions of women, ought to be fighting tooth and nail, for ANYTHING that will help these women to free themselves!

Get real! You are one very confused female!

Bloody hell....all co-called champions of women's rights that I get tangled with seems all the same! They know not what they spout about! This infuriates me since they only bring all that pre-historic label of women back to the fore: that women 's opinions shouldn't be taken seriously!

Edited September 10, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

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.

Thank you Pliny.

[Posit]

For all your insistence to turn this discussion into a women's rights group....then why the hell do you support the abuse of Muslim Women?

Furthermore, you support the continuation of this abuse right here in a democratic society that offers them the EXCUSE TO SHED OFF THE SYMBOL OF THE SHACKLE THAT BINDS THEM, helping them do so without the feelings of guilt that may come with it!

That veil coming off is a big step towards freedom! Even for only a few minutes. You don't seem to get that.

YOU of all people, since you seem to be one of the champions of women, ought to be fighting tooth and nail, for ANYTHING that will help these women to free themselves!

Get real! You are one very confused female!

Bloody hell....all co-called champions of women's rights that I get tangled with seems all the same! They know not what they spout about! This infuriates me since they only bring all that pre-historic label of women back to the fore: that women 's opinions shouldn't be taken seriously!

I am a champion of human rights. Muslim women choose to wear habjab in order to recognize their respect for their religion. Amish women wear a bonnet for the same purpose. Nothing in law, whether it is specific or not can refuse them a service because they choose to respect their religion. Even if election laws called for visual identification (which it does not) then the their Charter right over-rules it.

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.

Wrong again. The minute women started to lobby government, society and businesses to be treated on equal par as men, they became a special interest group. As they still collectively are fighting for equality in many areas their special interests groups lobby politicians every day. And while you may enjoy the luxury of freedom and some equalities, women in Canada are still largely ignored by law and in male-dominated professions. Without that lobby of those special interest groups you would not be enjoying pay equity with men, nor would the building codes across Canada now require more toilets for women at theatres and public auditoriums. These are some of the things the special interest groups argue for on your behalf. Otherwise despite the Charter, men would still be prescribing what women wear and and where they go in society. Generally speaking, for Muslim women that is a "religious choice" now guaranteed under the Charter.

There is no doubt that should this go to court (which Harper will not want) it would go to the SCoC. Charter rights cannot be denied.

[betsy]

I am a champion of human rights. Muslim women choose to wear habjab in order to recognize their respect for their religion.

I guess it's more convenient for you to assume all these muslim women had made their choice without any coercion or fear at all.

Close your eyes and repeat your own mantra....then voila, it is just as you said.

Okay Champion of Human Rights, what about those Muslim Women in Canada who came forward to speak about the threats of violence they've received should they insist on following the western way of life?

What about those who are afraid to speak out?

You make negligent claims just so to make up the facts that would fit your argument. AT THE EXPENSE OF THESE WOMEN.

I am a champion of human rights.

So?

Are you now suggesting women are not human?

Edited September 10, 2007 by betsy

[Posit]

Muslim women in Canada wear habjab because THEY choose to. They also choose their religion and beliefs. You're just pissed because you can't choose for them.

If ANY woman is threatened, she receives the full protection of the law...unless of course if she is Native. Is it fair and just that 80 women disappeared in western Canada and the police didn't even blink an eye? Is it fair and just that Native women are murdered every day and their non-native killers are set free without even so much as an interrogation? Is it fair and just that Native women have their children stolen from them and whisked off to foster homes in far-away cities, just because they are poor? There is IMO a continuing act of gencide taking place in this country against aboriginal people. That most can't see it doesn't surprise me. Most Canadians are too apathetic to even raise an eyebrow.

Womens' advocacy groups are fighting for them too. So the women's special interest groups are alive and well in Canada.

In time Canadians and law will adjust to the religious freedoms and customs of many people. Unfortunately you demonstrate that changing attitudes and educating ignorant people about those rights is a relentless and daunting task.

[jbg]

In time Canadians and law will adjust to the religious freedoms and customs of many people. Unfortunately you demonstrate that changing attitudes and educating ignorant people about those rights is a relentless and daunting task.

