Veil non-nonsense

So veils are in the headlines again. This time it involves the voting process. My first impression was that Boisclair was right on, after all, how are we supposed to ensure the identity of a voter if we can’t verify it visually? But then I got to thinking, “why should voting turn into a moral question for someone?” Wouldn’t it just be easier to have a woman at the voting place who could take the veiled woman aside for identity verification? Couldn’t everyone be happy then? Even though I hate the phrase “reasonable accomodation”, I’m all for the spirit of it. What do you think? It’s not quite as black and white as it seems.

5 Comments so far

  1. Ahmad (unregistered) on March 24th, 2007 @ 9:54 am

    This issue of the choice of Muslim women’s attire has been completely blown out of proportion. Just in the last few weeks, we have heard about Asmahan Mansour (the 11-year old kicked out of the soccer team), the correction officer (trainee) fired, the sugar shack owner bombarded with hate mail for allowing Muslims to pray, and now this.

    I am still trying to comprehend why the voting issue became a controversy in the first place. What prompted the election commission to make the statement about veiled women being allowed to vote. The laws were in place and there was no controversy. Come election day, the officials would have simply applied the laws if the need arose.

    Its like making a statement out of the blue that people who do not speak French WILL be allowed to vote. Imagine the storm that would follow a pretty obvious and seemingly “innocuous” statement like that.


  2. DAVE (unregistered) on March 24th, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

    Ahh gee, just do like in Iraq, dip the fingers in ink (The kind that takes days to wash off). No veil lifting. Muslims don’t have their phallocratic archaic customs violated and no identity swapping keeping the party-whiners from bitching to no end on a NON-F’ING-ISSUE. Everyone’s happy. End of story. Let’s get on with the vote and STFU

    Why is it that when it comes to religion and accommodations everything has to be so bleak, dramatic and goddamn ‘tarded. When sometimes simple solutions will work.

    Meanwhile I’ll show up wearing a Guy Fawkes mask :)


  3. Eliz. (unregistered) on March 26th, 2007 @ 7:33 am

    Actually, they’re making a non-issue out of this. The reason veiled women would have to show their face would be to verify their photo ID. But no one, Muslim or otherwise, is required to show photo ID to vote. Therefore there is no need for them to unveil their face. According to the Canada Elections Act, Part 9 section 144 (2), “A person may, instead of showing satisfactory proof of identity, take the prescribed oath”.


  4. Federico Contreras (unregistered) on April 1st, 2007 @ 11:00 am

    Not up to secular society to put up with every Tom Dick and Harry’s imaginary friend. Especially when their requests are unreasonable. I gave my photoID (carte assurance maladie + driver’s license) and I was identified that way.

    It’s bad enough we let kids carry knives to school in the name of religious freedom (there’s a judgement that should be immediately repealed if I ever saw one)

    Rights are either for all of us, or none of us. But this “some animals are more equal than others” nonsense needs to stop now.

    It’s up to them to fit in, if they can’t because their beliefs conflict with a free, secular society, they’re welcome to go back wherever it is they came from.


  5. Federico Contreras (unregistered) on April 1st, 2007 @ 11:05 am

    Incidentally, this:

    “A person may, instead of showing satisfactory proof of identity, take the prescribed oath”

    Sounds like an invitation to vote Boston style, with the dead voting early and often and saying “That’s me, honest. I swear the oath.”

    I’m sure this isn’t exactly how it works but that sounds loopy.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.