In a terrific series of posts, RT has teased out the mixture of racism, demagoguery, and just plain stupidity behind the whole broo-ha-ha re Election's Canada Veiled Voter Ruling. The take-away lessons are several:
1) Everyone, including Stephen Harper, knew that these rules would allow veiled voting:
The fact remains that the regulations were clearly established and approved by parliament, that all the federal parties were thoroughly briefed on the guidelines back in July and there can be no excuse for their faux shock and surprise now. Elections Canada is NOT circumventing the will of parliament, it is NOT making up its own laws and it is NOT acting out of some imagined sense of “political correctness
So the question becomes: if Harper is so incensed by the new rules, why did he allow them to go forward in July? Was he overwhelmed by a flash of hatred for Canada? Did he suddenly go soft on Terror? Who knows, but he was for these rule changes before he was against them.
2) Demanding that velied muslim women expose their faces while at the same time NOT requiring that they present photo ID is the height of futility, unless the point is merely to hassle some Muslim women. Think about it: to what is one comparing the unveiled face?
3) This has nothing to do with National Security and voter fraud, everything to do with pandering to Quebec Yokeldom in particular, Canadian Yokeldom in general. If the radio shock jocks that originally stirred this pot were English and Western, the correct term for them would have been "hicks from the foothills outside of Gooberville". Unfortunately, I don't know an equivalent French phrase. And, frankly, it is terribly disappointing that some elements of the French race--who after all gave the world Bardot, Democracy, Destouche, snails, the corkscrew position AND the doggy style--should descend to this level of race baiting.
3) This has nothing to do with National Security and voter fraud, everything to do with pandering to Quebec Yokeldom in particular, Canadian Yokeldom in general. If the radio shock jocks that originally stirred this pot were English and Western, the correct term for them would have been "hicks from the foothills outside of Gooberville". Unfortunately, I don't know an equivalent French phrase. And, frankly, it is terribly disappointing that some elements of the French race--who after all gave the world Bardot, Democracy, Destouche, snails, the corkscrew position AND the doggy style--should descend to this level of race baiting.
4) Sucks to Dion for being weak, to Duceppe were being himself, to Harper for being a demagogue. Kudos to Jack Layton and the NDP for not playing along.
Update: It's official. Stephen Harper doesn't know the contents of his own legislation (nor does anyone else, apparently, given the immensely confused coverage of this issue in the MSM):
Elections Canada says the parliamentary legislation governing how people can cast a vote does not require people to show their faces.
Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said Monday that the law does allow for veiled voters to decide whether or not to reveal their face.
Speaking at a press conference in Ottawa, he said that if people are not happy with that situation, “I invite parliament to re-examine the law, and [amend the law] if they feel it necessary.”
10 comments:
Elections Canada is only supposed to apply the rules, they're not allowed to make them.
How is Harper doing a flip/flop? Did he first allow this?
And which rules did EC make up anon? Oh, that's right, none.
How is Harper doing a flip/flop? Did he first allow this?
Yes! His government introduced and passed the bill that says photo ID is not required and says nothing about showing one's face.
What I don't understand is why most Lefties are anti-semitic, but pro-Muslim. Which is the more progressive society? Clearly Israel's, but again and again the lefties will support this regressive, fundmentalist, extremely conservative religious politic. Very puzzling. Can anyone answer that?
So photo id is required, but if I'm wearing a mask covering my face, how do you know that the picture is of the bearer? Verification of the face to the document is the CRUCIAL aspect of having photo id.
I think I'll try that little trick this fall.
Cant' you read? Photo ID is NOT required.
Was he overwhelmed by a flash of hatred for Canada?
Probably. He had just recently been decked out in a rather fetching Australian outback ensemble and realised that dorky cowboy hats, toques and flannel shirts can never compare.
Ed King is clearly wrong. Photo ID is required for all voters in the upcoming byelections and in feeral elections. It is a result of Bill C-31. This press release from Elections Canada states just as much (http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=med&document=sep0507c&dir=pre&lang=e&textonly=false). If voters cannot provide photo ID, then they need to provide two pieces of government issued ID. This is why veiled women have to provide two pieces, as the photo id would be useless if you can't see the face.
There is just a disagreement over the intent of the law, and Harper is allowed to voice that disagreement, as is Layton and Dion. It doesn't make them racists.
Peter,
Here is the text of the bill. As you can see, section 21 clearly states that voters must provide either a photo ID or two documents approved by Elections Canada, or take an oath. The press release you linked to says the exact same thing: "Electors can prove their identity and residential address in one of three ways...". You must have misinterpreted it. Photo ID is not required.
This is why righties need to be sent to re-education camps. They simply cannot read.
Only suckers vote Liberal. Then they cry BOHICA when they get in power, break their promises, and line their pockets.
I hope Dalton McChimpy wins. The sooner Ontario is bankrupted and liberalism is declared a social disease the better.
Post a Comment