"An Elections Canada spokesman was unable to confirm to CJAD that the veil ruling was an interpretation of the law by the Chief Electoral Officer and not a part of the law passed by MPs."

Perhaps the news room should be introduced to this new thing call the "internet" which would allow them to read the new law or Act themselves and decide whether this is part of the law or just an interpretation. Should be pretty easy to figure out.

and here at the other end

http://www.am770chqr.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428109912&rem=74061&red=80110923aPBIny&wids=400&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm

we cant keep them covered up.

I can see the vote magicians in the Librano election rigging squad behind this one. Quebec leads the nation in ballot fraud and this is a perfect edition to the tool chest.

If this story is as it appears to be, those in the federal agency have bent over so far that have their head stuck up their collective ass.

$10 says that's Alfonso Gagliano in the outfit.

I'm strongly against the veil. Never mind what it's called (veil)- and insisting that it is a religious requirement is specious.

Why specious? First, because the veil is not a religious requirement but a cultural tradition. Even if it were a religious requirement, voting is not a religious but a civic act- and as such, has its own requirements which overrule the 'religious' one.

The fact that the veil is a cultural tradition is irrelevant; it is not the cultural tradition in our country - and, when participating in one of the basic traditions of our country, voting, its rules must be followed.

What are the rules of voting in our country? That you have one vote person; that you must be a citizen. Now - to validate these two attributes, the electoral officer must be able to 'unite' two descriptions of reality. One is primary, the other is secondary.

The primary description is the actual physical body in front of him. Secondary descriptions are those that are 'actualized' as driver's licenses, passport, other documents.

If I am masked - then, I have totally removed the primary description of me, as a physical body. Gone. Invisible. The electoral officer has no means of connecting my physical reality to my secondary descriptions.

So, I could, since I am invisible as a primary description - vote many, many times! I'd just change the secondary paper data. I could even be a man, voting for my wife.

Furthermore, if this removal of the primary description, the physical body, is allowed in our elections process - then, it has to be allowed to everyone else (heh - discrimination). We should all show up at the voting booth masked, or better yet, wearing full burka and veil - and insist that the electoral officer accept ONLY the secondary description - those ubiquitous and readily photocopied paper descriptions.

I'm a man, but I'm seriously thinking about buying that outfit. The fun I could have.

And by fun, I don't mean I as a man dress up in women's clothes. Or am transgendered and seeking surgery and plan that outfit for my new wardrobe. Or that I am a submissive furrie that would give that outfit to the special dominant woman in my life, with me dressed up in a goat outfit, as she put a leash around me and walked me around the neighbourhood.

*
that's so 14th century... what you want
is the "marilyn monroe" burka

*

Get out the purple ink, to mark all those that vote, like they did in Iraq.

But does it come in Blue?

My moma said: Veils are just Evil spelled another way !

Quick Quiz:

How many people who vote while wearing a veil will be voting Conservative?

Think about that, dear leftoids, the next time you talk about conservatives repressing women.

Be fun to try them with a red bandana, cowboy hat and sunglasses, just to see how far you get.

My government is staffed by MORONS.

So now we have a western democratic secular society violating everything it stands for including equal rights for woman by endorsing this primitive Islamic treatment of women as just a piece of fabric. It's a mockery of a free society played out as a farce at the polls. I guess no one sees the irony that these sad fabric sacks have no civil rights outside of the Canadian polling place.

In an open and free society we need to see your face. We need to see your face at an airport, on a jury, in a hospital ER, at the bank, etc. The 7th century can't and shouldn't be accommodated.

And, of course, the feminists have their mouths nailed shut. They are far too busy protecting abortion on demand, vilifying white males and dismantling the family to turn their attention to Islam's horrific treatment of women.

Islam is not compatible with the west. For God's sake stop importing the pathology.

ahhh.... another day, another chance for kate to provoke her readers to say the things she dare not.

penny darling? why, exactly, are we spending billions of dollars trying to liberate a muslim nation when canadians like you so clearly hate islam?

This is the worst of the worst. We simply can't sit by and let it slide.
We have rules placed on us for passport pictures, can't smile or obscure your face. We had a ten year old girl have to have her photo retaken because she had a little headband in her hair, not obscuring her face! Talk about stupidity.

Does anyone remember us passing Sharia law in this country, did they do it in secret?
Perhaps we should target a few ridings, show up in Burkas to vote en mass, say we converted to Islam.

