Let the voter fraud begin
'Burka ruling' undermines our democratic process
The last time I looked, parliament voted in favour of having all Canadian voters provide visual identification at voting stations. I guess this matters not to Elections Canada as they decided to overstep the rules and guidelines for the sake of sharia law (veiled women will be able to vote in the upcoming Quebec byelections). Yikes!
However, Paul Tuns doesn't see this ruling as leading towards sharia law, although he does think that "it shows, as Mark Steyn has argued for a half decade, that the West lacks both the civilizational confidence and intestinal fortitude to meet the threat of radical Islam. It also illustrates once again that Canada has either given up on the idea of equality before the law or given multiculturalism priority over this concept." (updated)
Furthermore, if there is one thing that a ruling like this demonstrates, it's that there is a need for a complete housecleaning within Election Canada. Let's be honest folks, for the last decade and a half, this organization was nothing more than an extension of the Liberal party of Canada used to reward friends with plum positions. For the sake of democracy, this is one camper that hopes we haven't heard the last on this ridiculous "veil" ruling.
'Dry Humour' Update
As Burton Front mentioned, Halloween may come earlier than anticipated for some. (Hat tip Bourque Newswatch)
9 Comments:
Well at least you can use your halloween costume again.
Why not just have female election workers check the identity of Muslim women?
I honestly can't figure out why this is anything resembling controversy when there is such a simple solution.
Yes, it hardly requires 'housecleaning' for one ruling. Elections canada is world renowned.
What next? Beheadings in public?
spinks: LOL! interesting take by Anselm.
janet: Good point. I haven't heard any party leader suggest that, nor the media. Maybe you should write Marc Mayrand and offer your consulting services.
mikel: there are some serious issues that have to be addressed in the bureaucracy, including Elections Canada.
Anon: it was good to see that every party leader, with the exception of Layton, denounced this ruling.
First, its not the 'bureaucracy', in case people didn't bother reading the article it states:
"Stemming from a bill to amend the Elections Canada Act that was given royal assent last June..."
That's not 'the bureaucracy', thats your elected officials.
"Under the new regulations, the voter will need to present a valid piece of identification with a photo and address as well as a back-up document that meets the standards of an authorized list."
In Quebec, such identification is up to the PROVINCE to determine whether veils can be worn or not.
Further,
"If she does not have these two documents, she can have her identity vouched for by another voter in the same polling station. Both parties would have to be voters in the same polling division and would be required to make a sworn statement under oath."
So you can see from that that its pretty difficult to commit voter fraud in such a case (there are certainly far far easier ways as anybody who has ever looked at an american election or a quebec referendum knows).
The only 'fraud' that could be done would be to have the ID present and somebody else behind the scarf, and identification is something that is pretty easy to fake anyway.
So it seems no 'solution' is even required.z
Yes mikel, I know it was legislation which changed the act. What I was referring to was the interpretation of that law by Election Canada officials wherein they ok'ed veils at three by-elections next week. I don't agree with it.
However, as much as I disagree with it, this reasonable interpretation was motivated by a loophole in a shaky, if not, bad law. Moreover, it was the intent of the legislation to prevent voter fraud, but in retrospect, the actual legislation designed to prevent that type of fraud (through Photo ID) has a major loophole, in that, photo ID is not required in some cases.
For example, when a voter approaches an elections clerk to register, if they don't have photo ID, they can choose two pieces of ID from an approved list, which includes such things as debit cards, SIN # or a utility bills.
I've delt with this situation at the municipal level in Ottawa (was once a clerk) and had a few people who were allowed to vote based on a utility bill or credit card. Can't say I wasn't suspicious and sceptical though.
So even if we disagree with this interpretation, it doesn't matter, because the law doesn't require the voter's face or not, since there is this loophole.
That being said, I thought this was a fair statement in the Vancouver Sun;
If we are concerned enough with the potential of voter fraud to require identification, then that identification must be positive. Otherwise it is pointless. That said, where there is a legitimate need for requiring photo identification, that requirement must be applied across the board.
In Canada, we should always try to make reasonable accommodations to people who have religious or cultural objections to our laws. In this case, a reasonable accommodation might be to have a female scrutineer available to verify the identity of a Muslim woman.
Allowing her identity to go unchecked is neither reasonable nor necessary.
It is worth noting that when a furore erupted in Quebec over a similar ruling in advance of the provincial election last spring, Muslim leaders there pointed out that they had not requested any such accommodation. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women in Quebec wear the burka or niqab.
Even so, they were rightly concerned that the reversal of the decision by Quebec's chief electoral officer to allow veiled voting was made in the wake of threats, not as a result of any reasoned re-examination of the original ruling.
These are emotionally charged issues. That's all the more reason to get them right.
The female scrutineer scenerio was mentioned by janet above (and don't get me wrong, it's a great point), however, this doesn't change the fact that the law needs to be strengthened so that all voters can be positively identified. IMO, we're inviting fraud when ppl can get away with not properly identifying themselves before marking a ballot.
I didn't like the fact that ppl were able to do this back in 2000 during the municipal election and I don't like it now. Hopefully, this law will be further debated.
I suspect the reason it was allowed is simply because of the above case. IF 'we' don't need photo id, then obviously it would be wrong to do it in this case. So 'until' a photo id is required, its pointless to have that debate. Keep in mind its not 'wrong', its just debatable. Keep in mind your name has to be on the voting list or else they are far more stringent, so voter fraud here is a bit of a stretch. We are not talking about huge numbers of people here.
Photo ID is a separate issue, but in this case they caveats certainly go a long way to mitigating any voting irregularities.
Now religions are being mocked??
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home