"Harper rips Elections Canada over veil ruling"

[jennie]

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?

Ya we get it ... but just wait til they get filled in on the details:

Sometimes MP's aren't familiar with the complexities of the discipline they are trying to control for political gain,

until it is explained to them by the bureaucrats who do the job.

1) 80,000 vote by mail without identifying themselves. (They write a sworn statement instead.)

Some vote with faces bandaged, scars or deformities covered, etc.

Facial recognition is not required to vote, and if Harper tries to make it necessary just to harass Muslim women,

wait til he sees who else objects!!

So ... if some are allowed to do it, it can't be denied to others.

They could all just stay home and vote by mail.

HOWEVER ...

2) Muslim women have not asked for this privilege, do not want it as they are accustomed to lifting their veil at the border etc. It is not a big deal to them.

WHAT IS A BIG DEAL TO THEM IS THIS ... what tbud said ...

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

THAT is EXACTLY what bothers Muslim women about this: This is just another trumped up excuse for another disgusting and ignorant and prejudiced attack on their religious beliefs and their culture.

Edited September 11, 2007 by jennie

[betsy]

HOWEVER ...

2) Muslim women have not asked for this privilege, do not want it as they are accustomed to lifting their veil at the border etc. It is not a big deal to them.

WHAT IS A BIG DEAL TO THEM IS THIS ... what tbud said ...

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

THAT is EXACTLY what bothers Muslim women about this: This is just another trumped up excuse for another disgusting and ignorant and prejudiced attack on their religious beliefs and their culture.

Well if it's not a a big deal to Muslim women since they're used to lifting their veil, why is this being turned into a big deal by you guys?

And why has the racist card miraculously turned up over this not-so-big-a-deal?

So who's being the real "shit-stirrer" in this scenario....aside from the EC?

Edited September 11, 2007 by betsy

[buffycat]

So who's being the real "shit-stirrer" in this scenario....aside from the EC?

Harper and some other so-called elected officials. Geez Betsy don't 'cha know it's all the rage to demonise all Muslims? Get with it!

Good for Elections Canada for not bowing to the BS spewed out once again by the hypocrits who call themselves 'public servants'. Double speak right there mate!

[Michael Bluth]

Facial recognition is not required to vote, and if Harpie tries to make it necessary just to harass Muslim women

That sentence says it all.

Ignorantly using the wrong name for the Prime Minister. Muslim women deserve respect, yet you won't give a basic level of respect to the Prime Minister?

Poorly spelled.

You have completely ignored the issue.

Parliament passed a law.

The unelected officials at EC are trying to thwart the will of Parliament.

If Muslim women are asked to lift their veils to enter the country, then why not to vote?

[Pliny]

Parliament passed a law.

The unelected officials at EC are trying to thwart the will of Parliament.

Ahh....the real issue. Partisan politics.

[betsy]

Harper and some other so-called elected officials. Geez Betsy don't 'cha know it's all the rage to demonise all Muslims? Get with it!

Good for Elections Canada for not bowing to the BS spewed out once again by the hypocrits who call themselves 'public servants'. Double speak right there mate!

Ha-ha! Nice to see you got a sense of humor.

But seriously.

If the Muslims did not request any special privilege over this, and Muslim women says it's no big deal lifting their veil....then why is this made into a big deal, considering that all political parties have agreed about this. Obviously, there is a need for it....since when did all the parties agree on practically anything?

I'd say the "shit-stirrer" would be the one who first raised the head of "bigotry"....or hate-for-Muslims card...etc..!

This is the thing, you see. There are those who'd latch on to anything just so they can bring up the racist card!

They'd want you to believe that peace and harmony is what they want for all of us....and yet they are the ones who keep fanning the flames of discord and unrest.

They are the hypocrites. And yeah, they don't only double-speak....but they are also double-faced.

Edited September 11, 2007 by betsy

[old_bold&cold]

Job opening very soon Elections Officer and head of Elections Canada. I have always said that the civil service has been liberal leaning and many people have even gone so far as to leak many things just to discredit the PC's. Since the last elections. Harper did not do as most had done in the past and sweep clean the Liberal faithful from the civil service positions. This has cost him some valuable points and fights, that if it were in private industry, these people would be long gone, before any of this happened.

