"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[M.Dancer]

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.

The conflict throws up a constitutional conundrum. Mr. Mayrand is an officer of Parliament and, therefore, independent of government. The Chief Electoral Officer can only be dismissed with cause and by the Governor-General. But Mr. Mayrand is isolated, with Mr. Harper's criticism echoed by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and senior Quebec politicians, including Premier Jean Charest.

I did not say that they were controlled to parliament, I said they are responsible to parliament. And of course, its officers are appointed by parliament.

[Higgly]

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.

Exactamundo. Elections Canada are more like the police with a mandate to uphold the law. No way should they ever be directly accountable to Parliament. The opportunities for malfeasance would be just too tempting for the less scrupulous to resist - not naming any names here.

[Higgly]

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.

Thanks. I was going by the general gist of the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

[Higgly]

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.

You are incorrect, as has been stated here by other posters. They will show their faces to another woman. Just not to a man. The problem is really a minor logistical issue for Elections Canada.

[jennie]

You are incorrect, as has been stated here by other posters. They will show their faces to another woman. Just not to a man. The problem is really a minor logistical issue for Elections Canada.

... which Elections Canada could have entirely avoided if they had talked to the Muslim people affected.

What a shame. Now people are using this as another excuse to vilify Muslims, when it was not them who made it an issue.

I think Elections Canada should apologize to the Muslim community for its error.

[Posit]

The Chief Electoral Officer just made a statement on CBC explaining why they made the decision. He also stated they will not be changing their policy on the matter.

I guess Harper finds one more Canadian institution he can't circumvent the law around in favour of his narrow and legally impotent opinions......

[M.Dancer]

I guess Harper finds one more Canadian institution he can't circumvent the law around in favour of his narrow and legally impotent opinions......

You mean parliament. There was a unanimouse vote on the issue. Besides, only parliament can make laws.

[M.Dancer]

Thanks. I was going by the general gist of the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

We were at a function this weekend and my daughter sees an elderly Nun. She asked what it is she was wearing. A Hijab I tell her (out of earshot of her mother)

[Posit]

You mean parliament. There was a unanimouse vote on the issue. Besides, only parliament can make laws.

EC isn't making any new laws. They are prescribing a policy for all electoral districts. Parliament nor Harper can say beans about it, since EC runs outside of the authority of both of them.

Sure parliament can make laws, but it has no effect when it violates a Charter Right. The CEO has determined that requiring a Muslim women to expose her face is a violation of the Charter. The ONLY solution would be for Harper to send it to the SCoC in the form of a challenge.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Posit

[M.Dancer]

The ONLY solution would be for Harper to send it to the SCoC in the form of a challenge.

Not according to the CEO

Speaking at a press conference in Ottawa, he said that if people are not happy with that situation, “I invite parliament to re-examine the law, and [amend the law] if they feel it necessary

[White Doors]

EC is making any new laws. They are prescribing a policy for all electoral districts. Parliament nor Harper can say beans about it, since EC runs outside of the authority of both of them.

Sure parliament can make laws, but it has no effect when it violates a Charter Right. The CEO has determined that requiring a Muslim women to expose her face is a violation of the Charter. The ONLY solution would be for Harper to send it to the SCoC in the form of a challenge.

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

It's gotta be exhausting for you.

[myata]

This CBC article seem to clarify many controversies about this issue: CBC story. According

to the EC President, "visual identification is not a requierement", as long as the voter can present two non-phote ids. From which I gather that nobody will be turned away if they wear full or partial face cover for a legitimate reason. E.g. a balaclava on a -40 day, or face bandage should all be acceptable. Now I'd like to see how it'd play out in reality.

[myata]

please ignore

Edited September 10, 2007 by myata

[gc1765]

I don't see what the problem is:

Mr. Dion suggested that female employees with Elections Canada could be on hand at polling centres to identify women behind their veils.

Seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me. It ensures that there is no voting fraud while respecting the wishes of some female Muslims. What's the problem with that?

[Posit]

There's nothing wrong with it, or many of the other suggestions EXCEPT the Chief Elections Officer says the covering can stay if the Muslim women want them. He has the last word unless Harper takes it to the SCoC.

[geoffrey]

There's nothing wrong with it, or many of the other suggestions EXCEPT the Chief Elections Officer says the covering can stay if the Muslim women want them. He has the last word unless Harper takes it to the SCoC.

It shouldn't have to go to courts. He should follow the will of government, every party agrees with Harper on this one. I think the President needs to be dismissed for his self-legislating nonsense. Who knows what he'll try next, moving around election dates, disqualifying the major parties.

It seems like there is some tension between the CPC and EC after EC tried to rip the CPC off from all that money. Harper is right here. Go kick some ass. Fire this guy.

[jennie]

It shouldn't have to go to courts. He should follow the will of government, every party agrees with Harper on this one. I think the President needs to be dismissed for his self-legislating nonsense. Who knows what he'll try next, moving around election dates, disqualifying the major parties.

It seems like there is some tension between the CPC and EC after EC tried to rip the CPC off from all that money. Harper is right here. Go kick some ass. Fire this guy.