Religious freedom yes. Customs of other people no. They came here (or to Canada) as the case may be. They weren't forced to come here. They should observe our customs, not vice versa.

Are the signs in New York in Yiddish or in English?

[Higgly]

It is hijab is it not?

Posit's reasoning, and the Elections Canada decision, are based on the Charter, those who argue against the Elections Canada ruling are arguing on emotion. If Steve doesn't like the decision, then he should address the Charter. He was wrong to publicly criticize Elections Canada on this.

Given the simple solution - the fact that the woman can lift the veil to a female polling officer, then this is really a tempest in a teapot. It would be interesting to know what proportion of polling stations have no female volunteers. I'll bet precious few and I'll also bet it is a logistical problem that could be easily solved by the prudent assignment of volunteers to polling stations.

Statistics Canada has demographic information concerning the makeup of ridings. Certainly it would be within the reach of Elections Canada to make sure polling stations in areas with large numbers of Moslems have female officers present.

This reminds me of the debate that took place when Sikh RCMP officers petitioned for the right to wear their turbans and won.

[Pliny]

It is a tempest in a teapot.

If I do not have my voting card or two pieces of ID then I cannot vote. Anyone else that cannot identify themselves similarly at

a polling station cannot vote. I believe the whole uproar is a political ploy designed for political gain. We only have to look at who is painted in a bad light to see the origin but the CBC would definitely promote the demagoguery.

[M.Dancer]

"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling

SYDNEY, Australia (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Elections Canada is subverting the will of Parliament by permitting Muslim women to wear veils and burkas while voting.

------

He is not pulling any punches!

Absolutely absurd. This and allowing Burka wearers to drive (something thet aren't allowed to do in their homelands) is beyond reasonable .

[M.Dancer]

It is hijab is it not?

A hijab is a head scarf. If it was a hijab there would be no issue becasue it doesn't conceal the face.

The issue is niqabs and burkas which conceal the face entirely.

[Posit]

It is a tempest in a teapot.

If I do not have my voting card or two pieces of ID then I cannot vote. Anyone else that cannot identify themselves similarly at

a polling station cannot vote. I believe the whole uproar is a political ploy designed for political gain. We only have to look at who is painted in a bad light to see the origin but the CBC would definitely promote the demagoguery.

The same thing applies for a Muslim woman. However, they don't have to see your face to validate your ID AND they can't tell you to remove your Crucifix in order to vote.

[kimmy]

Wheelchairs do not conceal the identity of the user, as far as I can recall. Sikh RCMP officers' identities were not obscured by their turbans, as I recall.

Authentication of personal identity is a legitimate need in our society. Not just at polling stations, but in other circumstances as well.

Canadians are not an unreasonable people, and would probably agree to some other acceptable means of authenticating peoples' identity. If Muslim women are unwilling to show their faces for reasons of personal identification, then they should find some other means of fulfilling this need.

So, what sounds good? Fingerprints?

-k

[kimmy]

The same thing applies for a Muslim woman. However, they don't have to see your face to validate your ID AND they can't tell you to remove your Crucifix in order to vote.

So, uh, what's pictured on *your* driver's license?

-k

[White Doors]

"ALL PARTIES"?

Who do you speak for geoffry?

all 4 parties passed a law last year stating that visual identification was necessary for voting.

All 4 parties.

[White Doors]

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.

You are co very very wrong on this issue.

Weird that your PC nazism can't even let you see the truth don't you think?

You claims on the charter are laughable. Everyone has their freedoms' limited. Freedom is NOT absolute.

That would be like me claiming discrimination because I can't use the womans washroom.

It IS discrimination, but it is 'resonable'.

It would be thrown out of court.

But you think THIS would be overturned by the Charter? hahaha

no wonder you are so wrong in your Native issues too.

BTW, no muslims asked for this exception, this is PC-ism run amok at Elections Canada. They are quire clearly breaking the law.

[M.Dancer]

My wife who doesn't wear a burka but sometime wears a pashmina, decided she wanted to earn a little cash so she signed up to be an election thingy.

She is the perfect neutral observer.

She asks me, "is there going to be an election soon?"

"Yes" I say "next month".

