You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Great White North
Canadian draft law bars veiled Muslim women from voting
2007-10-27
A new draft law introduced by CanadaÂ’s Conservative government on Friday would bar Muslim women from voting if they show up at polling places with a veiled face.
I'll bet it applies to Lutherans if they show up veiled, too.
The measure was proposed in the wake of the governmentÂ’s recent dispute with Elections Canada, which has refused to bar people with veiled faces from polling places. The draft legislation provides for only one exception: bandages on the face worn for medical reasons, for example, after surgery. But in that case, voters must present two proofs of identity or be accompanied by a qualified elector able to vouch for them. The debate over the veil erupted last September, during federal by-elections in Quebec province. Several days before the vote, Elections Canada laid down rules, under which fully veiled women could vote without showing their faces.
Posted by:Fred

#38  Frank nails it again...appearances are deceiving, and a no appearance is intentional deception. Is that a Mr. or Mrs. Tacquiya behind the mask? Trust but verify first.
Posted by: Phinater Thraviger   2007-10-27 20:53  

#37  IMNSHO - a Driver's License is issued to an identifiable PERSON, not a sack-o'-the-day. Same thing with voting - the person should be identified by an ID issued by the State (at no cost if need be) that verifies they have done due diligence to verify this person is as identified. How f*cking hard to understand is that? If they wanna wear a gunny sack or refuse to be ID'd by photo/fingerprint/etc., then they refuse to partake of the necessary PROCESS to do what they demand. The courts be damned, this is the camel's toe nose under the tent. No allowance for multi-culti BS - comply or don't partake
Posted by: Frank G   2007-10-27 20:11  

#36  And as for you, WolfDog, I have never been an apologist for Islam. It's just that -- the last time I looked -- Muslim citizens had the right to free speech, the right to vote, and the right to wear silly hats just like the rest of us. If you want to stop that, the legislative branch is open for business. Apparently Canada wants to stop silly hats because -- thumbprints and signatures aside -- they can't identify someone who is wearing one. And that's fine -- they're approaching it within the law. That's more than can be said for some of the ranters here.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-10-27 20:00  

#35  Drop it, both of you.

Darrell, you won't convince Zenster.

Zenster, your skin is a couple milli- micrometers thick at best.

And idiot - this is the 5th 'nym you've used lately. Stick with one or be banned.
Posted by: lotp   2007-10-27 19:54  

#34  Zenster, I did not "chase down" your post. I entered this thread with my own observation (#16) and then told Laura you're not a fascist after she observed that "the more you talk the more you sound like a facist". The longest diatribe in this whole thread is yours (#5) and, as usual, you insist on pissing on anyone who disagrees with you on even such a minor detail as a veil. The fact is that you wouldn't want a Muslim woman to vote even if she was wearing a bikini. Good day.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-10-27 19:47  

#33  Thank you, Zenster. Just pretend you don't see his comments any more, and perhaps he'll now try to do the same.

Duh!, it's good to hear from people on the ground -- especially the perspective from different parts of the world where Muslims live. I lose perspective entirely too often, sheltered out here in the suburbs as I am.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-27 19:43  

#32  We need more people like Zenster.
Posted by: idiot looking for a village   2007-10-27 19:38  

#31  Dear trailing wife, the only reason this shit happens is because Darrell insists on trailing me around like some obsessed jerkwit. Please note that I do not chase down his posts and respond with lies, innuendo or unsubstantiated allegations. I'll ask that you consider how not one of my critics has ever managed to reconcile my adamant objection to any first use of nuclear weapons by the USA with their own accusations of advocating genocide. I'm quite done in this thread seeing as how Duh! and WolfDog have so neatly handed Darrell his ass on a plate.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-27 19:20  

#30  In Canada....
Posted by: Frank G   2007-10-27 19:06  

#29  and Sikh's are NOT allowed to carry their blades in schools.

In Canada Sikhs are permitted to carry their Kirpans anywhere they wish. That said, I haven't heard lately of any attacks using Kirpans.
Posted by: idiot looking for a village   2007-10-27 18:52  

#28  What Ashley and Darell won't factor in is that islamic drive for total mundane power to control everything. This supremacist drive to do so in true islam won't change and they won't share in the spirit of Democracy. They will forever deny what is uncomplimentary about their creed.
Posted by: Duh!   2007-10-27 18:44  

#27  What Ashley and Darrell (like all apologists for Islam) fail to realize is they would probably be some of the first to be eliminated if the Islamic theocracy becomes a reality.
Posted by: WolfDog   2007-10-27 18:17  

#26  Darrell dear, Zenster dear, please stop. Neither of you is likely to change the other's opinion by direct argument,and we are in Day Two of this one. I respect you both immensely, and I know you can b gentlemen about this (which does not mean pistols and seconds at dawn!!).

Thank you.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-27 18:09  

#25  No Darrel, I live in "moderate" Malaysia, Zenster is more correct than wrong. The islamic core ideology is the same ; it's only the remnant of their original cultural custom that keeps much of the world's muslims from going Osama bad but this is no guarantee that the worst guys won't hold sway, if they can, given the way of fanatical thinking in their religiosity.
Posted by: Duh!   2007-10-27 17:14  

#24  Fifty years ago you would have been a village idiot. Still are, actually.
Posted by: Zenster    2007-10-27 16:10  

#23  Zenster, your approach to Muslim ANYTHING is roughly the mirror-image of Qsama's approach to infidels. As .com once said to you, "you don't shoot all the dawgs cuz some of them have fleas". Yet you admit you can't even see a veil without "each time I see a woman so grabed, I can only speculate as to how she is beaten at home, subjected to the indignity of a second illicit wife and essentially treated as chattel". What a sorry perspective. Fifty years ago you would have been a Klan member.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-10-27 15:49  

#22  Now I agrree with one thing: you are not fit to judge, you are too much a morally abject, racist moron for judging. You are excused from the jury.

