How Broadbent Institute treated in wake of scandal will speak to impartiality, credibility of EC
Eventually, Elections Canada was bound to get it right.
In the wake of an appeal by the NDP, to its followers, to donate money to the fledgling Broadbent Institute -- a think-tank which is so fledgling that it hasn't even been incorporated yet, which prevents it from accepting donations.
The NDP came up with a very simple solution: accept the donations, made in the memory of the late Jack Layton, on the think tank's behalf, and hold it until the institute is incorporated.
This turned out to be contrary to the Elections Act. Not only was it illegal for the NDP to accept these donations on the Broadbent Institute's behalf, it was actually illegal for them to solicit the information in the first place.
To its credit, Elections Canada, which turned a blind eye to the electoral fraud committed by the Ruth-Ellen Brosseau campaign -- they submitted nomination papers to the Elections Canada featuring signatures that had been falsified -- got this one right. They advised the NDP that it was unlawful for them to accept these donations.
However, there is still much to be seen about how well Elections Canada can be trusted to treat the Broadbent Institute impartially. The NDP has very clearly demonstrated a direct relationship between itself and the Broadbent Institute.
This should prohibit the Broadbent Institute from registering as a third party at election time -- acting essentially as an extension of the party, and potentially allowing it to exceed election spending limits either at the national level, or in individual constituencies.
The NDP may wish to pretend that the Broadbent Institute is completely separate from the party itself. These recent events have exposed that notion for precisely what it is: pure bullshit.
It's with this in mind that Elections Canada would be required to reject any third-party application from the Broadbent Institute come the 2015 federal election.
Whether or not they actually will seems far from certain, and remains to be seen. Elections Canada can expect to be watched very closely when it comes time to make that decision.
Showing posts with label Elections Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections Canada. Show all posts
Friday, September 02, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
No, Pat, There Hasn't Been Enough Scrutiny of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau
Unanswered questions loom over Vegas MP
Speaking of the attention that has been directed toward the NDP's MP for Las Vegas, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, Winnipeg Centre MP Pat Martin has just one thing to say:
LEAVE RUTH-ELLEN ALONE!
“A single working mom, she’d probably have some interesting views, whether it’s national child care programs, all kinds of things that she could legitimately comment on that deserve to be heard,” Martin declared.
Of course, there's one other thing that deserves to be heard: an explanation of why Brosseau is going to be seated in Parliament at all.
It has little to do with Brosseau never so much as appearing in her riding during the election. (When it comes to making uninformed decisions, it seems very few have it over Quebeckers.) It has little to do with the falsification of credentials Brosseau does not have.
What it does have to do with is the fabrication of signatures on Brosseau's nomination papers.
It's difficult to believe that many Canadians could still be uninitiated regarding this issue. Mere days after the 2011 election, it was revealed that Brosseau's nomination papers featured signatures that had been gathered under the pretences of "a petition", and others that had been forged.
The NDP has yet to offer a proper response to this. In fact, an NDP spokesperson insisted that all the signatures were gathered properly, even after it had been shown they were not.
Brosseau did not forge any of these signatures herself. She herself never lied to anyone about what the signatures being gathered were for. Nor did she herself ever lie about her education.
It was someone within the NDP campaign who did all of this dirty work. Concerned Canadians still wait for the NDP to flush that individual -- or individuals -- out.
But the bigger question is what's going on at Elections Canada, where they seem to have not taken any action on this matter at all.
Explained most simply, if the Brosseau campaign didn't gather the 100 signatures necessary to certify her candidacy, she was inelligible to appear on the ballot. If any of the signatures are false, that's flat-out electoral fraud.
Elections Canada hasn't stepped in to de-certify the election result based on an inelligible candidate winning and call a by-election. Apparently, they're going to let this matter slide, and carry Brosseau into Parliament with it.
That's unacceptable, and just more evidecne that some bureaucrats at Elections Canada are elligible to find themselves new employment very soon.
One would expect the NDP, who produced an ad talking about Conservative Senators charged with electoral fraud would take an actual case of electoral fraud seriously. Once again, that's actual election fraud, not Elections Canada and the Conservative Party having a disagreement over whether or not specific campaign expenditures were permissable.