ET: Even if it were a religious requirement, voting is not a religious but a civic act- and as such, has its own requirements which overrule the 'religious' one.

Same-sex couples who choose to marry are engaging in a civil act as well, not a religious one. Does this mean you agree now that civil marriage also has requirements which overrule the religious ones? Or is there a different standard involved. Why do I suspect that your answer is "yes"?

...when participating in one of the basic traditions of our country, voting, its rules must be followed.

Ah, but rules can also be changed. Remember back in the day when it was the rule that women couldn't vote? Or when the Chinese couldn't vote? I can totally here you back then, ET, standing on the street, declaring that, "The rules is the rules! I cannot vote, and there's nothing that can be done about that!"

If I am masked - then, I have totally removed the primary description of me, as a physical body. Gone. Invisible.

Maybe the elections officers could poke them with a stick, to make sure they aren't ghosts under there.

Personally, I'd opt for UNIQUESSENTIALS FULL BODY BELLY DANCE COSTUME 38 at $9.99 (also listed on EBay). For the extra $.49 you get so much more, at least the guys do. It also shows off any accessories like suicide vests.

Damn, now I have the "I Dream of Genie" theme song playing in my head. Now my only problem is getting wifey to wear the thing...

"Be fun to try them with a red bandana, cowboy hat and sunglasses, just to see how far you get."

To be fair, I watched a guy vote in a full face snowmobile helmet here at the last federal election. But I think he lifted the visor.

For starters, jeff, I'm not Canadian. And, Islam is the present scourge enveloping its own people and the west going back decades and will be well into this century unless it's reformed or destroyed.

Iraq is a good place for the US as proxy for the west to take the offensive. Passively accepting the violence and encroachment of Muslim expansion doesn't seem to have worked anywhere in the world from Dafur to Indonesia. Iraq is one of the most literate and secularized Islamic countries in the ME. No one but a handful of unrepentant Baathists misses Saddam and Sons. Sometimes what people can't resolve for themselves, an external force is needed to precipitate the change. 30 million Iraqis are free to make choices that they never had before. The vast majority of them are resisting the rabid Islamists. If they succeed, they've begun the reformation of the worst excesses of Islam. It certainly has been worth a try. How their story ends isn't written yet.

I'm quite sure you will be rooting for failure.

Jeff, if your only purpose here is to use my bandwidth to insult me, then you can leave.

Or be a man and start pulling your own weight. There's a tip jar on the main page.

canadian infedel:way too much information dude.And a couple of visuals I could do without.

Ummmm folks? This isn't a religious thing, this is a practicality thing. The new rule is that anyone who votes must present ID. Elections Canada, recognizing that it can't always be photo ID, has put these rules in place to ensure that anyone who wants to vote can do so. It just so happens that people can use these rules to honor their own customs while they are voting. I don't agree with the burka/veil wearing thing, however in this case, it's a tempest in a teacup.

I like the idea of marking anyone who has voted so that they can't vote again. I also like the idea of bringing the elections system into the 21st century and setting up electronic voting so that it uses biometrics to ensure a one person, one vote secure system.

It just so darn easy to be a Muslim transvestite, and if the current e-Bay bid for that Burka of $9.50 USD holds, pretty cheap too. I spend more than that on makeup...I'm converting to Islam!!

Even the lefty BQ want Elections Canada to reverse their decision!

"OTTAWA -- The Bloc Quebecois wants Elections Canada to reverse a decision allowing Muslim women wearing burkas or niqabs to keep their faces covered when voting in three upcoming Quebec byelections."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070907/veil_elections_070907/20070907?hub=TopStories&s_name=

Somebody help me here, if someone clad in a burqua shows up at a polling station they're allowed to vote but if someone shows up in a KKK hood and cape the mounties get called. What is the difference, both 'uniforms' are from a past tribal society. I know someone out there can explain this conundrum.

Fine, I'm going to wear a veil over my face next election; it is going to be made of fabric that has big-ass lips on it with long tongues sticking out, and my husband can vouch that it is me.....and I'll bring the I.D. too.

Actually, I think I will show up completely covered except for my butt; I'm sure my husband can recognize that too and vouch for me. Okay, fine, they probably won't go for that, but hey, women in Ontario might get away with just exposing their breasts and getting someone to vouch for them. Strangely enough, a Muslim woman wearing a veil doesn't have to reveal anything to be identified but I.D. and someone to vouch for her.

