Niqabs, burkas can be worn for Que. byelections

[geo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

In a letter to Marc Mayrand Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, MCC president Farzana Hassan said, "unless the intention of Elections Canada is to paint Canada's Muslim community in a negative light, we demand that this silly provision allowing masked women to vote, be rescinded immediately. The sanctioning of the burqa and niqaab as Islamic attire is a rude joke, and insult to Muslim Canadians."

The MCC president said, “Covering the face is not an Islamic religious requirement. " She said there is no express injunction in the Quran, which exhorts Muslim women to cover up entirely, therefore no such faith accommodation is necessary. "The covering of a woman's face is a Saudi tribal practise intended to ensure women are treated like chattel, not equal human beings," she added.

While the MCC supports reasonable faith accommodations, the organization believes that allowances enabling voters to conceal their identity represent a compromise of the democratic process. Liberal democracies must ensure an atmosphere of openness and transparency during voting. Elections Canada's decision is clearly in contravention of this important democratic principle.

The MCC also believes that such allowances will embolden Islamists and their supporters to seek even greater concessions in the future. The organization also feels that the current trend to appease fundamentalist forces may be symptomatic of a larger problem forcing governments to capitulate to the bullying tactics of Islamists in Canada.

Furthermore, the threat of random acts of terrorism must be considered while making such concessions. Due to this recurring and pervasive threat, individuals must not be permitted to appear in public without revealing their identity, let alone in a voting booth"

So why is there a debate ???

 

[Munxcub]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:

(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or

(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.

(2.1) For greater certainty, the Chief Electoral Officer may authorize as a piece of identification for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) any document, regardless of who issued it.

(2.2) [recognizes as documentation registration as Indian under Indian Act]

(3) [recognizes person who takes prescribed oath and is vouchsafed by another identified voter]

(4) If the deputy returning officer is satisfied that an elector’s identity and residence have been proven in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), the elector’s name shall be crossed off the list and, subject to section 144, the elector shall be immediately allowed to vote.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Taylor187]

"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.

In a letter to Marc Mayrand Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, MCC president Farzana Hassan said, "unless the intention of Elections Canada is to paint Canada's Muslim community in a negative light, we demand that this silly provision allowing masked women to vote, be rescinded immediately. The sanctioning of the burqa and niqaab as Islamic attire is a rude joke, and insult to Muslim Canadians."

The MCC president said, “Covering the face is not an Islamic religious requirement. " She said there is no express injunction in the Quran, which exhorts Muslim women to cover up entirely, therefore no such faith accommodation is necessary. "The covering of a woman's face is a Saudi tribal practise intended to ensure women are treated like chattel, not equal human beings," she added.

While the MCC supports reasonable faith accommodations, the organization believes that allowances enabling voters to conceal their identity represent a compromise of the democratic process. Liberal democracies must ensure an atmosphere of openness and transparency during voting. Elections Canada's decision is clearly in contravention of this important democratic principle.

The MCC also believes that such allowances will embolden Islamists and their supporters to seek even greater concessions in the future. The organization also feels that the current trend to appease fundamentalist forces may be symptomatic of a larger problem forcing governments to capitulate to the bullying tactics of Islamists in Canada.

Furthermore, the threat of random acts of terrorism must be considered while making such concessions. Due to this recurring and pervasive threat, individuals must not be permitted to appear in public without revealing their identity, let alone in a voting booth"

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.

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

G2G for PM in the next election.

 

[TCBF]

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]

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.