30 September 2008

So tell me again... why is it that...

...even though I wasn't wearing a mask... the last time I voted... they still had to see my photo id...

Canadians who wear coverings over their faces will not be required to remove them to vote if they swear a special oath to affirm their identity and eligibility, a spokesman for Elections Canada said on Tuesday.

"We offer them a choice," John Enright said of the administrative procedure, which has been in place without incident for the seven federal byelections held since September 2007.
**********

RELATED: This sounds so familiar... hang on...
"Should women wearing niqabs or burkas be required to show their face before voting?"
When's the last time you saw 50,000 plus votes in an online newspaper poll?

**********

FROM THE COMMENTS:
"You really are being willfully obtuse. How is it that veil wearers are a "special subset"? Anyone can wear a veil."

"All Canadians have the right to cover their faces, and can still vote."
Well, Nonny... I know some folks who will be absolutely thrilled to hear the news...
**********

LAST WORD: The inevitable evolution...
As a full service consultancy with that boutique touch, our trained Hate Coordinators will help you choose the package that meets your budget and your desired PHQ (Public Hate Quotient).

Not a CHRC recognized victim class? No problem! Our staff of ethno-religious image consultants will dress you up just to take you down!

Need funding? Not a problem! Our business is hate! We'll show you how to milk government agencies like Heritage Canada for your slice of the Multicult Money Pie!

Need a Front Organization so you can pretend to wield an ethnic voting bloc? Leave the paper work to us! Remember we're not satisfied until you're publicly villified by even the most timid of school children!
*


17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I didn't have to send a picture when I mailed my ballot in.

Neo Conservative said...

*
all i know is... they weren't gonna give me a ballot until i showed them my drivers license.

maybe i should have offered to swear "a special oath" instead.

or is that only for special people?

*

Anonymous said...

Are you worried that the veiled muslim women will somehow turn the tide of the election?

Brian said...

" .... "We offer them a choice," John Enright said of the administrative procedure, ..."

I have a better choice ... take of the veil or don't bother to vote.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon asks... Are you worried..."

of course... a childish taunt... once again, all the social dynamics of a nursery school recess.

here's what i really miss, nonny... "one law - one people".

those words mean anything on your planet?

*

Anonymous said...

We managed to identify voters before we had photo ID of any kind.

You have to have a) government photo ID, or b) two pieces of acceptable ID, one with your address or c) swear an oath and be vouched for by someone else on the voters list who has a) or b).

We now allow a single piece of government issued ID if it is a photo ID. It is still one law for all people, now with the option of photo ID.


Speaking of childish taunts, I think sneering "is that only for special people?" certainly qualifies.

Aren't we in Afghanistan to help the veiled Muslim women there be free to wear anything they want, just like here?

Spitfire said...

Funny out of all of this, we still don't have to prove CITIZENSHIP

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon complains... only for special people? certainly qualifies."

one specific subset of the voting public gets their very own exemption... and that's not "special"?

tell me, nonny... any other canadian rules and regulations you wanna monkey with while you're at it?

*

Anonymous said...

one specific subset of the voting public gets their very own exemption... and that's not "special"?
I think the "subset" of the voting public which does not cover their faces is pretty large. But you're right, that subset does have their very own exemption. Instead of two pieces of ID, they can use one if it is a government issued photo ID. I'd hardly say an exemption that applies to nearly everyone is "special".


tell me, nonny... any other canadian rules and regulations you wanna monkey with while you're at it?
Well there is that special interest group that insists on having as many handguns as they want. They're certainly "special.


spitfire: You do have to be a citizen to vote. But you proved that to get on the voters list. The issue here is identifying you. We now allow you to use a single piece of government issued photo ID. For some reason, neo is against this.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"nonny whines... They're certainly 'special'."

gee, nonny... you really think making a special exemption for this one group of folks has any sort of correlation to a canadian law that's been around since 1934?

you're willing to grant exemptions to this special subset of people... and, in addition, take away a right that all canadians have had for almost 75 years?

that doesn't sound at all democratic... or logical... to me.

and fyi, nonny... we haven't been enumerated since we lived in toronto... i suspect they got our names off the mpac tax roll.

no proof of citizenship required.

and lastly... i think i know why you're always feeling so lonely and isolated... -- main post updated --

*

maryT said...

There are lots of halloween masks out by Oct 14, so maybe one should try to vote in one. Especially if there are veiled women? in the line.

Anonymous said...

I may need to dig out that Chretien mask I used the last time I went to a Halloween party dressed like Frankenstein...

Neo Conservative said...

*
it's true what they say... great minds think alike.

*

langmann said...

Gotta agree with nonny. That is the law as it is.

However, it does seem silly that I can't even rent a video without proving who I am with a picture ID but I can vote.

As to proof of citizenship, its not required. I remember one time I wasn't on the list so all they did was ask to see my driver's license.

Am I concerned that a bunch of Muslims are going to commit electoral fraud with this? Not really.

I'm more concerned about the Libs stealing more of my money to buy golf courses or more government money going to corporations and unions to buy votes (done by both parties).

Neo Conservative said...

*
"langmann says... Am I concerned that a bunch of Muslims..."

of course... that's nonny's red herring.

what this is about is "one people... one law".

*

Anonymous said...

you're willing to grant exemptions to this special subset of people... and, in addition, take away a right that all canadians have had for almost 75 years?

You really are being willfully obtuse. How is it that veil wearers are a "special subset"? Anyone can wear a veil. All Canadians have the right to cover their faces, and can still vote. But you can't use a photo ID then. It is the same law for everyone.

If you consider people wearing veils, something all Canadians have the right to do, but most do not, to be a "special subset", why do you not consider handgun owners a "special subset", since they are also doing something all Canadians have the right to do, but most do not?

And Canadians have had the right to have handguns since they were invented. For almost 75 years though, we have been required to register them.

Neo Conservative said...

*
wow. that's just... wow.

you're really drawing an equivalence between "people wearing veils" and scary, hidden "handgun owners"?

seriously?

i'll tell you nonny, i was kinda comin' around on the medical marijuana thing... but you just, well... nipped that in the, uh... bud.

"daves's REALLY not here, man."

*