Personally, I have little problem with Muslim women wearing scarves on their heads; it is the full-on body suit I detest. Muslim women covered head to toe is just Muslim men's way of having power over their women - it is sickening, and as citizens of Canada we shouldn't tolerate this crap.

I saw footage recently of an Iranian woman, who had been shot by an Iranian police officer, being rolled into a hospital, unconscious, with her breasts fully exposed. I never see footage of women in the western world with their breasts exposed in this way - we are always covered up, but oh no, in the Muslim world, any free peak is okay for Muslim men.

Really, I'm sick of the bullcrap. We send our men and women over to Afghanistan to fight to liberate the Afghan women and men from the oppression of the Taliban, and then allow the Taliban to export their oppression into our culture. The decision of the public servants should have been to not allow anyone to vote who has their face covered up - it would make more sense if the veiled woman removed her veil and was identified by a female vote taker. The same thing should be done for driver's licences - have a female take the picture of a veiled woman. I really do not know why Canadians should have to be put out for Muslim women who choose to wear veils, when so many of them do not. I would really like to see Elections Canada be put out for a Christian...never going to happen....it wouldn't be tolerated.

As an American living in Canada, I have always been amazed at the lax voting requirements here. Unless I'm mistaken, you can vote in Saskatoon with no identification whatsoever. And without proving that you have the right to vote.

I'm almost positive that I could easily vote were I one to cheat (but I'm not!).

I believe that voters should have to show photo identification AND show that their face matches the photo. Steps should also be taken to ensure eligibility to vote other than "I can vote. Really. I promise."

In Egypt, women unveil in front of a woman to prove their identity. How hard is that?

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2007/09/07/oh-canada/

By the way ... sandmonkey is back blogging.

You know, at one time in Quebec, to get a driver's license - you simply had to put your hand on the bible and swear that you could drive. That is, it was self-definition.

The same thing now in Quebec - all you have to do to define yourself as a citizen, and a resident, and all the other attributes of your identity - is to 'say' that you are, who you self-define yourself as. That's all.

Ahh, the scientific, logical society.

"A spokesman for Elections Canada tells CJAD that women may choose to remove the veil but if they opt not to, they can simply provide a second piece of identification in addition to the driver’s license."
This begs the questions; Would a muslim woman in a burka have a driver's license? Would she even be ALLOWED to drive?? And if she was allowed how would she see to drive safely?

A- dumb comments.

You don't know what I would say about the Chinese or women vote, so don't speculate. By the way, my first university degree was Chinese. But don't let that change your mind about me.

Your 'poking stick' comment is dumb. The point is the MATCHING of the physical individual with the secondary referential description of that physical individual. If the physical individual is blocked from view (operationally not visible), then, the secondary referential description is useless. Why do you ask dumb questions?

As for SSM - nothing to do with religious or civic reasons. If SS want a CIVIL union - fine. But I'm against SSMarriage because, in my view, marriage is based around the reproductive and nurturance requirements of children.

ET: Your 'poking stick' comment is dumb.

I know, it was purposely dumb to point out how illogical your own comment was. See, by your own standards, and I quote verbatim, "the point is that the physical individual must be MATCHED to the secondary referential description of that physical individual."

OK, I accept that. Now, if the secondary ID used are two pieces of non-photo ID, or is a second person formally vouching for the first -- which, according to existing law, they are allowed to be -- then how exactly is MATCHING achieved in those cases?

In real terms, when I showed up at the voting booth last election without my driver's license, but with my (old, non-photo) health card and SIN card, they check me off against the voter registration list, and I got to vote. Now, explain to me four things:

1) How exactly was my physical individual matched with my "secondary referential description" (a health card and a SIN card)? Remember, at no time did any official compare my physical appearance to any photograph.

2) Did the above situation, in which I couldn't be matched to any photo ID, render any less useless the secondary referential description that I use instead? [Ans: Obviously not, since I was able to vote.]

3) How would anything fundamental change if I were wearing a veil, such that my "physical individual is blocked from view (operationally not visible)", as long as I still had my two pieces of non-photo ID?

4) Last but not least, if I am out of the country at the time of the election, I can always register to vote by special ballot, such that nobody matches my physical individual to my secondary referential description on election day. Try arguing against THAT one.

Masked or veiled persons should be required to sign a form and be fingerprinted.

