Newbie
Posts: 47 
September 30th, 2007, 06:23 PM
As for Marc Mayrand, the Elections Canada bureaucrat who made this stupid ruling, and to make it worse, he was not even asked to make this ruling by the Muslim Association, he just thouth this up all on his own with his pea-sized brain. He should be told to either reverse his decision forthwith or be fired immediately for cause. I know I cannot defy my boss when he gives me a direct order without being fired for insubordination, so where dcoes this jerk get off telling a Member of Parliament when he was asked if he were ordered by this subcommittee to reverse his decision, would he? He responded by saying words to the effect; "At this point in time I will not reverse my decison."
Quoting DocDred
If they don't like the the way the law read, "Visual Identification," They can simply not vote. It is the poll clerk they have to satisfy as far a identity goes, is it not? If that clerk happens to be a male, then so be it, show your face or don't vote, it's quite simple.
I've talked to Muslims about this and my 2 cents is....
show respect that a Muslim is not suppossed to show her face to a man...
Have a set up where she can show id and verify it by opening the thing up to a woman in a private setting, ..it could be made up of cardboard as well....
end of story....accomadate all voting citizens
All have agreed this is the way to go...
show respect that a Muslim is not suppossed to show her face to a man...
Have a set up where she can show id and verify it by opening the thing up to a woman in a private setting, ..it could be made up of cardboard as well....
end of story....accomadate all voting citizens
All have agreed this is the way to go...
As for Marc Mayrand, the Elections Canada bureaucrat who made this stupid ruling, and to make it worse, he was not even asked to make this ruling by the Muslim Association, he just thouth this up all on his own with his pea-sized brain. He should be told to either reverse his decision forthwith or be fired immediately for cause. I know I cannot defy my boss when he gives me a direct order without being fired for insubordination, so where dcoes this jerk get off telling a Member of Parliament when he was asked if he were ordered by this subcommittee to reverse his decision, would he? He responded by saying words to the effect; "At this point in time I will not reverse my decison."
September 30th, 2007, 06:54 PM
Did you even bother to read the whole thread, or look into the facts of this case? Elections Canada is following the law, as it was wrote by the stupid MP's. It was a House of Commons committee that made the recommendations, and it was the House of Commons who failed miserably to write a concise document. What they gave us is a vague system of three choices for determining voter identification.
This is right from the pages of Parliament:
I'll repeat, this is Harper playing for political points by trying to pass the buck off to an "un-elected official", a popular sentiment, but not a valid assertion at all. It turns out elected officials aren't that competent.
Did you even bother to read the whole thread, or look into the facts of this case? Elections Canada is following the law, as it was wrote by the stupid MP's. It was a House of Commons committee that made the recommendations, and it was the House of Commons who failed miserably to write a concise document. What they gave us is a vague system of three choices for determining voter identification.
This is right from the pages of Parliament:
Quote:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_l...&Parl=39&Ses=1
In the course of its deliberations the Committee was struck by the absence of any requirement for an elector to confirm his or her identity when presenting himself or herself at a polling station to vote. As long as the person’s name is on the list of electors, he or she is entitled to vote. Identification may be required only when an election official, or the candidate, or his or her representative at a polling station, have reason to doubt the identity or right to vote of an individual wishing to vote (section 144). If challenged, a voter must present “satisfactory proof of identity and residence.” The Act, however, does not prescribe what is satisfactory “proof.”(11)
Further, should the prospective voter not have satisfactory proof of identity and address when challenged, he or she may still be permitted to vote upon taking a prescribed oath (section 144(2)). The Committee considered this lack of proper identification to be a significant deficiency in the voting process and one that could encourage fraudulent voting practices.
Further, should the prospective voter not have satisfactory proof of identity and address when challenged, he or she may still be permitted to vote upon taking a prescribed oath (section 144(2)). The Committee considered this lack of proper identification to be a significant deficiency in the voting process and one that could encourage fraudulent voting practices.
I'll repeat, this is Harper playing for political points by trying to pass the buck off to an "un-elected official", a popular sentiment, but not a valid assertion at all. It turns out elected officials aren't that competent.
Time Out
Posts: 214
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
October 2nd, 2007, 02:26 AM
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with gender or being muslim. It has to do with the 3 ways in which you can verify your identity at a polling station. ONLY ONE is an actual visual check of your face compared to picture ID. The other ways do not require visual identification!
Quoting Sparrow
Please tell me you aren't really this dumb.... maybe go back and read the post directly above your's.
What about the Charter of Rights, doesn't it guarantee equality of men and women. If the special conditions mentioned are given to veiled Muslim women where is the equality!
The issue has absolutely nothing to do with gender or being muslim. It has to do with the 3 ways in which you can verify your identity at a polling station. ONLY ONE is an actual visual check of your face compared to picture ID. The other ways do not require visual identification!
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
October 2nd, 2007, 05:00 AM
I remember showing up at the last election at the nearest polling station. Being unregistered, I had to go through the identification verification process. I had to show two pieces of mail from my address, some identification and I had to swear an oath. Not being Christian, the oath amounted to three pieces of legal declarations signed and witnessed.
There are many ways of identifying an individual without seeing their face, for instance fingerprints, witnesses and iris scanning. The demand for visual identification is unnecessary (and more prone to error than two of the above examples) and therefore not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The parliament would never be able to pass such a law without huge charter challenges, so instead they pass off a vague piece of legislation with overly broad wordings and then clamp down on people who interpret it properly. Their aim: to create artificial jurisprudence through precedence and narrow the scope of necessarily broad legislation.
I remember showing up at the last election at the nearest polling station. Being unregistered, I had to go through the identification verification process. I had to show two pieces of mail from my address, some identification and I had to swear an oath. Not being Christian, the oath amounted to three pieces of legal declarations signed and witnessed.
There are many ways of identifying an individual without seeing their face, for instance fingerprints, witnesses and iris scanning. The demand for visual identification is unnecessary (and more prone to error than two of the above examples) and therefore not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The parliament would never be able to pass such a law without huge charter challenges, so instead they pass off a vague piece of legislation with overly broad wordings and then clamp down on people who interpret it properly. Their aim: to create artificial jurisprudence through precedence and narrow the scope of necessarily broad legislation.
