"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[betsy]

What the majority of people think - even what the Prime Minister thinks - is irrelevent. Reasonable accommodation is defined by the Charter, supported by the Supreme Court of Canada as the way the Charter is to be interpreted AND is incumbent on all Canadians to exercise. If you choose not to be reasonable under the law then your business and even your household becomes open to litigation for failing to comply with the basic human rights afforded in the Charter.

So go ahead and be angry about something you can't do anything about. I've always considered that that kind of energy exercised by xenophobes is a good distraction from having to participate in my reasonable and democratic society.

But the way I understand it, they are going to change the law or do something about this? or at least try. And to think that all the political parties agree on this....so that really says a lot.

One thing I would bet on this though is that what the majority of people think will not be that irrelevant. You bet we're talking politicking here. You think the majority of people will not have a say on this matter? All you need is a good measure of polls!

Whether you or I think it's reasonable or not...or whether it should be this or that...will not make any difference at this point.

We'll just have to wait and see.

And speaking of anger..... well who's having a temper tantrum?

Who's resorting to toddlerism of "MINE!" "MY!"

And just right after having a "time-out"...or "quiet time?"

Who's calling names?

Edited September 13, 2007 by betsy

[Posit]

[/b][/i]

But the way I understand it, they are going to change the law or do something about this? or at least try. And to think that all the political parties agree on this....so that really says a lot.

One thing I would bet on this though is that what the majority of people think will not be that irrelevant. You bet we're talking politicking here. You think the majority of people will not have a say on this matter? All you need is a good measure of polls!

Whether you or I think it's reasonable or not...or whether it should be this or that...will not make any difference at this point.

We'll just have to wait and see.

And speaking of anger..... well who's having a temper tantrum?

Who's resorting to toddlerism of "MINE!" "MY!"

And just right after having a "time-out"...or "quiet time?"

Who's calling names?

Nah. It doesn't matter if they change the law or not. This is a Charter issue and it is well above the authority of Canadian law and Parliament. Sure you can imagine that the Charter will be changed, but I highly doubt that the will of the provinces or the federal government would be capable of moving through the process of Constitutional amendment. Plus it would be political suicide for the governing party that pushes such an agenda. Polls are useless and absolutely no effect on Charter LAW or the Supreme Court's decisions.

So go waste your energy on the backs of some other immigrants. It is a done deal.

[jbg]

It's like, a lot of Jews believe in freedom of speech, but you probably won't find many of them lining up to support KKK rallies.

Actually, back in 1978 when the Nazis wanted to rally in Skokie (a heavily Jewish suburb of Chicago), Illinois I supported them on free speech grounds. I suggested, only half jokingly, that they should have the right to rally, with no police protection. I am pretty absolute in my support of free speech. My view is that if people want to make idiots of themselves, let them.

In a similar situation elsewhere, the Nazis fought for months for the right to hold a rally; an done person showed up.That, to me, is a major benefit of absolute free speech; the Nazis made themselves a laughingtock.

[Visionseeker]

Huh, I must say I am impressed with Mayrand. He’s standing up to the plate and performing his duties with distinction.

After seeing some of his testimony, I’m left with no doubt that his is the solid position. One cannot say that veiled women must prove their identity by lifting their veils while the same electoral system allows people to vote quite unidentifiably through the mail.

The PM would be best to just let the matter drop (unless he’s also willing to scrap voting by mail), for his is the losing argument here.

[Posit]

That has been my position from the get-go, as well.

[jdobbin]

I have reserved comment on this subject because I seem to recall that months ago that the issue of identification at the polls gave people the choice of what sort of identification to use. I wanted to see the actual wording of the law.

After seeing what the law is, I don't believe that any of the four parties is correct in pressuring the Chief Electoral Officer.

The government will have to re-write the law if they want Elections Canada to make people show their faces at the polls. And if they do that, they will have to reconsider the issue of voting by mail where no photo is required. I don't think you can have one and not the other.

[capricorn]

I have reserved comment on this subject because I seem to recall that months ago that the issue of identification at the polls gave people the choice of what sort of identification to use. I wanted to see the actual wording of the law.