Voter fraud is a serious offence. At least, it used to be, in the "old Canada". Maybe voter fraud is now part of the wonderful multicultural mosaic.

As a society we're approaching the point of "who cares anymore".

ET said: "You know, at one time in Quebec, to get a driver's license - you simply had to put your hand on the bible and swear that you could drive. That is, it was self-definition."

That's because the social repercussions of lying on the bible were considerable at that time and place. Lying on the bible would get you shunned from polite society, meaning you would pretty much starve if you didn't move.

Eminently logical IMHO, and SO much more personally edifying than the certification society we suffer with today. Cheaper too.

That's why we are having veil trouble. We can't trust the hard core Islamists to follow the rules about voting. There's no repercussions for cheating that they give a damn about.

A - the article makes clear the context of this controversy..."Voters will be asked for government issued photo-id before being allowed to vote." Your argument only make sense if that wasn't the context.

The bigger picture here is that a burqa isn't compatible with a modern secular democratic society on so many levels. You need to see people's faces. It's ridiculous and dysfunctional not to in hospitals, airports, banks, schools, on juries, etc. Imagine an ER doctor that can't view your face for cyanosis(blue lips) or injury?

This is about the liberals exempting that which they wouldn't tolerate in their own homes. The sheer hypocrisy of their multi-culti adherence is stunning.

Bottomline, burqa wears don't belong in western societies.

This really brings my inner "phobistantary" self to the surface!

Oh great, now the right-wingnut bloggers have just learned they can now freep elections. Looks like the sale of burkas is about to hit record highs between Brandon and Banff.

a- really, your dumb comment was to show that my comment was dumb? heh. Try that on a two year old.

Now - what's old is old. Pre 9/11, pre-terrorism. Try for the way it's done now. The driver's licence is a photo ID. The health card is a photo ID. Section 1432a of the Electoral Act requires one piece of identification that has a photo. Section 2b doesn't require the photo but asks for two pieces, one of which must have the address. The fact that an ignoramus allowed you to vote, without fulfilling those requirements - is another issue. We are not the same Canada as we were a generation ago - and the rules must change.

However, this changes nothing to my argument, which is - how does an electoral officer know that the individual in front of them, completely robed and veiled is: a woman or man; young or old; or..anything? How does he know that the person in front of him matches the data description on his health card (gender, date of birth; never mind the photo)?

Of course - the fact that your primary physical and secondary references could not be matched is an important issue! Just because - in the old way - it wasn't - is no longer the point. This is not the same Canada as it was pre WWII and pre 9/11. Wake up.

Special ballot voting requires detailed information provided by you, in a specific letter of request, to the electoral officer about residence, dates of leaving/return, personal information etc. That letter of request and its data acts as the 'primary data set' for the electoral officer. It's held by his office 'in lieu of' your physical body.

Now - would you mind telling me why you don't consider it important that the person who votes, is actually the person whom the electoral officer thinks they are?

The Conservatives haven't had a chance to run all the Liberal rats out of the bureaucratic woodpile yet.

"Oh great, now the right-wingnut bloggers have just learned they can now freep elections. Looks like the sale of burkas is about to hit record highs between Brandon and Banff."

Oh look, albatros didn't land beak first for once. Not a bad idea to getting that majority.

http://dailypundit.com/?p=6429

An old, a bit paranoid, but still useful article on how to deal with the threat of Islamic immigration and non-assimilation as has been done in Denmark. I wonder what it would take to get similar changes in Canada.

Some details:

The big cities have been exempted from receiving new immigrants arriving in Denmark as these have been allocated to small towns and rural districts instead.

The Danish government intends to significantly curb the flow of immigrants from third-world countries next year. The reason for this decision is a new official report on the Danish welfare system which was made public today (December 7). According to Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the Minister for Employment, immigrants from countries such as Somalia, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are a huge burden on Danish welfare (a similar study was produced in Norway last September). Frederiksen said that immigrants allowed into the country had to have a job waiting for them.

There will be an end to the automatic right of entry of a spouse. The minimum age at which immigrants can bring a foreign spouse to live in Denmark is to be raised from 18 to 24.

Permanent residence permits will in the future only be given after seven years instead of the current three, and full entitlement to welfare benefits will be denied to foreigners for the first seven years.

Permanent residence permits will in the future only be given after seven years instead of the current three, and full entitlement to welfare benefits will be denied to foreigners for the first seven years.

“Foreigners coming to Denmark must support themselves,” says the integration ministry.

