# Niqabs, burkas can be worn for Que. byelections



## GAP (6 Sep 2007)

Niqabs, burkas can be worn for Que. byelections
Updated Thu. Sep. 6 2007 4:31 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Muslim women wearing niqabs or burkas covering their faces won't have to remove them to vote in three federal byelections in Quebec on Sept. 17. 

An Elections Canada spokesman says the women won't have to show their faces to vote. 

Spokesman John Enright said Thursday women wearing niqabs or burkas can bring a piece of identification with a photo and another document proving their identity when they vote. 

However, Enright says in cases where women wearing niqabs or burkas don't have any documents, they would have to show their faces to allow their identity to be confirmed or they would have to be vouched for by a qualified voter in the same electoral division. 

In last winter's Quebec election, the province's chief election officer said Muslim women wearing niqabs or burkas had to show their faces to vote. 
More on link


----------



## krustyrl (6 Sep 2007)

This is a touchy one and many won't want to share their opinion for fear of the stigma that could be directed towards their views.

Things that make you go  HHhhhhmmmm.!


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Sep 2007)

Here's my view.  If you want to vote, show your face.  If your culture prohibits you from showing it in public, well, then, I suggest you join another culture.  If you really want to accomodate, then have them show their face to a female returning officer (along with photo ID).  I have to show my face when I go in.  One country, one set of rules equally applicable to all.


----------



## krustyrl (6 Sep 2007)

> One country, one set of rules equally applicable to all.



Words to *live by * and *heed* by *all* when passing through the gates of this country.!    :cdnsalute:


----------



## mudrecceman (6 Sep 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Here's my view.  If you want to vote, show your face.  If your culture prohibits you from showing it in public, well, then, I suggest you join another culture.  If you really want to accomodate, then have them show their face to a female returning officer (along with photo ID).  I have to show my face when I go in.  One country, one set of rules equally applicable to all.



+1


----------



## GAP (6 Sep 2007)

Politicians are afraid of tackling this issue....watch...everything will be blamed on Elections Canada, but the politicians make their rules


----------



## Simon (6 Sep 2007)

Amen, mud recce.

+1 if I may


----------



## Strike (6 Sep 2007)

> If you really want to accomodate, then have them show their face to a female returning officer (along with photo ID).



+1


----------



## mudrecceman (6 Sep 2007)

Simon Plant said:
			
		

> Amen, mud recce.
> 
> +1 if I may



?

I didn't say it...I only quoted it.  I think your +1 is really for Captain Sensible...credit where credit is due.   ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Sep 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> One country, one set of rules equally applicable to all.



Add me to the list of +1's on this subject.  


Matthew.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (7 Sep 2007)

Next election how bout we all wear hoodies and face masks. God what's this country coming to :

Politically correct Bull s***


----------



## WLSC (7 Sep 2007)

:brickwall:What ... .... !?  We are (I am) in A-stan so women can get out of this none sense and at home they let them do this.  It leave a bad taste in my mouth !!!  ???


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Sep 2007)

All this PC crap, and it will end up taking away everything we have fought for. Good God, what has our nation become?

All this to appease a minority, they should have the intestinal foritiude to become part of Canada, embracing everything it has to offer, rather than drag their crap bag full of ethnic hatred, crime, and twisted morals from their former countries to Canada.

In the decades to come what will Canada be?? A nation of tribes who hate each other perhaps? 

Shakes head in disgust, not in disbelief.

Wes


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (7 Sep 2007)

> :brickwall:What ... .... !?  We are (I am) in A-stan so women can get out of this none sense and at home they let them do this.  It leave a bad taste in my mouth !!!



Stay safe over there brother.

Le séjour sauve à cet endroit le frère 



> In the decades to come what will Canada be?? A nation of tribes who hate each other perhaps?



Yes Wes, that could very easily become a reality, if the status quo isn't checked.


----------



## 2 Cdo (7 Sep 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Here's my view.  If you want to vote, show your face.  If your culture prohibits you from showing it in public, well, then, I suggest you join another culture.  If you really want to accomodate, then have them show their face to a female returning officer (along with photo ID).  I have to show my face when I go in.  One country, one set of rules equally applicable to all.