Apparently, the NDP has very little interest in these matters when the fraud is within their own ranks.
It's not surprising. What is surprising to see an MP such as Pat Martin, an individual who has shown himself to be of great integrity, declare scrutiny of Brosseau to be "over-blown".
There hasn't been enough scrutiny of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau. Not nearly enough.
Speaking of the attention that has been directed toward the NDP's MP for Las Vegas, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, Winnipeg Centre MP Pat Martin has just one thing to say:
LEAVE RUTH-ELLEN ALONE!
“A single working mom, she’d probably have some interesting views, whether it’s national child care programs, all kinds of things that she could legitimately comment on that deserve to be heard,” Martin declared.
Of course, there's one other thing that deserves to be heard: an explanation of why Brosseau is going to be seated in Parliament at all.
It has little to do with Brosseau never so much as appearing in her riding during the election. (When it comes to making uninformed decisions, it seems very few have it over Quebeckers.) It has little to do with the falsification of credentials Brosseau does not have.
What it does have to do with is the fabrication of signatures on Brosseau's nomination papers.
It's difficult to believe that many Canadians could still be uninitiated regarding this issue. Mere days after the 2011 election, it was revealed that Brosseau's nomination papers featured signatures that had been gathered under the pretences of "a petition", and others that had been forged.
The NDP has yet to offer a proper response to this. In fact, an NDP spokesperson insisted that all the signatures were gathered properly, even after it had been shown they were not.
Brosseau did not forge any of these signatures herself. She herself never lied to anyone about what the signatures being gathered were for. Nor did she herself ever lie about her education.
It was someone within the NDP campaign who did all of this dirty work. Concerned Canadians still wait for the NDP to flush that individual -- or individuals -- out.
But the bigger question is what's going on at Elections Canada, where they seem to have not taken any action on this matter at all.
Explained most simply, if the Brosseau campaign didn't gather the 100 signatures necessary to certify her candidacy, she was inelligible to appear on the ballot. If any of the signatures are false, that's flat-out electoral fraud.
Elections Canada hasn't stepped in to de-certify the election result based on an inelligible candidate winning and call a by-election. Apparently, they're going to let this matter slide, and carry Brosseau into Parliament with it.
That's unacceptable, and just more evidecne that some bureaucrats at Elections Canada are elligible to find themselves new employment very soon.
One would expect the NDP, who produced an ad talking about Conservative Senators charged with electoral fraud would take an actual case of electoral fraud seriously. Once again, that's actual election fraud, not Elections Canada and the Conservative Party having a disagreement over whether or not specific campaign expenditures were permissable.
Apparently, the NDP has very little interest in these matters when the fraud is within their own ranks.
It's not surprising. What is surprising to see an MP such as Pat Martin, an individual who has shown himself to be of great integrity, declare scrutiny of Brosseau to be "over-blown".
There hasn't been enough scrutiny of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau. Not nearly enough.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Canada's Silly Elections Act
Electiosn Act prohibits foreign opinion on Canadian politics?
As the 2011 federal election has entered its final two weeks, the Green Party is rushing to put out a brush fire started by some well-meaning Australian Greens.
A YouTube video, entitled "Sydney, Australia to Sidney, BC" has surfaced, in which members of the Australian Green Party endorse Green Party leader Elizabeth May in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
To most Canadians, something like this would barely raise an eyebrow. But according to Elections Canada, this is actually unlawful under the Elections Act. Under section 331 of the Elections Act: "No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting . . . for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident."
The Green Party should be commended for its efforts to ensure their international supporters respect the Elections Act. But, quite frankly, not only is Section 331 the most unenforcable law ever written, it's also grossly unconstitutional -- in numerous countries.
What Section 331 basically states is that if anyone who is not a citizen of Canada has an opinion on who should win a Canadian election, they are to keep it to themselves. Not only is that a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it's also a violation of such freedoms anywhere else that they are legally-entrenched.
So how would Elections Canada go about enforcing this law? The simple fact of the matter is that they can't. They have no authority to tread into foreign countries and charge their citizens under Canadian law.
Perhaps foreign citizens shouldn't endorse candidates in Canadian elections. But that's a matter of opinion.
Section 331 needs to be struck from the Elections Act at the earliest opportunity.