Under the new law, applicants for Danish nationality must take a Danish language and citizenship test. Anyone with a criminal conviction will be subject to a waiting period of at least two years.

Any asylum seekers going “underground” will not have his or her application processed. Anyone refused entry will be compelled to leave the country immediately, and not within 15 days.

As happened in Holland, practical changes produced measurable results. The BBC reported that “Denmark’s share of asylum applications in the three Scandinavian countries fell from 31% in 2000 to 9% in 2003, while Sweden’s rose from 41% to 60% and Norway’s from 28% to 31%.”

Will we be providing foot baths at the polling stations too?

ET: The fact that an ignoramus allowed you to vote, without fulfilling those requirements - is another issue.

Actually, we had our electricity bill with us. Didn't realize til now that they consider that to be an acceptable form of ID, which is why I brought two government-issued cards. That's for the head's up.

Now - would you mind telling me why you don't consider it important that the person who votes, is actually the person whom the electoral officer thinks they are?

Trying to put words in my mouth? Tsk, tsk.

Of course one person-one vote is important. My point is that our electoral system has always had provisions to accommodate those who, by circumstance or by choice, cannot have their identity confirmed via comparison of physical self to photo ID. This is just the latest example.

I offer two proofs to refute your argument: (1) If you show up at your polling booth with just your SIN card and a credit card statement, you get to vote. Now, how does the elections officer know that the person who votes (i.e., you) is actually the person whom the electoral officer thinks they are (i.e., "ET")? The fact is, they don't -- not absolutely, anyway. In this case, they're not even looking at your physical appearance, they're looking at your documents and comparing them to the info on the list of registered voters (name, address, etc.). So, physical appearance is not a critical element here. Rather, correspondence between the info from one's proffered documents and the info from the registered voters' list is what's of critical importance.

(2) If, on election day, you gave me your SIN card and credit card statement, and I show up at the polling booth, I'd get to vote -- as you. Therefore, voting as "ET" can successfully be accomplished whether or not you, as the real "ET", show up. Therefore, your physical body is again not the critical element here. Rather, a physical body plus acceptable forms of identification are all that's required. [Obviously, neither you nor I would ever actually do this.]

So, neither verifying your physical appearance nor even your physical body are necessarily critical to your right to vote. If you have the right to vote even if an elections officer doesn't look at you with their own eyes, then why can't Muslim Canadian women who choose to keep their burkas on? Heck, even if I showed up in a full-body cast, as long as I have the right documents, I can vote as well, without a single elections officer setting their eyes on my physical body/appearance. What, for the purpose of the argument, is different between a full-body cast and a burka?

This is not the same Canada as it was pre WWII and pre 9/11. Wake up.

Why does it not surprise me that you bring up 9/11, as though any issue now involving Muslim Canadians can somehow rightly be connected to that event? What exactly is your point? That, because of 9/11, wearing a burka is now a legitimate security concern? Or is it that you just don't like'em?

"Why does it not surprise me that you bring up 9/11, as though any issue now involving Muslim Canadians can somehow rightly be connected to that event?"

The Quran and the Hadith, idiot.

"...Not a bad idea to getting that majority.

Posted by: irwin daisy at September 7, 2007 5:25 PM"

Now there's typical con thinking, that election fraud is a good idea.

Or, the recorded 'Canadian' Muslim celebrations over 9/11; the Toronto 19; the Seattle bomber; the recent Toronto letter bomber; the CBC poll clearly stating that 27% of 'Canadian' Muslims supported the Toronto 19 - and that 50% want Sharia law in Canada.

Shall I go on?

"Now there's typical con thinking, that election fraud is a good idea."

Beak first again. And you were doing so good.

Um, Irwin Daisy, all your examples are related directly or indirectly to known acts of violence. The same cannot be said for wearing a burka while voting. Or can you explain why wearing a burka is the same, or even a little bit similar, to, say, voicing support for the Ontario terror suspects?

By the way, the initial evidence to date suggests Adel Arnaout was acting on personal grudges. His religion has nothing to with his lunatic actions.

When a person votes in Canada, their name is crossed off the list of voters in that particular area. I'm not sure if this is how it is done across Canada, but this is how it has been in the west. Now if another person comes in and claims to be that same person, but has not voted, there definitely would be a problem. I can see there being the potential for voter fraud if people go in to vote as the people whose names are not crossed off the list and manage to get away with it.

