Veiled voting redux: Here we go again …

by kadyomalley on Monday, July 28, 2008 12:16pm - 0 Comments

Xenophobes, start your engines — or, alternately, don’t. As much fun as it might have been to watch Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand makes mincemeat of MPs during last summer’s pre-by-election “emergency” hearings over the menace of veiled voters, I’m not sure how much more media coverage we need of Pumpkinhead and friends, since the law hasn’t changed.

Electors Must Prove Their Identity and Address When They Vote

Legislation change means Canadians need to present identification at the polls
OTTAWA, Monday, July 28, 2008

“All electors must now prove their identity and address when they vote. The requirements are flexible, so electors can meet them depending on the identification they have. Elections Canada staff is trained and ready to deal with the new identification requirements,” says Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand.

Click here to obtain further information about voter identification at the poll

If you’re pressed for time, ITQ can save you the trouble of scrolling down the page to find the relevant section: As it stands, there is no legal requirement for a Muslim women – or anyone else – to show her face at the polling station in order to receive – or cast – her ballot. Under the current law, Elections Canada will accept either one piece of identification with a photo, or two pieces of ID with your name, one of which also contains your address. (For a full list of authorized documents, click here.)

Bookmark and Share
  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

    There you go again. You’re the one desperately trying to defend your tactics, but I’m the one whose too sensitive for the Internet?

    I’ve been discussing things on the Internet for years, and take on all comers. I’ll take on deplorable tactics, and people who justify them. Thank you.

  • Mark

    Again, we seem to be having mutual comprehension problems: where am I defending my tactics? Is attempting to clear up a misunderstanding now defending my tactics?

    You have yet to show a credible example of where I have demonized anyone. I should make clear that it would probably aid me in understanding your problem if you explained “how” what I have written here has demonized anyone, as I still don’t understand how the other comment you selected could even be misconstrued to be anything other than what it was intended to be.

    You’ve accused me of a lot of things so far: hatefulness, resentment, being the kind of guy who mocks people to their face… I’m honestly bewildered as to how you came to those conclusions, because I don’t believe they’re borne out by anything I’ve written here.

  • Scott M.

    Ever get the feeling it’s time to close comments on a thread? (hint, hint)

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

    Yes, Mark, people like you want to keep using indefensible tactics. I understand that. You need to hold onto something.

    You justified Kady’s initial tactic. Then insisted on it with, yes, that quote I gave you. Then engaged in all kinds of nonsensical mental gymnastics in order to defend it all.

    You want to call opponents names. Just say it already.

  • Pingback: the use » How to get trading robot

From Macleans