As the 2011 federal election has entered its final two weeks, the Green Party is rushing to put out a brush fire started by some well-meaning Australian Greens.
A YouTube video, entitled "Sydney, Australia to Sidney, BC" has surfaced, in which members of the Australian Green Party endorse Green Party leader Elizabeth May in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
To most Canadians, something like this would barely raise an eyebrow. But according to Elections Canada, this is actually unlawful under the Elections Act. Under section 331 of the Elections Act: "No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting . . . for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident."
The Green Party should be commended for its efforts to ensure their international supporters respect the Elections Act. But, quite frankly, not only is Section 331 the most unenforcable law ever written, it's also grossly unconstitutional -- in numerous countries.
What Section 331 basically states is that if anyone who is not a citizen of Canada has an opinion on who should win a Canadian election, they are to keep it to themselves. Not only is that a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it's also a violation of such freedoms anywhere else that they are legally-entrenched.
So how would Elections Canada go about enforcing this law? The simple fact of the matter is that they can't. They have no authority to tread into foreign countries and charge their citizens under Canadian law.
Perhaps foreign citizens shouldn't endorse candidates in Canadian elections. But that's a matter of opinion.
Section 331 needs to be struck from the Elections Act at the earliest opportunity.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Time to Clean House at Elections Canada
Elections Canada making its rulings up as it goes along
Following an incident at a special polling station at the University of Guelph, Elections Canada has seemingly chosen to blatantly ignore some serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.
The Conservative Party contacted Elections Canada last week after a Tory scrutineer was denied the opportunity to work at the polling station. There was also partisan campaign literature in the polling area. Both are violations of election law.
This turned out to be the least of the problems at the University of Guelph poll. When contacting Elections Canada to complain about the two violations only to be notified that the poll in question had not been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Under law, the proper course of action would have been to annul the votes cast at that poll, and call the students back to vote in a properly-authorized poll. Instead, Elections Canada validated the ballots cast, and cancelled all such special polls.
It's only the most recent in a series of episodes that casts doubt on the impartiality of the personell running Elections Canada.
There is, of course, the on-sided ruling issued by Elections Canada regarding the "in and out" scandal; one in which the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party alone, was charged over a practice that all of Canada's political parties have used.
Elections Canada would rule that the practice was different when the Tories used it, alleging that they had conspired to violate election spending rules.
Yet when Avaaz, a far-left advocacy group registered as a third party in the 2008 election, violated spending limits in three ridings during that campaign, Elections Canada looked the other way. Newspaper ads specifically identified three opposition candidates in the 2008 election, but spread the cost of the ads across numerous different ridings. Instead of spending the $3,666 per targetted riding they were allowed to under election law, they instead were able to spend $14,000 on their campaign in these three ridings.
In each case, despite the fact that the ads were specifically identified as supporting specific candidates -- the local Tory candidate in the case of the Conservative ads, and Elizabeth May, David Pratt and Mike Bocking in the case of Avaaz -- Elections Canada concluded they were national in scope and thus subject to different spending limits.
In each case, Elections Canada facilitated the decision by declining to examine the content of the ads. The rulings were entirely arbitrary.
Just as it seems that a Tory scrutineer was excluded from the University of Guelph polling station was largely arbitrary. But Elections Canada has offered no comment on this matter whatsoever, let alone have they announced how they're going to respond to the violation.
They're just letting it slide, despite the fact that the poll results ought to be invalidated.
This isn't to say that the 700 students -- actually more like 241 according to an Elections Canada spokesman -- should simply have their votes anulled. Rather, they should have the opportunity to re-cast their votes at a polling station that actually complies with the law.
Even the decision to suspend these on-campus voting stations is disappointing: there's clearly a role for these kinds of polls, provided that they comply with the law.
What is most disappointing -- and deeply disturbing -- is the fact that the people running Elections Canada seems to be making its rulings up as they go along. They have simply rendered too many rulings that are at variance with the law, and often at variance with one another.
It's time for the government to clean house at Elections Canada. The far-left will despise it, but it's the only way to ensure that Canada will remain a democracy where the rule of law reigns supreme, not the biases of those expected to enforce the law.