After seeing what the law is, I don't believe that any of the four parties is correct in pressuring the Chief Electoral Officer.

The government will have to re-write the law if they want Elections Canada to make people show their faces at the polls. And if they do that, they will have to reconsider the issue of voting by mail where no photo is required. I don't think you can have one and not the other.

jdobbin, about voting by mail. Obviously, public servants working abroad and students of voting age studying abroad can only exercise their right to vote by mailing in their ballots. Undoubtably, there are a whole lot more Canadians in these group than all the women who wear the burqa across the entire country. I don't see a correlation between the two.

As you said, the law needs to be re-written to reflect the true intent of the House of Commons which hopefully reflects the will of Canadians. Our politicians screwed up. Dumping on a bureaucrat won't fix the problem.

[jdobbin]

jdobbin, about voting by mail. Obviously, public servants working abroad and students of voting age studying abroad can only exercise their right to vote by mailing in their ballots. Undoubtably, there are a whole lot more Canadians in these group than all the women who wear the burqa across the entire country. I don't see a correlation between the two.

As you said, the law needs to be re-written to reflect the true intent of the House of Commons which hopefully reflects the will of Canadians. Our politicians screwed up. Dumping on a bureaucrat won't fix the problem.

I can request a special ballot of I choose not to go the polls.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false

Any elector who cannot or does not wish to vote at a polling station during an election or referendum may vote using a special ballot. With a special ballot, an elector can vote by mail or in person at the office of any returning officer. If the elector is away from his or her electoral district, inside or outside Canada, he or she can also register to vote with Elections Canada in Ottawa. Voting by special ballot is governed by the Special Voting Rules, set out at Part 11 of the Canada Elections Act. The Special Voting Rules apply to the following categories of electors:

1. Canadian electors temporarily away from their electoral districts during the election or referendum, whether in Canada or abroad

2. Canadian electors in their electoral districts who cannot or do not wish to go to an ordinary or advance poll to vote

3. Canadian citizens temporarily residing outside Canada

4. Canadian Forces electors (including civilians employed as teachers or administrative support staff in Canadian Forces schools outside the country)

5. incarcerated electors

If I choose to vote by mail-in ballot, I don't need to show my face. If I go to the polls, I have to? It isn't inconsistent.

[Michael Bluth]

As you said, the law needs to be re-written to reflect the true intent of the House of Commons which hopefully reflects the will of Canadians. Our politicians screwed up. Dumping on a bureaucrat won't fix the problem.

So the bureaucrat, and not the elected officials, reflect the will of Canadians in this case?

Which Canadians are you referring to?

Only those who vote for the NDP?

[capricorn]

So the bureaucrat, and not the elected officials, reflect the will of Canadians in this case?

Which Canadians are you referring to?

Only those who vote for the NDP?

Please. I never inferred that the bureaucrat reflects the will of the people. I also never referred to the NDP. Are you seeing things?

[betsy]

Yesterday, CTV Newsnet showed some clips of what seemed like some sort of a hearing where-in MPs and rep of Muslim Community gave their statements.

The representative of the Muslim community voiced practically the same sentiment that I have. He said that with us at war with the Taliban, and with our soldiers dying for this war...why would EC give preferential treatment to those that follow Taliban fundamentalism?

There are only a few hundreds of veiled Muslims, most of whom are willing to show their faces.

Why should we accomodate those very few that would not respect our own system....considering that yes, their burquas and najibs represent the very thing why our men and women are dying at war?

Edited September 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

I didn't know about this incident until now:

Muslim women will have to lift veils to vote in Quebec election

Last Updated: Friday, March 23, 2007 | 6:12 PM ET

CBC News

Muslim women will have to remove their face coverings if they want to vote in Monday's Quebec election, said the province's chief returning officer.

Marcel Blanchet announced Friday he was reversing an earlier decision that would have allowed Muslim women wearing niqabs to vote on March 26 without showing their faces.

The initial decision, reported in Montreal newspapers, sparked fierce debate in Quebec.

The chief electoral officer's headquarters were flooded with angry e-mails and phone calls, forcing Blanchet to hire two personal bodyguards and assign security officials to survey the building.