"What exactly is your point? That, because of 9/11, wearing a burka is now a legitimate security concern? Or is it that you just don't like'em?"

Yes, almost exactly. It's not 'because' of 9/11, that's just another symptom of the much larger problem. Whether you're talking the bombings of the embassy in Nairobi, the Bali nightclub, the Buenos Aires bombing, Madrid, London or scores of places in Africa - or if you're talking about the murder of Van Gogh in Holland, the beheadings of school girls in Indonesia, the forced burning of 'uncovered' school girls in Pakistan or the ugly behaviors of Islamists in much of Europe, there appears to be a common thread.

One of the symbols of that thread is the burka and hijab. They are not divisible, despite the fact that they are sometimes worn by devout but not deadly Muslims.

I'll be getting on a flight to Europe later this month and you can be damn sure I'll be watching others carefully. It's no fun feeling a little bit paranoid, but it's what any prudent, pragmatic traveler is bound to feel. We are pushed and bullied by terrorists and their supporters, and then we're called 'racist' for even considering our own self-protection.

It's an unwinnable situation for rational people. Not unlike the recent Australian brouhaha, whereby fellow travellers in the media, anxious to 'put one over' on the 'repressive' authorities, flaunt the security weaknessess. Then when steps are taken to strengthen those security gaps, the police are accused of bringing about a 'right wing fascist, totalitarian' state.

For the left wing, it's mission accomplished. And yes, I admit it. I have a strong revulsion to seeing women in such slave clothing.

"OTTAWA — A Conservative member of cabinet called Friday on Elections Canada to review its decision to allow Muslim women to vote with their faces covered by niqabs or burkas."

The libs and bloc also want this decision changed. In other words, just about any reasonably intelligent person sees it's a stupid decision. Of course, that qualification doesn't apply to everyone.

A said:

because of 9/11, wearing a burka is now a legitimate security concern? Or is it that you just don't like'em?

Ummmm ya it is a security concern, just like walking into a bank with a ski mask is a concern.

no guff: I'll be getting on a flight to Europe later this month and you can be damn sure I'll be watching others carefully. It's no fun feeling a little bit paranoid, but it's what any prudent, pragmatic traveler is bound to feel. We are pushed and bullied by terrorists and their supporters, and then we're called 'racist' for even considering our own self-protection.

How odd that my experience is completely different. I been on a number of flights to and from Europe in the past couple months. On all of them, there were fellow passengers of what appeared to be Middle Eastern descent; on at least one, there were women wearing burkas. At no time did I feel unsafe or paranoid. But hey, maybe it's just me. Or, maybe it's just you.

Living in fear, are we? Then the terrorists have already won.

A - come on, you've put yourself in troll territory. What is it that you don't get about the context of the article that photo ID's will be required and a sack of anonymous cloth shouldn't be exempted at the polls under that ruling?

Shutup or join your comrades - alby, jose, jeffie - as idiots that are ignorable. After kingstonlad's experience today that's no small matter.

Penny: What is it that you don't get about the context of the article that photo ID's will be required and a sack of anonymous cloth shouldn't be exempted at the polls under that ruling?

Here is a reader-friendly breakdown of the new requirements for voting. As you can see, only one of the three possible options actually requires photo ID. By insisting that Muslim women in burkas lift their veils before they can vote, you are, in effect, saying that all Canadians have available to them all three options except Muslim women in burkas, who can only choose Option 1.

A - your point made, the article makes photo ID appear to be the standard, not an option.

Obviously Muslim fabric sacks can arrive at the polls and side step reasonable voter fraud safe guards to appease pc considerations and all is ok. Ditto for airports. You bet it is a security concern since 9/11. There have been a number of male terrorits caught in burqas. The radical Pakistani school/mosque showdown comes to mind.

I'll repeat again, why is any western democracy putting up with this travesty? Do you disagree with my statement...."The bigger picture here is that a burqa isn't compatible with a modern secular democratic society on so many levels. You need to see people's faces. It's ridiculous and dysfunctional not to in hospitals, airports, banks, schools, on juries, etc. Imagine an ER doctor that can't view your face for cyanosis(blue lips) or injury"?

Penny: Do you disagree with my statement...."The bigger picture here is that a burqa isn't compatible with a modern secular democratic society on so many levels. You need to see people's faces. It's ridiculous and dysfunctional not to in hospitals, airports, banks, schools, on juries, etc. Imagine an ER doctor that can't view your face for cyanosis(blue lips) or injury"?