Couldn't have said it any better!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2007)

We could apply the same solution which was used in Afghanistan and Iraq: after placing their ballot in the box every voter dips their finger into a pot of indelible purple ink!


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2007)

I've seen some afghan fellows with painted fingernails, I wonder if that's from voting too  :blotto:


----------



## Flip (9 Sep 2007)

Pinched this from CBC itself.

Seems Harper isn't down eith Elections Canada and their new ruling.
And for the record neither am I.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/09/harper-veil.html

Harper slams Elections Canada ruling on veils
Last Updated: Sunday, September 9, 2007 | 10:00 AM ET 
CBC News 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "profoundly disagrees" with a recent decision by Elections Canada to allow Muslim women to vote with their faces covered by burkas or niqabs.

Speaking at a news conference at the end of the APEC summit in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday, Harper said Elections Canada is subverting the will of Parliament by permitting women to cover their faces at polling stations.

"I profoundly disagree with the decision," Harper said, adding that it was at odds with federal legislation passed in late June.

"We just adopted this past sitting in the spring, Bill C-31, a law designed to have the visual identification of voters. It's the purpose of the law … and I think this decision goes in an entirely different direction," Harper said.

The prime minister also hinted that Parliament would take action if Elections Canada doesn't change course.

"I have to say that it concerns me greatly, because the role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws. It's to put into place the laws that Parliament has passed, so I hope they will reconsider this decision," Harper said. "But in the meantime, if that doesn't happen, Parliament will have to consider what actions it's going to take to make sure its intentions are put into place."

Debate over the new voting provisions, announced on Thursday, comes amid preparations for three federal byelections in Quebec, to be held on Sept. 17.

The Bloc Québécois said on Friday it sent a letter to the federal elections office asking for the change for the byelections.

Bloc MP Pierre Paquette said the changes contravene "the spirit of the law."

"If you have to show some identification, you have to be able to see if the face in the ID is the same as the people in front of you," he said.

Elections Canada spokesman John Enright said Muslim women wearing the burkas or niqabs will have a couple of options at polling stations.

"They will be asked if they're willing to show their face. That's the first option that's presented to them," he said.

If women wish to keep their faces covered for religious reasons, they can present two pieces of ID, of which at least one must state their address, or they can have another voter registered in the same district vouch for them.

Veiled voters who only present one piece of government identification will have to show their face to confirm their identity.

Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer, has scheduled a news conference in Ottawa on Monday to talk more about the identification provisions of the Canada Elections Act.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Sep 2007)

From yesterday's Montreal Gazette (http://digital.montrealgazette.com/epaper/viewer.aspx - I think you might have to be a subscriber to access it):



> Accommodation
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Sep 2007)

I don't have a problem with their not wanting to show their face...I understand completely.

We'll give them another option -- biometric reference still, just not using the face.  They simply register and have their fingerprints stored in NCIS and accessed at the polling station through a database bridge with Canada Elections -- presto!  Identity confirmed with a press of the thumb to a print reader.  Too easy.


2 more ¢

G2G


----------



## geo (10 Sep 2007)

Let me begin by saying that while I have no problem with women of any religion wearing a veil (head covering) (same thing as men wearing hats or yamulkas - I DO HAVE a problem with the "full face" covering

NEVERTHELESS:

Simplest asolution....

A female poling station scrutineer will be set-up off to the side.  Anyone showing up to vote wearing a veil has got to pass by her before proceeding any further.  Match face to ID card & voila!

What's the problem?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Sep 2007)

Here's another point of view (from a non-moslem)
If these women have photo id's, are their faces covered in them?  Methinks not.  So, as many moslems have said in the past few days across the country, if required for identification purposes, these women are to show their faces.  

Next topic, please.


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2007)

First Estimate of Turnout at Advance Polls Now Available
Article Link

OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 11, 2007 — The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Marc Mayrand, announced today the preliminary estimate of the number of electors who voted in advance on Friday, September 7, Saturday, September 8 and Monday, September 10.