Following an incident at a special polling station at the University of Guelph, Elections Canada has seemingly chosen to blatantly ignore some serious violations of the Canada Elections Act.
The Conservative Party contacted Elections Canada last week after a Tory scrutineer was denied the opportunity to work at the polling station. There was also partisan campaign literature in the polling area. Both are violations of election law.
This turned out to be the least of the problems at the University of Guelph poll. When contacting Elections Canada to complain about the two violations only to be notified that the poll in question had not been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Under law, the proper course of action would have been to annul the votes cast at that poll, and call the students back to vote in a properly-authorized poll. Instead, Elections Canada validated the ballots cast, and cancelled all such special polls.
It's only the most recent in a series of episodes that casts doubt on the impartiality of the personell running Elections Canada.
There is, of course, the on-sided ruling issued by Elections Canada regarding the "in and out" scandal; one in which the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party alone, was charged over a practice that all of Canada's political parties have used.
Elections Canada would rule that the practice was different when the Tories used it, alleging that they had conspired to violate election spending rules.
Yet when Avaaz, a far-left advocacy group registered as a third party in the 2008 election, violated spending limits in three ridings during that campaign, Elections Canada looked the other way. Newspaper ads specifically identified three opposition candidates in the 2008 election, but spread the cost of the ads across numerous different ridings. Instead of spending the $3,666 per targetted riding they were allowed to under election law, they instead were able to spend $14,000 on their campaign in these three ridings.
In each case, despite the fact that the ads were specifically identified as supporting specific candidates -- the local Tory candidate in the case of the Conservative ads, and Elizabeth May, David Pratt and Mike Bocking in the case of Avaaz -- Elections Canada concluded they were national in scope and thus subject to different spending limits.
In each case, Elections Canada facilitated the decision by declining to examine the content of the ads. The rulings were entirely arbitrary.
Just as it seems that a Tory scrutineer was excluded from the University of Guelph polling station was largely arbitrary. But Elections Canada has offered no comment on this matter whatsoever, let alone have they announced how they're going to respond to the violation.
They're just letting it slide, despite the fact that the poll results ought to be invalidated.
This isn't to say that the 700 students -- actually more like 241 according to an Elections Canada spokesman -- should simply have their votes anulled. Rather, they should have the opportunity to re-cast their votes at a polling station that actually complies with the law.
Even the decision to suspend these on-campus voting stations is disappointing: there's clearly a role for these kinds of polls, provided that they comply with the law.
What is most disappointing -- and deeply disturbing -- is the fact that the people running Elections Canada seems to be making its rulings up as they go along. They have simply rendered too many rulings that are at variance with the law, and often at variance with one another.
It's time for the government to clean house at Elections Canada. The far-left will despise it, but it's the only way to ensure that Canada will remain a democracy where the rule of law reigns supreme, not the biases of those expected to enforce the law.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Elections Canada More (and Less) Transparent Than it Would Like
Little substance to "in and out" scheme, and too many unanswered questions
As more and more details begin to emerge about the recent RCMP raid of the Conservative Party headquarters, the more and more it seems to be a simple rehashing of the same old story: another manufactured scandal with little or no substance behind it.
Logically, the charges by Elections Canada are actually fairly difficult to support. The claim is that the offending ads, paid for by the party which was then reimbursed by local candidates with funds provided by the party in the first place, were actually intended to support the party, as opposed to the candidates.
The ads in question were reportedly mostly identical to the federal party's ads, except with portions endorsing local candidates added to them.
While the back-and-forth transfer of funds -- hence the "in and out" label -- appears at its basest level to be rather suspicious, the charges thin out considerably once one realizes that the charges basically amount to the ads produced for local candidates being too similar to the federal party's ads. Given that the ads, in the end, supported the candidate, Elections Canada's complaints seem to have little substance to them at all.
Furthermore, Elections Canada seems to be overlooking a few intracies about Canadian politics: most importantly, creating an artificial distinction between supporting local candidates and supporting the parties they run for.
A simple fact regarding Canadian politics is that election campaigns tend to be very leader-centered, and thus party-centered. While local candidates inevitably benefit from such partisan consideration, it doesn't change the limited amount of influence many candidates have over their own election.
