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"

Privacy Rights – Where Do We Draw The Lines - Questions

Are we too concerned about privacy. Has the concept of privacy gone too far. Do we really have a right to anonymity. When is it acceptable for authorities to ask us to prove who we are. These issues arise in all sorts of social and political contexts.

Do people who work for public agencies – people who work for us – have a right to refuse to let the public know what they are being paid on our behalf.

What about complaints by drivers about red light cameras that catch them in public breaking the law. Do they have a right to be concerned about people finding out where they were, when they were in a public place. Do people have a right to “freedom from embarrassment”.

If we can be freely seen in a public place is being videotaped or photographed in that place an invasion of privacy.

Should police be able to stop all black men and request identification if a black man has committed a crime in that area. Do police ever stop all tall men when a tall man has committed a crime in the area. How do we differentiate between racial profiling and stopping people that match the description of a suspect.

Would we all be better off if authorities could use the best technology available to identify people, such as fingerprints, Iris scans or DNA (can we separate medical from identifying information in a DNA sample). Should we all have our identification data on the public record.

If travellers are subjected to inappropriate treatment due to misidentification, or having similar names to other people, are more accurate identification methods such as fingerprinting or iris scans actually less intrusive than comparing names or photographs.

Should we worry about Internet financial transactions but freely give our VISA number to anyone working in a restaurant or gas station.

Should we require photo identification to vote. Does it matter that many poor and disadvantaged people don’t have photo ID because they don’t vote anyway.

The Rule of Law and "Veiled Voting"

Canada is not a police state. The police cannot simply tell people to do something because they are the police. They must have legal authority. And neither can other government officials. It does not matter whether everyone thinks that requiring voters to show their faces is a good thing, whether it be the Prime Minister, all political parties, all Muslim organizations and leaders and veiled Muslim women themselves, or even a Parliamentary committee, if the law does not provide the authority election officials cannot require Muslim women to show their faces to vote.

Perhaps the law should be changed. But if the law is to be changed to require photo identification of voters then it must apply to all voters. So why was it not applied to all voters when the act was amended. Perhaps it was because many voters, particularly the poor and disadvantaged, do not have photo identification and requiring it would effectively disenfranchise many of the poor from voting. Do we want to do that simply because veiled women make some people uncomfortable.

And what of those who vote by mail, who do they show their face and photo identification to. Indeed, mail in ballots are a greater concern because there is no guarantee of a secret ballot, one of the basic principles of democratic elections, when mail in ballots are used.

Perhaps we should stop and think before implementing knee jerk reactions to what is in reality more of a theoretical, rather than real, problem.