I will give Harper credit for being able to keep his own staff etc., in line, but when you have a civil service with liberal faithful, still in positions of power, then you really must be running a tight ship to only have these few things come about. It is no coincidence that the elections Canada, are responsible for the story about 1.2 million be shifted by ridings etc. to come about when the government may be brought down. But what people are forgetting is this whole issue is one of a question about what is a deduction and what is not. In the end it will be a non event. But in the prospects of an election, this is the Liberals trying to say that Harper is corrupt. But 1.2 million from 17 ridings etc which did pay for advertising, there is no doubt about that. No envelopes of cash involved here. It make me go HMMMM

Then we have the head of elections Canada making rulings on issues where nothing was requested, and in the face of what we all know was in direct opposition to what the government of the day was saying. Again it makes yo wonder why is this happenig, and why now. I would think that it would be pretty obvious that this position being taken, is going to cause trouble, and it was designed to cause harm and get the liberals the ethnic vote. But now there is a backlash, the muslim women do not care about showing their faces for ID, and do so all the time at borders and drivers licenses etc.. Who then was this great idea brought up by, and why now. The liberals should be ashamed because this shows that they are still the backhanded bunch of lying, cheating, and corrupt political body, that was proven so recently with the sponsorship scandel. Dion is supposed to be their leader and it is obviuos that all this hype of late was the design of the liberal party and their faithful. Lets see just what the voters in the by elections think of this same underhanded actions. If a liberal comes to your door, get out the gun and tell him exactly where to go, and how to get there. Maybe then they will see that their ways and means will not be tolerated any more.

[jdobbin]

Job opening very soon Elections Officer and head of Elections Canada. I have always said that the civil service has been liberal leaning and many people have even gone so far as to leak many things just to discredit the PC's. Since the last elections. Harper did not do as most had done in the past and sweep clean the Liberal faithful from the civil service positions. This has cost him some valuable points and fights, that if it were in private industry, these people would be long gone, before any of this happened.

The Chief Electoral Officer was appointed by the Harper government in February.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Oh, so you have now backed away from your position that Harper can only appeal to the Supreme Court? The CEO of Elections Canada -like any civil servant- is supposed to provide policies in conformance with the will of Parliament as expressed by the legislation that they create. Clearly he has failed to do that here.

Ahh....the real issue. Partisan politics.

Which ignores the fact that this new legislation was passed unanimously, passed by all parties in Parliament. Nothing partisan there.

Edited September 11, 2007 by fellowtraveller

[Pliny]

The Chief Electoral Officer was appointed by the Harper government in February.

A deft slight of hand. He was not appointed by Harper.

Appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer

The position of Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was created in 1920 in an effort to streamline the conduct of federal elections. The Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons. This procedure, based on a simple majority rule, allows all parties represented in the House of Commons to participate in the selection process, adding to the independence of the position. Save for the first Chief Electoral Officer, who was nominated by statute in 1920, all chief electoral officers have been appointed unanimously.

I hate it when something is presented as a fact and it isn't.

I liked OB and C's post. In my view, it is probably close to the truth, and the real issue in this particular case IS partisan politics.

betsy, calls the shot pretty close on people who continually bring up the race or religion card. Because this issue is on the surface about "religion" it is used by the self-righteous to excuse themselves and paint someone else as "hateful". Keeping the pot stirred.

[Argus]

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've noticed you have a habit of making absolutist statements based on your own interpretation of what you think the law ought to be. However, bombast is a poor substitute for the actual legal knowledge you evidently lack.

The courts have previously found that the government can require Muslim women to show their faces for drivers license pictures, and for other identification purposes. The will of parliament in this case is pretty darned clear. And EC is, in effect, in contempt of parliament by "interpreting" parliament's directions in a way they chose based on their own political beliefs.

[Argus]

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.

Another absolutist statement based on twaddle. Parliament can fire the chief electoral officer any time it so chooses. No government official and no government department, branch or agency is above the supervision and authority of parliament except, to a degree, the supreme court.

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.

The CEO doesn't get to decide what is or isn't a Charter right. And, a much simpler solution is to fire the chief electoral officer and appoint one who pays more attention to what the will of parliament.

[M.Dancer]

Parliament can fire the chief electoral officer any time it so chooses. No government official and no government department, branch or agency is above the supervision and authority of parliament except, to a degree, the supreme court.

Maybe not.

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

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

[jdobbin]

A deft slight of hand. He was not appointed by Harper.

I hate it when something is presented as a fact and it isn't.

Harper and the Conservatives approved of his appointment. Ergo, the present appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer was facilitated by Harper. It was also announced by Canada's new government, not by an all party release from the House of Commons.

Harper used to ride Kingsley, appointed by the Mulroney government as a partisan flack because he wouldn't allow third party adversing in elections. I guess he was wrong. The early Reform party would have approved of that appointment as Grey was an MP at the time and voted for him.

Edited September 11, 2007 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

Perhaps the only way for EVERYONE to be ID is by fingerprints. No two people have the same prints not even twins, so this could be the answer to all the security problems. We could be finger printed when he get our driver's renewed or our healthcard and then it would be on file or even at your local police station.

[Pliny]

Harper and the Conservatives approved of his appointment. Ergo, the present appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer was facilitated by Harper. It was also announced by Canada's new government, not by an all party release from the House of Commons.

Harper used to ride Kingsley, appointed by the Mulroney government as a partisan flack because he wouldn't allow third party adversing in elections. I guess he was wrong. The early Reform party would have approved of that appointment as Grey was an MP at the time and voted for him.