Following is a breakdown of the estimated number of electors who voted at the advance polls, by electoral district.

Electoral district Preliminary number of advance poll voters in the current by-elections Number of advance poll voters at the 39th general election as per the official voting results 

Electoral district           Preliminary number of advance poll            Number of advance poll voters            
                                voters in the current by-elections           at the 39th general election as per the official voting                                                                                                                          results
Outremont                                          2,328                                                  3,726 
Roberval–Lac-Saint-Jean                       3,999                                                  3,416 
Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot                         3,190                                                  3,671 
Total                                                 9,517                                                 10,813 

These preliminary figures are based on numbers reported by returning officers and are not final until all the votes are counted on election day and the results have been validated by the returning officers. The final results will be published in the official voting results following the by-elections.

Elections Canada is an independent body set up by Parliament.


----------



## rwgill (12 Sep 2007)

Here's a muslim point-of-view, and not my own.

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20070909.html



> "Allowing masked voters, a
> rude joke," says MCC President
> TORONTO - The Muslim Canadian Congress has asked Elections Canada to immediately rescind its recent decision allowing Muslim women in burqa and niqaab to vote in the upcoming federal by-elections in Quebec.
> 
> ...



So why is there a debate ???


----------



## Munxcub (12 Sep 2007)

Because clearly the MCC is just being intolerant to the Muslim community...  :


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2007)

Having had a look at the original and amending Election Act information on Parliament's website, I can see that there is a clear general idea that the relationship between a name, an address, and a person should be verifiable.  I can also see that the Chief Electoral Officer has some discretion as to what constitutes identification, and that various persons involved in the election machinery have discretion when to ascertain identity and residence.

It is conceivable that an educated adult with years of life experience might fail to infer from the explicit mention of photographic identity that a facial view is required to compare the photograph to something other than a patch of cloth, an expanse of drywall, or a basketball hoop on the wall of the polling station.  What else would be the point of requiring a photograph?

And to judge from the commentariat in the media, there are many who don't make the connection.  Basic stupidity?  Feigned ignorance in the service of a social or political agenda?  Who can say?  Let each wear whichever shoe (actual or faux stupidity) applies.

If the law mentioned a photograph and I had discretion, I would choose to see faces.  I also would, had I discretion, not whine that the law as written did not include every detail as to what my choice should or should not be.  Either you've got discretionary power and the raw mental horsepower to use it, or you need everything on the topic spelled out for you.

Forgive me if I seem a bit sarcastic and testy, but it's how I become each time I am reminded I am governed by, and that some of the people who presume to debate how I should be governed, have the common sense of traffic pylons.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Forgive me if I seem a bit sarcastic and testy, but it's how I become each time I am reminded I am governed by, and that some of the people who presume to debate how I should be governed, have the common sense of traffic pylons.



..and are a lot less useful.

Thanks Brad, you just made my day with that line.


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2007)

Today...in committee....

Election chief stands firm veil rules
 TheStar.com - September 13, 2007  Stephen Thorne Canadian press
  Article Link
Rules on veiled women voting up to Parliament to set, Marc Mayrand testifies

OTTAWA – Canada's chief electoral officer says he will not bow to the will of a House of Commons committee, only to the will of Parliament as a whole on the issue of forcing veiled women to bare their faces at polling stations.

Marc Mayrand refused a request from the procedure and house affairs committee Thursday that he change electoral rules to force veiled women to show their faces to identify themselves.

He noted that in 140 years of Canadian history, there has never been a problem with veiled women voting.

"With all due respect and without offending the committee, I think I must rely on the will of Parliament as expressed as a Parliament," said Mayrand.

"You do not agree that the will of this committee is the will of Parliament?" asked Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski.

Mayrand responded: "Again, with all due respect, I cannot accept the position that a committee can adapt or amend an act of Parliament."

Still, the politicians subsequently passed a motion by Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre asking Mayrand to use his so-called ``powers of adaptation" to overrule the law and require veiled women to show their faces.

But Mayrand gave no sign during a contentious one-hour appearance before the panel that he had any intention of complying with such a request.

