Much Ado About A "Right" Nobody Wants

Bill C-6 provides that "an elector shall have an uncovered face when the elector is proving his or her identity".

So just what is the problem with this new rule.

Why should we not have our face uncovered when proving our identity when voting, whether we use photo ID or not.

I can think of two reasons, one being medical for which there is already an exemption. The other might be a matter of "reasonable accommodation" for religious or cultural requirements, except that no religious or cultural group has requested that proving ones identity with one's face covered when voting be allowed. The only request has been that Muslim women be allowed to uncover their faces in front of female officials rather than male officials, which has been accommodated in the bill.

This "controversy" all began when the Chief Electoral Officer decided to address a non-problem by issuing a statement clarifying the fact that the existing law did in fact allow the practice of proving one's identity with one's face covered. As it turned out the only people interested in taking advantage of this "right" were people protesting the fact that the law did in fact allow it.

Yes, it is seemingly irrelevant to require the face be uncovered when photo ID is not being checked and I know the motivations of some people supporting this rule might be less than pure, but for whatever reasons there is strong support for this rule, including at least one Canadian Muslim organization.

Perhaps the Green Party and others who so vehemently oppose this rule should focus their attention on important matters of public policy rather than fighting for "rights" that nobody actually wants and that just create a backlash against the recipients of those unrequested "rights"

The Canada Elections Act - CLARIFICATION

It appears that I have been duped into believing that the Prime Minister actually understood the legislation that his government proposed and passed.

The amendments to the act do not establish photo identification as mandatory.

Bill C-31 states:

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.

And for more certainty it states:

21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Elector to declare name, etc.

143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.

Proof of identity and residence

(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:

(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or

(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.

The Fifth Column apologizes. It should know better than to take Stephen Harper at his word.

The Canada Elections Act and "Reasonable Accommodation"

The Canada Elections Act has recently been amended to require photo identification of voters. Elections Canada, the body responsible for enforcing the Act, has ruled that "electors wearing face coverings for religious practices" do not have to provide photo identification when voting but can provide two pieces of "authorized" identification or be "vouched for" by another elector. Is this a reasonable interpretation of the act. Requiring photo identification becomes rather redundant if one cannot compare the photo to the elector.

What is "reasonable accommodation in these circumstances. According to the Globe and Mail a number of Canadian Muslim organizations have criticized Elections Canada's handling of the issue. "Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which says it is the country's largest Muslim organization, said Muslim groups were not consulted about the rule change. If they had been, he said, he would have told officials that the small minority of Muslim women - perhaps as few as just 50 of Canada's 750,000 Muslims - who wear the niqab would have no problem showing their faces to a female election worker to verify their identity."

It seems that all that was required was consultation with the people affected and a much more reasonable accommodation, one that does not conflict with the spirit, if not the letter of the law, could have been made.