For the most part, yes. I'm happy to hear that you think that a secular society is the way to go, and I believe that lifting one's veil at airport security checkpoints (but not prohibiting burkas all together) should be required of all passengers (because there are imminent security risks involved, and also because flying isn't a right or obligation of citizenship), but that's about it.

A niqab isn't incompatible with modern Western society. In banks, I don't see why they shouldn't be unharassed for most everyday transactions (incidentally, wearing a ski mask into a bank isn't illegal, though the security guard will have one hand on his gun the entire time you're there). In public schools, I agree that teachers and fellow students should see one's face. I'm guessing, though, that if you're traditional enough to require your daughter to wear a burka to class, you're pretty likely to send her to a Muslim-faith school too. On juries, I defer to the reasonable approach recommended by the UK's Judicial Studies Board -- "If a challenge is presented to a woman wearing a full veil serving on a jury, a judge may wish to consider excusing her, on the proviso that she may serve on another jury where no challenge is made. Much will depend on the views of the parties, but the judge must be satisfied there is a genuine basis for such a challenge." In hospitals, well, thank goodness for free-market enterprising (3w.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?sectionid=73&articleid=1738129). I'm also thinking that in the rare case where a veiled woman shows up in the ER unconscious and near-death, she'd be willing to make an exception to her usual religious practise if it means her life is saved.

I say "rare" because, really, how many Muslim women in Canada do you think this new ruling applies to, anyway? I don't know what the figures are in Canada, but in the Netherlands, home to about 1 million Muslims (about a half-million Muslim women, I suppose), it's estimated that fewer than 100 wear niqabs (0.02 percent of the Muslim female population). I suspect the proportions are similar here too, translating into about 60 such women across the entire country. So why all this fuss about what 60 women may or may not do in a future election? Oh right, in our current day and age, all Muslim activity is treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.

Albatros get over yourself. You come on here spouting childish nonsense and we're all supposed to convert to your way of thinking? You really are one sick.....well I'm not sure what you are, but if I saw one in my yard, I'd shoot it.

"I'd shoot it"
Election fraud and shooting things they don't understand (the parallels to their views on global warming are amazing) , how stereotypical of cons.

This dumb summerbeach is just wondering - how come the hijab wearers are voting anyway? Don’t they realize that if they vote they are just supporting the infidel in their stupid kafir belief system? All power and rule is the purview of the esteemed imams.

"So why all this fuss about what 60 women may or may not do in a future election?"

This isn't about 60 women in burkas and you know it. It's about those 60 women who would demand we redefine the cultural and electoral history of a country that they've freely(?) chosen to immigrate to, despite the objections of millions who find the 'practice'(not religious observance)of hiding one's identity from society, objectionable.

What 'A' is advocating is an electoral system where the legitimacy of the vote is actually lost, because the vote has been removed from a legitimate voter. That is -all that matters is that a person, any person, bring in some secondary references with a name on it - and they can vote.

The fact that this person may not be a citizen, may not be the person registered, may not even be registered, and may not be the person of those secondary references. ..All of that is irrelevant to 'A'. He thinks that our gov't ought to be decided by such fraudulent tactics. That belief is, frankly, a desecration of the process of an election, and of the rights and duties of the citizen.

Heh - all you need to vote in His Country is two pieces of paper with a name and address on it. No need for validation of you, as a voter. That's a complete denigration of the electoral process.

Oh right, in our current day and age, all Muslim activity is treated as suspicious until proven otherwise.

As it ought to be, we are at war with a politicized militant religion and any practioner of that religion needs scrutinized. In the news yesterday, 50% of British mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect "whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to "shed blood” for Allah".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece

Draw your own conclusions. I've arrived at mine and find it a waste of time to debate it.

"A" for asinine. All reasonable, sane people of all Party affiliations know it's just not on to allow people to vote wearing any type of face covering.
We still have the desperate Liberal Left out defending the indefensible, desperately trying to create an inane argument.

We are at war with a segment of the religion these women/men/whatever cover themselves in the name of.What kind of fools would put up with such idiocy?
Oh, we know the answer, Lefties far removed form reality.

ET: Heh - all you need to vote in His Country is two pieces of paper with a name and address on it.

Your argument is so stupid, ET. You do realize that you've just described Option 2 of the current system, right? So "His Country" also mean "Canada at present."