"Who is running", she asks....

I tell her the name of the liberal MPP in our riding but I explain I don't remember the others.

"No" she says, "who are the leaders"....so I ramble them off.....

Howard Hampton..."no" she says "don't like him, no personality."

John Tory..."no" she says, "doesn't trust him....."

McGuinty ..."no" she says, "he always sounds too nervous....'"

She asks if there is anyone else.....

I tell her there may be a green....she looks at me and smiles,

"Well, I'm working that day so I don't think I will have time to vote anyway...."

[Pliny]

The same thing applies for a Muslim woman. However, they don't have to see your face to validate your ID AND they can't tell you to remove your Crucifix in order to vote.

Photo ID is required for a lot of things. Wearing Burkas is not permissible when you make application for photo ID.

I don't sign my credit cards anymore I request them to ask for ID - they recognize my hoodie right away.

[Posit]

So, uh, what's pictured on *your* driver's license?

-k

Your birth certificate and Social Insurance Card are both valid forms of ID. No need for picture ID.

[betsy]

Your birth certificate and Social Insurance Card are both valid forms of ID. No need for picture ID.

Have you tried going to a bank and try to get cash out of your credit card? If you don't have a bank card in that particular bank....they want a photo i.d!

SIN and brith certifcate can be faked or stolen!

[jennie]

I heard what I have been waiting for: The Muslim community saying "Why didn't Elections Canada just consult with us? We are used to lifting our veils at the border or anywhere else identification is required. It is not an issue for us."

Elections Canada really screwed up on this one.

[Denny]

Harper is right on about this. Its not his personal opinion, it was considered by Parliament and they gave directives to Elections Canada about visual verification for voting. Parliament's demands trump the agencies of the government, including Elections Canada

That is entirely reasonable. Our voting system, to have integegrity must ensure that people have no openings to impersonate others to skew votes. Many years ago, before the advent of photo i.d., that was generally accomplished by having all polling places small enough that the workers and scrutineers had some familiarity with those in their neighbourhoods by sight. But, even that does not work in the casee of people concealing their faces.

I don't understand any faith precluding their faithful from common sense actions that involve the element of practical purpose. For instance, Catholics fast on certain days, but if someone is sick, then they can eat what they must to get well. Most faiths demand modesty, but it does not obviously apply to the contact with a medical doctor for the purpose of availing oneself of examination and treatment. If a faith gets to the extreme where it does not permit common sense to be used by its adherents, then I can't see any reason for society to respect its demands.

[jennie]

Harper is right on about this. Its not his personal opinion, it was considered by Parliament and they gave directives to Elections Canada about visual verification for voting. Parliament's demands trump the agencies of the government, including Elections Canada

That is entirely reasonable. Our voting system, to have integegrity must ensure that people have no openings to impersonate others to skew votes. Many years ago, before the advent of photo i.d., that was generally accomplished by having all polling places small enough that the workers and scrutineers had some familiarity with those in their neighbourhoods by sight. But, even that does not work in the casee of people concealing their faces.

I don't understand any faith precluding their faithful from common sense actions that involve the element of practical purpose. For instance, Catholics fast on certain days, but if someone is sick, then they can eat what they must to get well. Most faiths demand modesty, but it does not obviously apply to the contact with a medical doctor for the purpose of availing oneself of examination and treatment. If a faith gets to the extreme where it does not permit common sense to be used by its adherents, then I can't see any reason for society to respect its demands.

Read my post above: It was NOT the Muslim people who requested this. It was Elections Canada acting without even consulting with the Muslim community.

[M.Dancer]

Read my post above: It was NOT the Muslim people who requested this. It was Elections Canada acting without even consulting with the Muslim community.

Elections Canada isn't responsible to minority communities. It isn't even responsible to majority communities.

It is responsible to Parliament.

[Posit]

Elections Canada isn't responsible to minority communities. It isn't even responsible to majority communities.

It is responsible to Parliament.

Nope. Parliament does not control Elections Canada. EC is responsible to uphold the law and in their opinion Muslim women need not show their faces. And like any citizen, Harper can take the challenge to the SCoC if he wants. However, no amount of temper tantrums are going to change it.