Certainly, some candidates do have the good fortune to overcome partisanship -- consider the cases of Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison, who have been elected as both Liberals and Conservatives. But the severe glut of so-called "stronghold ridings" where partisan is so entrenched as to ensure the election and reelection of candidates from certain parties suggests that these ridings are fewer and further between than we'd like to think.
Elections Canada's ruling may reflect what many Canadians could be argued to theoretically prefer politically, but preferences do not necessarily constitute reality.
For example, Elections Canada may prefer that local candidates produce their own advertising, in its entirety, but nothing in the law demands that they do this.
Elections Canada's own preferences don't necessarily constitute reality.
Of course, there may be more to Elections Canada's actions than their own publicity suggests. Whether more (or less) cynically-minded observers want to give the presence of Liberal party photographers at the site of the raid the attention it warrants or not, one also has to consider the fact that Elections Canada has, to date, declined to investigate an obvious example of the Ontario Liberal party (another organization awash in cash).
After all, there's little question that "No Gun, No Funeral", considering it's evident purpose, was as much a violation of Election law as anything the Conservative party has done.
The more details of this story emerge, the more one wonders whether or not this really isn't just some Elections Canada bureaucrats trying to enforce their own preferences on Canadian politics.
It is, however, interesting to see how selectively they're doing it.
As more and more details begin to emerge about the recent RCMP raid of the Conservative Party headquarters, the more and more it seems to be a simple rehashing of the same old story: another manufactured scandal with little or no substance behind it.
Logically, the charges by Elections Canada are actually fairly difficult to support. The claim is that the offending ads, paid for by the party which was then reimbursed by local candidates with funds provided by the party in the first place, were actually intended to support the party, as opposed to the candidates.
The ads in question were reportedly mostly identical to the federal party's ads, except with portions endorsing local candidates added to them.
While the back-and-forth transfer of funds -- hence the "in and out" label -- appears at its basest level to be rather suspicious, the charges thin out considerably once one realizes that the charges basically amount to the ads produced for local candidates being too similar to the federal party's ads. Given that the ads, in the end, supported the candidate, Elections Canada's complaints seem to have little substance to them at all.
Furthermore, Elections Canada seems to be overlooking a few intracies about Canadian politics: most importantly, creating an artificial distinction between supporting local candidates and supporting the parties they run for.
A simple fact regarding Canadian politics is that election campaigns tend to be very leader-centered, and thus party-centered. While local candidates inevitably benefit from such partisan consideration, it doesn't change the limited amount of influence many candidates have over their own election.
Certainly, some candidates do have the good fortune to overcome partisanship -- consider the cases of Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison, who have been elected as both Liberals and Conservatives. But the severe glut of so-called "stronghold ridings" where partisan is so entrenched as to ensure the election and reelection of candidates from certain parties suggests that these ridings are fewer and further between than we'd like to think.
Elections Canada's ruling may reflect what many Canadians could be argued to theoretically prefer politically, but preferences do not necessarily constitute reality.
For example, Elections Canada may prefer that local candidates produce their own advertising, in its entirety, but nothing in the law demands that they do this.
Elections Canada's own preferences don't necessarily constitute reality.
Of course, there may be more to Elections Canada's actions than their own publicity suggests. Whether more (or less) cynically-minded observers want to give the presence of Liberal party photographers at the site of the raid the attention it warrants or not, one also has to consider the fact that Elections Canada has, to date, declined to investigate an obvious example of the Ontario Liberal party (another organization awash in cash).
After all, there's little question that "No Gun, No Funeral", considering it's evident purpose, was as much a violation of Election law as anything the Conservative party has done.
The more details of this story emerge, the more one wonders whether or not this really isn't just some Elections Canada bureaucrats trying to enforce their own preferences on Canadian politics.
It is, however, interesting to see how selectively they're doing it.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Canadians Should Have to Lift Their Veil Before They Drop Their Ballot
Veiled voting not compatible with democracy
Amidst the increasing controversy regarding the issue of veils and voting, the Conservative government has introduced a bill that would require Muslim women to remove their veil for the purposes of identification before they may vote in an election.
Predictably, the bill has brought accusations of racism from many of the usual sources.
Unfortunately for these individuals, the issue really has nothing to do with racism, or any other form of discrimination, at all. This issue is about Canada's electoral security.