He said he warned politicians months ago that new elections legislation would not require veiled women to bare their faces at polling stations. He told MPs from all parties Thursday that neither senators nor MPs raised any concerns about the matter at that time.

Veiled women will be asked to voluntarily unveil on voting day, in a "respectful and dignified manner," he said. If they refuse, they can be asked to take an oath and have someone who lives in their polling division vouch for them.

Poilievre later proposed the motion calling on Mayrand "to use his powers of adaptation to require electors to show their faces before being permitted to vote at voting stations across the country."

The motion passed 11-0.

Mayrand acknowledged he has discretionary powers during elections to change the rules but he told the MPs those powers are only to be used in exceptional circumstances and he does not consider veiled voting an exceptional circumstance.
More on link


----------



## Emenince Grise (13 Sep 2007)

Parliament wrote a bad law, inspite of being warned about their wording. The CEO is following the law, as he is obligated to do. He properly lobbed the ball back in Parliament's court. It's up to Parliament. What this really shows is that our MP's can't read their own laws that they write.


----------



## geo (13 Sep 2007)

The law was written, the CEO consulted & noted the problem
the CEO brought the problem to the attention of parliament
Parliament passed a flawed law.... and they are now asking the CEO to save their sorry a$$

Just deserts !?!


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2007)

"Bad law"?

From the Act, under "Interpretation":



> Satisfactory proof of identity and residence
> 
> (3) For the purposes of this Act, satisfactory proof of an elector’s identity and satisfactory proof of residence are established by the documentary proof of the elector’s identity and residence that is prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer.



From the amending bill C-31, on parl.gc.ca, the "as passed by House of Commons version":



> 21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:
> 
> 143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.
> 
> ...



The extracts from "Interpretation" and 143(2.1) demonstrate that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has some latitude to decide which documents are acceptable to confirm identity and residence.  143(2) demonstrates that Parliament intends photo ID to be used *but the CEO may add things*.  The default, with exceptions 143(2.2) and 143(3), is photo ID.  Unless the CEO authorizes something else for persons not covered by 143(2.2) or 143(3), photo ID is the start and end of the story.  I invite anyone to declare belief that a reasonable person would not expect a photograph used for the purpose of identification to be verified by looking at that part of the person in the photograph, whether it's a face, a tattoo, or anything else; and to forgive me in advance for thinking him a fool.

So what is the problem the CEO is bringing before Parliament - the amendment is unclear, or he has authorized a bunch of other documentation and is now proposing that Parliament force his hand by removing his unilateral ability to override the fairly clearly stated intention of Parliament because he doesn't feel he can or wants to follow that stated preference?  Maybe he could RTFM, or someone can explain to me what I have misunderstood or missed which renders my interpretation incorrect?


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (14 Sep 2007)

Don't worry Brad I'm just as confused as you are. 

It would seem that the wording of these laws can be construed in a few different ways. 

One says that Muslim women don't have to unveil to vote, another states that any voter must show reasonable proof of who they say they are, by using a piece of government issued personal identification. Contradictions in both laws. If Muslim women don't have to unveil, then how does one know who they say they are on the government issued personal identification. 

Anyhow the real issue here is not with the Muslim community, because they have already stated that they have no problem with unveiling themselves to prove their identity. The problem here is with the government and the CEO making this into an issue.


----------



## geo (14 Sep 2007)

Brad,
I think the CEO is sticking to his guns cause he foresaw this very problem when the law was drafted & brought it to the attention ot the parliamantarians.  Based on the fact that same said parliamentarians felt it wasn't important enough to heed his advice and ammend what was written - before it was passed as law, why should he change the specific thing he argued about last year?


----------



## Blindspot (14 Sep 2007)

You know, sometimes I think that lawyers purposefully word things in an ambiguous way so that lawyers can make more money arguing what they mean. It would've been so easy to put "photo identification" in there somewhere and make it unambiguous.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Sep 2007)

I haven't lost sight of the fact that the Conservatives have butted heads with the Elections people a couple of times.  I hope that Parliament hasn't been childishly  challenged to play a variation of "Simon Says" because some people are in a snit over past events.

