Proud Times for Canada

From the desk of Rondi Adamson on Thu, 2007-09-13 14:48

As Canadian Louise Arbour, the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner, was shamelessly sitting alongside Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, at a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran last week, Elections Canada announced that Muslim women would be allowed to wear identity-concealing face veils, including full burqas, when voting in Canadian elections. Covered Muslim women will merely have to show two pieces of identification to vote (though no one has explained how the official in charge of the ballot box that day will be able to match the face to the picture on the ID), and/or swear an oath and have another voter vouch for them.

Quite apart from the idea of democratic integrity and equality before the ballot box, is the important matter of the misuse of religious face coverings. Veils and burqas have been used in the past to commit fraud as well as criminal and terrorist acts.

Public reaction to Elections Canada’s decision has been negative and strong. Many are threatening to vote in ski or Hallowe’en masks, or with bags over their heads, and to claim religious belief and a need for "sensitivity" as justification. Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, has also condemned the decision. Speaking from Australia, where he was attending a meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders, Harper stated, "I profoundly disagree with the decision. Parliament adopted a law this past spring that required the visual identification of voters. That was a law adopted, I think, virtually unanimously by Parliament and I think this decision goes in an entirely different direction."

Ironically, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress also seemed to question the wisdom of allowing the unidentifiable to vote. Mohamed Elmasry – hardly known as a moderate (he said on Canadian television that all Israeli citizens, due to their compulsory military service, were fair target for Palestinian bombers, regardless of whether they were still in the army) – suggested that veiled Muslim-Canadians would be willing to show their faces to female elections workers in a separate room. While on the surface a reasonable compromise, it still requires special treatment for a religious group, at taxpayer expense. The idea of holding firm on democratic principle, the idea that we are all equal before the ballot-box, seems obscured by political correctness. And the question of what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" in Canada has, it would seem, reached new heights – or perhaps depths – of absurdity.

In Reply to Ms. Adamson

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2007-09-14 15:52.

Rondi Adamson: ...As Canadian Louise Arbour, the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner, was shamelessly sitting alongside Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, at a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran last week...

 

Shameful indeed, considering Mr. Ahmedinejad is probably desperate to beat Milosevic's record.

 

Rondi Adamson: ...Elections Canada announced that Muslim women would be allowed to wear identity-concealing face veils, including full burqas, when voting in Canadian elections. Covered Muslim women will merely have to show two pieces of identification to vote (though no one has explained how the official in charge of the ballot box that day will be able to match the face to the picture on the ID), and/or swear an oath and have another voter vouch for them.

 

Ridiculous!

 

Rondi Adamson: Quite apart from the idea of democratic integrity and equality before the ballot box, is the important matter of the misuse of religious face coverings. Veils and burqas have been used in the past to commit fraud as well as criminal and terrorist acts.

 

Agreed.

 

Rondi Adamson: Public reaction to Elections Canada’s decision has been negative and strong. Many are threatening to vote in ski or Hallowe’en masks, or with bags over their heads, and to claim religious belief and a need for "sensitivity" as justification.

 

Good!

 

Rondi Adamson: ...veiled Muslim-Canadians would be willing to show their faces to female elections workers in a separate room. While on the surface a reasonable compromise, it still requires special treatment for a religious group, at taxpayer expense.

 

Exactly!

I knew there was a word for it

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-09-14 11:52.

I couldn't think of the word but now I remember it. The legal term is Desuetude.Many of them may sound crazy to us today, but some of our more obscure laws could yet prove useful in our (legal) battle to defend our Western culture and traditions.

@ loikll

Submitted by Geraldo on Fri, 2007-09-14 09:34.

This not a joke.

This is what all you canadian and americans should do.

To show the craziness of this law. If you do it properly you will make a mess.

 

cover what?2

Submitted by pet85022 on Fri, 2007-09-14 06:00.

please excuse the formatting, some day I'll get the hang of it and get it right. 

cover what?

Submitted by pet85022 on Fri, 2007-09-14 05:54.

In looking up veils in the qur'an I came upon this

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to
display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw
their veils over their bosoms, and
not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or
husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their
brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or
their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know
naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to
reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together,
O believers, in order that ye may succeed.  
(  سورة النور  , An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #31)
(Arabic,
Transliteration,
Urdu,
Yusuf Ali,
Shakir,
Picthal,
Mohsin Khan,
French,
Spanish,
Indonesian,
Melayu,
German)

 How you get from covering your bosoms, to covering your face except for your eyes is beyond me. It would seem someone is trying to pull a fast one.

Voting's so nice I'll vote twice!

Submitted by loikll on Fri, 2007-09-14 02:58.

Cool, come next elections I'll get me a 2nd-hand burka and head north to Canada with a fake ID and vote all day. Just for kicks. And I won't even have to shave my goatee.

 

@P Morris

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2007-09-13 19:34.

Thank you for that.I am particularly interested in learning more about the origins of this law and how the story of its genesis might impact upon other state legislatures wishing to introduce a similar law onto their own statute books as a means of combat ing any future attempts by Islamist pressure groups in the U.S. to  make the banning of hijab a human rights violation issue.If you DO manage to come up with more information on this matter,perhaps you'd be kind enough to post it.Thanks again.

@ P Morris

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2007-09-13 17:10.

...unlawful for any person over 16 to wear any item that covers a substantial portion of the face (concealing the identity of the wearer) in any public place.

 

Interesting.Perhaps we're on to something here (ever the optimist).Perhaps you could tell me:

1 The origins of this law.

2 Has it ever been challenged in a Virginia State  Court of law  by a Muslim (or anybody else)?

3 (If so,) please cite the case(s) in question and provide us with some background information  about any ruling on the matter.

I await your anticipated response with keen interest.

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by P Morris on Thu, 2007-09-13 19:01.

Atlanticist911 - As a retired attorney, I don't have access to adequate on-line resources to answer your questions with any kind of assurance. A quick look at some sites, however, shows that an appellate court in Florida upheld the right of the State to require a Muslim woman to unveil her face before a female photographer in order to obtain a driver's license. The US Supreme Court let stand a Second Circuit opinion upholding a NY state law (similar to Virginia's), which was enforced when the KKK tried to demonstrate in full regalia, including face masks. To add a bit of irony, I note that the US Department of State alleges that Belarus is undemocratic because (among many other reasons) Belarus law limits freedom of expression by prohibiting the wearing of masks to hide one's identity during political demonstrations. Virginia's prohibition of the same has been on the books since at least 1950; however, it probably is a restatement of an earlier law.

Elections Canada religious accommodation

Submitted by P Morris on Thu, 2007-09-13 16:45.

One wonders whether Canadian law includes a provision similar to that in the Code of Virginia (§ 18.2-422), which makes it unlawful for any person over 16 to wear any item that covers a substantial portion of the face (concealing the identity of the wearer) in any public place. Virginia law does not include an exception for religious reasons. I'm reasonably sure no veiled Muslim woman has been prosecuted under this law, as any such prosecution would probably be challenged on religious grounds. Requiring a veiled woman voter to reveal herself to a female electoral worker to confirm her identity appears to be a reasonable accommodation to the needs of the State and the needs of the woman concerned. Elections Canada's proposed identification measures are not sufficiently robust to protect against fraud.