Harper vs. Canada case update

[mentalfloss]

Harper vs. Canada case a precedent to protect Fair Elections Act, lawyer argues

A lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada is citing an old court challenge Stephen Harper launched as a private citizen as precedent for stopping an injunction seeking to stay some sections of the Fair Elections Act before this fall's federal election.

Government lawyer Christine Mohr cited the 2004 case in which Harper, then president of the National Citizens Coalition, attempted to get an injunction on the restrictions against third-party spending in elections.

The attorney general is fighting an attempt by the Canadian Federation of Students and the Council of Canadians to get an injunction against key provisions of the new Fair Elections Act.

Mohr, responding to Thursday's testimony that failure to grant the injunction would lead to irreparable harm if voters aren't allowed to vote, said allowing voter information cards to be used as valid ID at the polls could lead to fraud and detract from public confidence in the electoral system.

"In Harper [vs. Canada], evidence was brought forward about irreparable harm," Mohr argued, while adding the court found the alleged harm "did not outweigh the upholding of the law."

She also argued it was "extraordinary" for a court to suspend a law without thoroughly examining its merits — and granting injunctions with respect to elections "has never been done."

The Fair Elections Act was hotly debated in Parliament before it became law in June of 2014. The applicants in this court challenge have claimed the law is a continuation of past Conservative voter-suppression tactics.

But Mohr told the court the law addresses concerns of voter fraud that all parties have been seeking to eradicate.

"If one person votes illegally," argued Mohr, "that cancels my vote."

...more....

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/har...ct-fair-elections-act-lawyer-argues-1.3137495

 

[taxslave]

Bunch of leftarded clowns. Anyone that can't even get it together to get basic government ID doesn't deserve to vote.

 

[Machjo]

Bunch of leftarded clowns. Anyone that can't even get it together to get basic government ID doesn't deserve to vote.

Can I see your driving licence please.

Sorry, I couldn't find it this morning.

No problem. Passport?

I think I left that at my girlfriend's.

Okay... health card with photo id?

Oh yes, it's... it's... oh, well, wadda ya know, I don't have that here either. Library card?...

 

[Corduroy]

Bunch of leftarded clowns. Anyone that can't even get it together to get basic government ID doesn't deserve to vote.

Everyone deserves to vote.

 

[captain morgan]

Everyone deserves to vote.

There is a heavy responsibility attached to that vote... If someone doesn't have enough interest in presenting the most basic of ID, why on Earth should I (or anyone else) take them seriously?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Everyone deserves to vote.

Not for taxslave. Gives you some notion of his opinion of democracy.

There is a heavy responsibility attached to that vote... If someone doesn't have enough interest in presenting the most basic of ID, why on Earth should I (or anyone else) take them seriously?

And another vote against democracy.

 

[Walter]

Everyone deserves to vote.

3 year olds would love to vote.

 

[captain morgan]

And another vote against democracy.

Hardly... It's a vote against the stupidity and unfettered entitlement of idiots

 

[DaSleeper]

That challenge to the law is just another leftard pot stirring just for the sake of st*t disturbing..
A few times I volunteered to drive people with no transportation to the polling station..When they got in the vehicle I would ask them if they had the card they had got in the mail because I wanted to be sure to bring them to the right place and would ask them if they had other identification......and you know? not even once did someone have to go back in their residence to get anything...
People who vote are not that stupid...............well, not up north anyway!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Hardly... It's a vote against the stupidity and unfettered entitlement of idiots

In other words, you want to limit the franchise to people you consider worthy.

We tried that. Didn't work real good.

 

[damngrumpy]

It amazes me how the some on the right don't see the harm they do their own cause.
There is a discussion here that requires some thought. Instead there are platitudes
about leftards and silly statements that depict an all or nothing discussion.
The fact is these statement wear thin after awhile and lead one to believe some have
no other aspirations than to call another group names.
In this debate from the information provided I see one group that is trying to overturn a
law they don't think is right and the courts happen to be the avenue of debate in a
democratic society. Harper has been here before using the courts to achieve his goal
and somehow that is overlooked.
What difference is there when one side uses the same court Mr Harper used a decade
ago? In a civilized society we contest things in the courts its better than with bullets like
so many other countries.
Voter cards have been around for decades and I see no reason we can't use them now.
Having said that one should provide some form of ID to ensure the name is the same as
the person voting at the polls

 

[DaSleeper]

It amazes me how the some on the right don't see the harm they do their own cause.
There is a discussion here that requires some thought. Instead there are platitudes
about leftards and silly statements that depict an all or nothing discussion.
The fact is these statement wear thin after awhile and lead one to believe some have
no other aspirations than to call another group names.
In this debate from the information provided I see one group that is trying to overturn a
law they don't think is right and the courts happen to be the avenue of debate in a
democratic society. Harper has been here before using the courts to achieve his goal
and somehow that is overlooked.
What difference is there when one side uses the same court Mr Harper used a decade
ago? In a civilized society we contest things in the courts its better than with bullets like
so many other countries.
Voter cards have been around for decades and I see no reason we can't use them now.
Having said that one should provide some form of ID to ensure the name is the same as
the person voting at the polls

And we do use them....
That's what we've been saying all along.....but some seem to think that the voter registration card by itself is enough don't you know?

 

[captain morgan]

In other words, you want to limit the franchise to people you consider worthy.

We tried that. Didn't work real good.

Nope... You are imposing a skewed interpretation of what you think my words are.

The statement is real simple: Voting is both a privilege and responsibility. For those that refuse the responsibility part of the equation, they should not expect to access the privilege component.

 

[Corduroy]

There is a heavy responsibility attached to that vote... If someone doesn't have enough interest in presenting the most basic of ID, why on Earth should I (or anyone else) take them seriously?

You don't have to talk them seriously. I don't take you seriously and I still believe you have the right to vote.

 

[pgs]

You don't have to talk them seriously. I don't take you seriously and I still believe you have the right to vote.

Sure they have the right to vote if they are of legal age and are Canadian citizens .
Now prove the above and go to it .

 

[taxslave]

It amazes me how the some on the right don't see the harm they do their own cause.
There is a discussion here that requires some thought. Instead there are platitudes
about leftards and silly statements that depict an all or nothing discussion.
The fact is these statement wear thin after awhile and lead one to believe some have
no other aspirations than to call another group names.
In this debate from the information provided I see one group that is trying to overturn a
law they don't think is right and the courts happen to be the avenue of debate in a
democratic society. Harper has been here before using the courts to achieve his goal
and somehow that is overlooked.
What difference is there when one side uses the same court Mr Harper used a decade
ago? In a civilized society we contest things in the courts its better than with bullets like
so many other countries.
Voter cards have been around for decades and I see no reason we can't use them now.
Having said that one should provide some form of ID to ensure the name is the same as
the person voting at the polls

Your last sentence is all that we are talking about here. SOme on the left(mostly) don't feel that a person should have to show any ID to vote.

 

[captain morgan]

You don't have to talk them seriously. I don't take you seriously and I still believe you have the right to vote.

With rights come responsibilities.... Maybe when you get a little older and move outta the family house, you'll understand

 

[mentalfloss]

With rights come responsibilities.... Maybe when you get a little older and move outta the family house, you'll understand

Says the guy posting from a retirement home.

 

[captain morgan]

Says the guy posting from a retirement home.

I'm hoping to retire early once I turn a few more projects.... Ya see, here on the prairies, some hard work, smarts and a little luck can easily translate into significant gains.... Play your cards right, and you can translate it into long term revenues.

You gotta a plan Flossy or are you part of the lotto retirement system?