"During the recent byelections in Quebec, the government made it clear that we disagreed with the decision by Elections Canada to allow people to vote while concealing their face," the bill's author, Peter Van Loan, said.
The government was right do disagree with the ruling by Elections Canada. Not only was the ruling untenably wrong, it was also extremely irresponsible.
The fact is that one of Elections Canada's prime responsibilities is to ensure the electoral security of Canadian elections. In order to ensure this, it is of paramount importance that all those casting ballots in Canadian elections can be identified as registered voters.
There is nothing racist about that -- nothing intolerant about it. However, proposals that veils should be banned in all public places clearly are intolerant (freedom of choice has to include the freedom to choose to wear the veil).
Naturally, amidst some of the meaningless outrage, there are a few insightful criticisms of the bill abound. Consider analysis by Lolita Buckner Innis, who notes that mail-in absentee ballots are still counted, despite the fact that it's impossible to be certain whether or not the person who cast the ballot was actually a registered voter or not.
That's a very fair point, and reveals a very serious loophole in elections law, one that should be closed for the same reason why Muslim women should be required to lift their veils for purpose of identification.
The day of the mail-in ballot should be over, as should be the days of veiled voting. The alternatives to mail-in ballots are certainly more expensive, but the ability to assert absolute, unassailable confidence in Canada's electoral process is well worth it.
There is nothing unreasonable about expecting Canadians to identify themselves prior to voting. In fact, it's the alternative that is unreasonable -- and to cast away Canada's electoral security in the name of spurrious political correctness would make it all the more unreasonable, and extremely irresponsible.
Of course, let it be known that there are other ways to seriously harm Canada's electoral security -- voting via internet, and the electronic voting machines so popular in the United States, stand as prime examples.
Asking Muslim women to identify themselves prior to voting doesn't even represent a minor inconvenience.
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this controversy is that it reveals how little it takes to provoke a major controversy in Canada.
Amidst the increasing controversy regarding the issue of veils and voting, the Conservative government has introduced a bill that would require Muslim women to remove their veil for the purposes of identification before they may vote in an election.
Predictably, the bill has brought accusations of racism from many of the usual sources.
Unfortunately for these individuals, the issue really has nothing to do with racism, or any other form of discrimination, at all. This issue is about Canada's electoral security.
"During the recent byelections in Quebec, the government made it clear that we disagreed with the decision by Elections Canada to allow people to vote while concealing their face," the bill's author, Peter Van Loan, said.
The government was right do disagree with the ruling by Elections Canada. Not only was the ruling untenably wrong, it was also extremely irresponsible.
The fact is that one of Elections Canada's prime responsibilities is to ensure the electoral security of Canadian elections. In order to ensure this, it is of paramount importance that all those casting ballots in Canadian elections can be identified as registered voters.
There is nothing racist about that -- nothing intolerant about it. However, proposals that veils should be banned in all public places clearly are intolerant (freedom of choice has to include the freedom to choose to wear the veil).
Naturally, amidst some of the meaningless outrage, there are a few insightful criticisms of the bill abound. Consider analysis by Lolita Buckner Innis, who notes that mail-in absentee ballots are still counted, despite the fact that it's impossible to be certain whether or not the person who cast the ballot was actually a registered voter or not.
That's a very fair point, and reveals a very serious loophole in elections law, one that should be closed for the same reason why Muslim women should be required to lift their veils for purpose of identification.
The day of the mail-in ballot should be over, as should be the days of veiled voting. The alternatives to mail-in ballots are certainly more expensive, but the ability to assert absolute, unassailable confidence in Canada's electoral process is well worth it.
There is nothing unreasonable about expecting Canadians to identify themselves prior to voting. In fact, it's the alternative that is unreasonable -- and to cast away Canada's electoral security in the name of spurrious political correctness would make it all the more unreasonable, and extremely irresponsible.
Of course, let it be known that there are other ways to seriously harm Canada's electoral security -- voting via internet, and the electronic voting machines so popular in the United States, stand as prime examples.
Asking Muslim women to identify themselves prior to voting doesn't even represent a minor inconvenience.
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this controversy is that it reveals how little it takes to provoke a major controversy in Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)