The idea you attempted to put across is that the Prime Minister personally appoints the Chief Electoral Officer. I suppose we are to infer from that, that the Chief Electoral Officer and Mr. Harper are good pals and partisan politics plays no part in this squabble. Once again the squeaky clean image of the Liberals is restored. Seems it has consistently needed restoring over the last forty years.

Don't get me wrong though. The Conservatives have had to polish some tarnish off as well but the Liberals have been acting like the Mafia for quite some time.

[jdobbin]

The idea you attempted to put across is that the Prime Minister personally appoints the Chief Electoral Officer. I suppose we are to infer from that, that the Chief Electoral Officer and Mr. Harper are good pals and partisan politics plays no part in this squabble. Once again the squeaky clean image of the Liberals is restored. Seems it has consistently needed restoring over the last forty years.

Don't get me wrong though. The Conservatives have had to polish some tarnish off as well but the Liberals have been acting like the Mafia for quite some time.

I don't recall ever saying he was a personal appointee or that they were good pals. The Conservatives did vote for him and appointed him to his present position though. And they've been battling with over a host of issues ever since.

My response in this thread was to the suggestion that it was somehow a Liberal appointee who was responsible for stymieing the wishes of Parliament in this matter. Perhaps you should have corrected the original poster who made the claim that it was a Liberal. I simply pointed out the fact that the appointment was made by Harper and voted on by Conservatives.

Edited September 12, 2007 by jdobbin

[scribblet]

Mayrand said the onus is on Canada's Parliament to decide public policy, so let's hope Parliament works on this quickly and that our judges and the system accept that same principle.

[jennie]

Mayrand said the onus is on Canada's Parliament to decide public policy, so let's hope Parliament works on this quickly and that our judges and the system accept that same principle.

They will have a challenge wording it so that SOME PEOPLE can vote without facial recognition (eg anyone who choses to vote by mail), but MUSLIM WOMEN MUST SHOW THEIR FACE.

I don't know why they bother with the taxpayer cost of changing the law when they could just announce that Muslim women MUST vote by mail. /sarcasm

[buffycat]

We were discussing this last night and bouncing some ideas around as to why all the hooplah about the veil and the need to show one's face, coupled with the plain fact that one can vote by mail (as pointed out earlier in this thread). So the question rose up: Why set the precedent using the 'veil' as the scapegoat excuse to enforce one's face being shown to vote? Is there another agenda here lurking in the shadows? If so, what could it be? Could it be perhaps that after the veil issue is law - ie one MUST show one's face in order to vote - all other remote voting (mail; proxy etc) will also be revoked? This of course would fit in well with the whole drive towards biometric IDs and face recognition technologies. Will they be asking for our fingerprints next?

Something to think about anyway, since folks vote by mail currently, and so do not show their faces this whole veil thing really makes no sense - it feels like there is something missing in the context.

Anyway - just musings on the continued assaults on all of our liberties...

[trex]

Hi Buffycat!

I don't know if its a conscious agenda, but at the very least it will be intimidating to be a muslim who wears a veil, and going to vote this year. I wonder how many will be brave enough to show up

Edited September 12, 2007 by tbud

[buffycat]

Hi Buffycat!

I don't know if its a conscious agenda, but at the very least it will be intimidating to be a muslim who wears a veil, and going to vote this year. I wonder how many will be brave enough to show up

Hi back at 'cha tbud!! Nice to see you again !

Well I truly hope that ALL of them show up! The 'activist' part of me would love to see a solidarity display of the sisterhood of women - we gals should all don the viel on voting day! (I guess that's the $hit disturber in me eh? )

[trex]

When they walk into the room, everyone will definitely be watching them. Who knows maybe even some reporters waiting for them outside too, to ask them a few question.

The media message for the public is: "Muslim women, we will be watching you." Pressure to loose the veil as we have seen elsewhere in the world. Harper is just being politically stylish now, along with our friends in Britain, France, Australia. Xenophobes of islam, all, and "commonwealth" too...

Yet not in the USA? that I'm aware.

perhaps her majesty dislikes muslims!

[trex]

that sounds like a great idea buffycat!

Hi back at 'cha tbud!! Nice to see you again !

Well I truly hope that ALL of them show up! The 'activist' part of me would love to see a solidarity display of the sisterhood of women - we gals should all don the viel on voting day! (I guess that's the $hit disturber in me eh? )

[trex]

The fingerprint technology is an invasion of privacy no matter when it is used today. Not only can they takean image of your fingerprint, but by touching the apparatus they have a sample of your body fluids and can determine not only who you are, but what you have been ingesting, touching, etc.

Another example of this is the swipe test they do on your luggage at airports. They claim to be looking for bomb making chems but with the sample they can do much more than that. with todays technology its as good as giiving a urine test, simply by touching a surface and leaving skin oils. and possibly they get even a sample of your DNA. Now what can they do with that, do you suppose...

Perhaps the only way for EVERYONE to be ID is by fingerprints. No two people have the same prints not even twins, so this could be the answer to all the security problems. We could be finger printed when he get our driver's renewed or our healthcard and then it would be on file or even at your local police station.