I would be partially satisfied to understand the exact grounds of the dispute.  There is only one "hole" I can see; my interpretation is that some people think it necessary for the law to make an explicit point of showing one's face if one shows photo ID as proof of identity.  I deem that ridiculous - our laws have to make sense to reasonable people.  To show photo ID as proof of identity means to show one's face, just as a requirement "to sign" a document means one is expected to use the signature that is one's own.  We don't need a Pythonesque proliferation of laws along the lines of "three shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three" etc.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Sep 2007)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> You know, sometimes I think that lawyers purposefully word things in an ambiguous way so that lawyers can make more money arguing what they mean. It would've been so easy to put "photo identification" in there somewhere and make it unambiguous.



Sometimes I think your observation regarding lawyers is correct.  

In this particular case, however, there are *currently* groups that are being accommodated regarding their wish NOT to have their photo taken.  The one group with which I am most familiar is Hutterites in Alberta.  They are (or were as recently as five years ago) NOT required to have their picture taken for their provincial driver's license.  They have a religious objection which has been accommodated for quite some time.

The point being, that one needs to be careful when drafting laws which may inadvertently infringe on rights and privileges already being extended to parts of our society.


Roy


----------



## observor 69 (15 Sep 2007)

I just checked the Elections Canada web site and you can vote from outside Canada without providing photo ID.


----------



## Taylor187 (15 Sep 2007)

> "Allowing masked voters, a
> rude joke," says MCC President
> TORONTO - The Muslim Canadian Congress has asked Elections Canada to immediately rescind its recent decision allowing Muslim women in burqa and niqaab to vote in the upcoming federal by-elections in Quebec.
> 
> ...



Why is it these folks are always demanding something? Instead of asking, proposing or lobbying they demand it there way. I guess they never got the hand book on how to avoid being overtly rude in their statements.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with their not wanting to show their face...I understand completely.
> 
> We'll give them another option -- biometric reference still, just not using the face.  They simply register and have their fingerprints stored in NCIS and accessed at the polling station through a database bridge with Canada Elections -- presto!  Identity confirmed with a press of the thumb to a print reader.  Too easy.
> 
> ...



G2G for PM in the next election.


----------



## TCBF (15 Sep 2007)

Swab'em.  Hell, swab us all.   DNA bank.  1984 the whole damn planet.  I tire of this.

"Vote early and vote often." -  Alphonse Gabriel Capone (January 17, 1899 – January 25, 1947).


----------



## RangerRay (15 Sep 2007)

Taylor187 said:
			
		

> Why is it these folks are always demanding something? Instead of asking, proposing or lobbying they demand it there way. I guess they never got the hand book on how to avoid being overtly rude in their statements.



All this group is demanding is that they be treated like everyone else i.e. veiled women should be required to show their faces to confirm identity.  Read the article you quoted.


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Sep 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> All this group is demanding is that they be treated like everyone else i.e. veiled women should be required to show their faces to confirm identity.  Read the article you quoted.



What he said.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jun 2009)

From the Canadian Press:


> The federal government has quietly dropped the idea of forcing veiled women to show their faces if they want to vote in Canadian elections.
> 
> The loss of interest comes just as the issue of face coverings is heating up overseas, with President Nicolas Sarkozy declaring that the Islamic burka is "not welcome" in France.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jan 2016)

This was an election issue in 2015 that caused a lot of damage to the Conservative Party's campaign.  It has been defended by some as a "religious" form of dress, as opposed to the truth of it being solely a "cultural" form of oppression in some regions.  Here, straight from the mouth of a woman in her own words her opinions of being oppressed by such a society and her relief of being safe and free as a new Canadian:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Refugee arrives in T.O., takes off niqab: 'I knew I was safe'
> BY TAREK FATAH, TORONTO SUN
> FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 2016 05:45 PM EST | UPDATED: SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 2016 07:28 PM EST
> 
> ...



More on LINK.

This article also gives some insight into Pakistan's activities in the Region.


----------

