Elections Cover Up and Thinly Veiled Criticism

If Prime Minister Harper doesn't like what the Chief Electoral Officer says - he only has himself to blame. It is called Due Diligence - look into it. This was an issue when the CEO was being vetted for the position - maybe you should have ASKED him.

Dr. Hedy Fry (L - Yahoo!) is concerned that now all the Klansman in BC will not have to take off their hoods to vote.

Officer of Parliament-ial Activism. I-Love-It. I am not going to pretend that the idiocy that this has engendered has not benefited me personally. There are few experts on electoral law in Canada.

Here is what I *think* happened. Exactly NO one has actually complained about having to remove their veil. A Chief Electoral Officer, upset over the problems with "Reasonable Accommodation" in the most recent Quebec election decided he would use his considerable power (more below) as an Officer of Parliament to show that Canada, Quebec and small town French guys aren't crackers. Nice intention, but we all know what road is paved with good intentions.

That said - I agree 100% with the Chief Electoral Officer's decision and the rationale behind it. The point isn't that people aren't willing to remove their veil - the point is that someone may decide not to even attend at the polls because they believe that they may encounter some form of persecution- whether it is that they forced to remove their veil or that there will be any kind of annoyance because of their religion. The tripe we have seen from all four political parties is certainly evidence of that concern.

This statement was an olive branch to a community that is historically disenfranchised in Canada- and the CEO wants to ensure that no person feels that the process will exclude them or provide ANY disincentive to exercising their franchise.

Turning to Canberra, the Prime Minister takes a break from telling the descendants of criminals that they have Parliamentary reform correct to point out how absurd the decision of the CEO is. Except he does it in a way that doesn't make it look like he is reasonably accommodating - he does it in a way that appeals to his base - and rears the problem that the Tories are out of touch with minorities.

And he threatens to amend the Act. For the record, despite the idiocy of the BQ on this issue, the CEO is not flouting the will of Parliament. There is no provision that requires someone to show their face- in fact, the man/woman with no face at all could vote in the election as long as he/she has I.D. that says they are on the list or they are willing to swear and oath to that effect.

I know there are a lot of Tories who read this blog- so pay attention and don't fuck this up.

The Chief Electoral Officer is an Officer of Parliament who has far more influence than any Activist Judge will ever have. Any amendments to the Act made cannot single out any minority for fear of charter challenge, but will have to ensure internal legislative consistency. The most important section to amend is Section 17. This is the "I can do whatever I want" section of the act - it allows the CEO to suspend parts of the Act for "emergency or unusual" circumstances- neither of which are defined in the Act. It probably needs some refined parameters anyway.

That having been said - even if the Chief Electoral Officer issues an edict about veiled voters - it doesn't necessarily make the problem go away.

The Act provides all kinds of administrative discretion to Deputy Returning Officers to establish identity. For example -

143(4) If the deputy returning officer is satisfied that an elector’s identity and residence have been proven in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), the elector’s name shall be crossed off the list and, subject to section 144, the elector shall be immediately allowed to vote

There is no section that says "The DRO must listen to the CEO" - the DRO is a creature of statute and is empowered by the statute directly. They don't have to believe a woman who refuses to lift her veil. Period. Don't worry- some BQ political hack who, by virtue of the same part of the act, is entitled to challenge any elector who refuses to unveil or provide proof of identity, will demand it. I can't wait for my phone to ring on that one.

Except - the only thing they (the candidate rep by way of the DRO) can do is make sure that the elector takes an oath confirming their identity pursuant to section 144. Violating that provision can carry a prison sentence.

So where does that leave us? Well, we have had a very ill-informed and culturally insensitive (bordering on imperialist) discussion on what doesn't constitute proving identity in Canada. When the principles of democracy include tolerance and understanding - why does the level of debate have to go down to this level? Are any elected officials genuinely concerned that there are going to be 10,000 people dressed as ghosts show up at the polls to vote? If they are, they are idiots because that would create a situation where people attempting to commit electoral fraud are forced to take the oath - fraudulently doing so carries a SERIOUS penalty. Why don't we focus on fixing problems that actually exist and see the statement by the CEO as what it is - enfranchising.