This is not the only circumstance where face coverings and voting collide.

Other examples included bandages, scars, deformities, etc.

In other words, the rule was written that way for a reason ... for when perfectly innocent people have good reason for covering their face in public.

I voted once without photo ID.

I had to swear and sign.

Big deal.

[geoffrey]

I voted once without photo ID.

I had to swear and sign.

Big deal.

They could still see your face, and if you returned many times, would be able to recognize you and object.

[betsy]

This is not the only circumstance where face coverings and voting collide.

Other examples included bandages, scars, deformities, etc.

In other words, the rule was written that way for a reason ... for when perfectly innocent people have good reason for covering their face in public.

I voted once without photo ID.

I had to swear and sign.

Big deal.

Perhaps you should try wearing a balaclava or a mask next time you vote. Let us know what happens.

[Posit]

It shouldn't have to go to courts. He should follow the will of government, every party agrees with Harper on this one. I think the President needs to be dismissed for his self-legislating nonsense. Who knows what he'll try next, moving around election dates, disqualifying the major parties.

It seems like there is some tension between the CPC and EC after EC tried to rip the CPC off from all that money. Harper is right here. Go kick some ass. Fire this guy.

What don't you get? That the government cannot dictate to Elections Canada? It is simple. They operate at arms length from the government so that the democratic process is not interfered with. Where it concerns voting and election rules, the Prime Minister is an impotent monkey.

EC challenged CPC on their election spending BECAUSE there were irregularities in the way money was spent and by whom. They are doing their jobs according to THE LAW and overseeing the election. You seem pissed because Harper got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. What? You didn't expect that? Well you should have.........

The only way the policy decision of the Chief Election Officer can be challenged is in court. That's THE LAW. All this politicking by emotional grunts is really nonsense. Just get it in your head the the law, is THE LAW and there isn't much you can do about it......Get over it. The decision has been made.

However I do see that you want to ignore THE LAW when it suits you. Maybe if you quit being so fickle and started to stand for law and justice you might not get so emotionally charged. Its bad for your young ticker.....

[jbg]

I don't understand any faith precluding their faithful from common sense actions that involve the element of practical purpose.

I demand the right to go to a bank branch and open a bank account while wearing a ski mask.

[trex]

80,000 people vote by mail. No one saw their faces. A non-problem, and Harper knows it.

Just another ploy to attack muslim culture by our rascist, ignorant leadership

Edited September 11, 2007 by tbud

[fellowtraveller]

Just another ploy to attack muslim culture by our rascist, ignorant leadership

Of course, you did know that all four parties voted in favour of the new voting legislation? And that three of the four have condemned the idea that anonymous persons can vote. You did know that, right?

Note also that because some people vote via mail has absolutely nothing to do with whether they can do the same thing at a polling station. Maybe you'd lie to rethink the whole thing.

[fellowtraveller]

He has the last word unless Harper takes it to the SCoC.

Baloney.

The CEO of EC was providing his interpretation of the law when this little buntoss got its 5 minutes of fame.

If parliament tells him there is a new law requiring that the CEO wear a pink gorilla suit, he wears a pink gorilla suit.

I reckon you're one of those guys that believes unelected officals like Elections Canada or the Supreme Court are the lawmakers. Must be a Liberal, it's a dead giveaway.

And here is Elections Canadas mandate, just so you know who is the tail, and who is the dog:

"Elections Canada is an independent, non-partisan agency reporting directly to Canada's Parliament. Its ongoing concern is to fulfill its responsibility to ensure Canadians can exercise their choices in elections and referendums in an open and impartial process.

Get it now?

[Posit]

Baloney.

The CEO of EC was providing his interpretation of the law when this little buntoss got its 5 minutes of fame.

If parliament tells him there is a new law requiring that the CEO wear a pink gorilla suit, he wears a pink gorilla suit.

I reckon you're one of those guys that believes unelected officals like Elections Canada or the Supreme Court are the lawmakers. Must be a Liberal, it's a dead giveaway.

And here is Elections Canadas mandate, just so you know who is the tail, and who is the dog:

"Elections Canada is an independent, non-partisan agency reporting directly to Canada's Parliament. Its ongoing concern is to fulfill its responsibility to ensure Canadians can exercise their choices in elections and referendums in an open and impartial process.

Get it now?

EC operates at arm's length from government and the CEO has every right without interference to set EC policy - directives to local R.O.s. The law passed by Parliament was to request identification of all voters. The CEO has interpreted it to that to be consistent with the Charter Rights of individuals, Muslim women are not required to show their faces.

Harper can't do a thing about right now. And since he took the unusual step of proroguing Parliament (which is itself is questionable) he'll have to wait until a full session returns to deal with it administratively. However, that will not be in time for Provincial Elections in Ontario, and not likely anything will pass before the next federal election (which by all indications will be called shortly after Parliament reconvenes). So all that Harper's horse monkey act is doing is....well....nothing....And all of those of you that want to crucify the religious rights of Muslims...well.....get over it. This is a lame duck.