Some Quebecers threatened to show up at polling stations wearing masks, which spurred Elections Quebec to reverse its decision so voting day could proceed without trouble.

"It's not a good idea to make people nervous," said Denis Dion, a spokesman with Elections Quebec. "In the house of democracy, we're not used to dealing with security. What we're doing currently in Quebec is a crucial part of our social and political life."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/quebecvotes2007/s...ab20070323.html

Edited September 15, 2007 by betsy

[Posit]

Why should we accomodate those very few that would not respect our own system....considering that yes, their burquas and najibs represent the very thing why our men and women are dying at war?

Because it is the law and they have a Charter right to wear their face coverings anywhere they want - including while voting. Simple.

[betsy]

Because it is the law and they have a Charter right to wear their face coverings anywhere they want - including while voting. Simple.

That could change. We'll wait and see.

And if the ruling does change, I would question the loyalty or allegiance of anyone who attempts to challenge the change of ruling.

We're at war to eradicate the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

They ought to be on the spook watchlist!

Edited September 15, 2007 by betsy

[Posit]

That could change. We'll wait and see.

And if the ruling does change, I would question the loyalty or allegiance of anyone who attempts to challenge the change of ruling.

We're at war to eradicate the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

They ought to be on the spook watchlist!

It can ONLY change if there is a constitutional amendment which requires all the premiers and substantial Canadian involvement. There is neither the public will to validate what a few racists think, or the parliamentary fortitude to open that process up to make a Charter change. Instead we will have all forgotten about it in about 1 month.

[Michael Bluth]

It can ONLY change if there is a constitutional amendment which requires all the premiers and substantial Canadian involvement. There is neither the public will to validate what a few racists think, or the parliamentary fortitude to open that process up to make a Charter change. Instead we will have all forgotten about it in about 1 month.

There hasn't been a ruling on the Charter implications in this case.

Who are the racists? Why?

Scary, scary, scary again?

[Posit]

Right now the Chief Electoral Officer has determined that to deny the face covering would be an infringement against their charter rights. Sure Harper has the option of making a challenge and in 10 years by the time it reaches the Supreme Court via due process, he might get a more defined interpretation (more likely not). However, that won't change the Charter law. It will merely offer one specifically applied interpretation. That's all.

[geoffrey]

Because it is the law and they have a Charter right to wear their face coverings anywhere they want - including while voting. Simple.

I want to wear face coverings too... plus carry a large firearm, as it's part of my religion.

Your ok with me wearing that into all public places? Great!

[geoffrey]

Reasonable accommodation is defined by the Charter

Seriously, where do you come up with your legal knowledge? The School of Aboslute Bullshit?

supported by the Supreme Court of Canada as the way the Charter is to be interpreted AND is incumbent on all Canadians to exercise. If you choose not to be reasonable under the law then your business and even your household becomes open to litigation for failing to comply with the basic human rights afforded in the Charter.

Do you have a SCC case showing that Muslims do not have to reveal their faces at a polling booth? Please cite all these SCC case law that backs your opinion if your going to claim the SCC is on your side.

By the way, they are not.

[Michael Bluth]

Do you have a SCC case showing that Muslims do not have to reveal their faces at a polling booth? Please cite all these SCC case law that backs your opinion if your going to claim the SCC is on your side.

By the way, they are not.

That isn't even the case that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand is making. Link

Mayrand is claiming that the changes the Commons committee wants need an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. He has never offered an opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed changes.

[Pliny]

Hey, Posit...do you think that it would be hard to count votes in a democratic Afghanistan? I wonder how long women will have to fight for suffrage if democracy is instituted?

[Posit]

Hey, Posit...do you think that it would be hard to count votes in a democratic Afghanistan? I wonder how long women will have to fight for suffrage if democracy is instituted?

Probably as long as it took us to allow women to vote....roughly 60 years.....

[kimmy]

An addendum on the subject of showing your face when you vote.

This video shows what happens when Sunny the Sonic Bunny, a radio station mascot, attempts to vote.

http://radiosonic.fm/index.php?entry=entry071015-161610

Feel his heartbreak.

The elections officer is clearly racist... against lagomorphs.

-k

[August1991]

As the guy in the video said, "Is this a religious thing?"