Ouch, JFM! Now, that's going to leave a mark.

Memo to Thomas Woof and Darrell: Keep on telling the Big Lie. It does wonders for your reputation here at Rantburg. Your abject refusal to substantiate your accusations represents total intellectual bankruptcy.
Posted by: Zenster    2007-10-27 15:13  

#21  What's the under/over on the Canuckistan Cave-In Countdown? My bet is two news cycles.
Posted by: regular joe   2007-10-27 15:09  

#20  Frank,

I was sceptical, too, so I did a little research and it appears:
The ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on Freeman's behalf shortly after her license was revoked, citing three separate cases in Colorado, Indiana and Nebraska in which the courts ruled that individuals with certain clearly held religious beliefs have a right to obtain licenses without being photographed. Those cases involved Christians who believe that the Second Commandment prohibits them from having their photographs taken.
I find this to be perfectly reasonable in a 9/10 world. I don't know if the rules have been tightened since then.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-27 14:53  

#19  JW's are NOT allowed DL's without pictures, and Sikh's are NOT allowed to carry their blades in schools. What tripe. Pull the veil or no ID, no Vote
Posted by: Frank G   2007-10-27 14:35  

#18  Zenster is not a fascist -- he is an elitist: he wants "democracy" strictly on his terms. He would probably like to bar Muslim women from voting even if they showed up in bikinis.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-10-27 14:11  

#17  It is because we have a democracy that they should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Johavaas witnesses are allowed to get driver liscenses without picture ID. Indian Sieks are allowed to carry knives(Kurpans) to school. This is all because we have a democracy and under that democracy their is something called, "FREEDOM OF RELIGION". I just wanna know what your meaning of democracy is beacuse the more you talk the more you sound like a facist.
Posted by: Leah Ashley   2007-10-27 13:55  

#16  I put it to my mother's test of proper behavior: "What would things be like if everyone behaved that way?" The answer where I vote is that it would be fine because photo IDs aren't used. Where I vote, you have to sign your name and that is compared to your signature on file.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-10-27 13:16  

#15  On the other hand, after voting successively for mitterrand (twice), then for shirak (twice), and finally for sarko, more than 50% of french voters should hide their face, a paperbag, perhaps. But we're talking AFTER the vote, of course.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-10-27 11:35  

#14  Aris wouldn't demean himself so.

Besoeker, I stick my tongue out at you while making faces. Surely you don't mean to say you haven't a Y chromosome? Mrs. Besoeker would be terribly upset to hear that! (Do enjoy the last few minutes of the morning, my dear.)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-27 11:33  

#13  That's the end of my plan to wear a Batman mask underneath a burqa in te next federal election.
Posted by: Canuckistan sniper   2007-10-27 11:02  

#12  I'm sure the Klan would've like to been able to vote with their veil hood too. That time has passed as well. What you do behind the curtain in the voting booth is your business [unless the Donks and union leadership get their way], but getting into the booth is the people's business to insure a legitimate vote, regardless of the beliefs and actions of the Donks, the most valuable entity in a true republic.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-10-27 10:27  

#11  Wife in Trail.... of whom do you speak? We men have been "carrying" the Y-Chromosome crowd in the workplace for years!

(That should start her morning off properly, whahahah)
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-10-27 09:39  

#10  I swear Aris is back using the peudonym Leah Ashley and using poor grammar to disguise his posting.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-10-27 09:36  

#9   We invented sexual equality. This is what allows the female half of our society to judge, something not allowed by those whose women wear the veil.

Zester and JFM, you two covered it beautifully. But I thought if Ms. Ashley were the kind of independent thinker who doesn't give much weight to the opinions of those who carry a Y chromosome...
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-27 09:30  

#8  I expect "Leah Ashley" would be fine with white racists showing up to vote in full Klan masks.

The point of a full face mask is to enforce conformity, demonstrate submission and to instill fear through intimidation. No democracy can entertain this behavior and survive; the alternative is the fate of Weimar.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-10-27 09:29  

#7  Hummmm... where is Mike N? Poor sap had some sort of weakness about genocidal maniacs.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-27 05:37  

#6  Who are we to judge.

But if you to refer to West, we are the civilization reached the moon, invented penicillin, conquered polio and hundreds of other illnesses, authored thousands of artistic master pieces from Venus of Milo to Gioconda without parangon in Islam, abolished slavery (the first civiolization who did it, they still ptactise it) and created democracy. Alll what they have invented was raiding neighbours for slaves and riches (90% of the so-called isalamic sciencxe was either taken from pre-islamic times or invented by dhimmis, mostly the assyrians).

I also to tell you that you are a moron: being able to ensure that people are who teya are supposed to be when they vote is one of the requisites of democracy.

And I tell you that you are morally abject: you can be happy with colored people living under Islam, with women being beaten by their husbands, getting half of their heirlooms, non muslims being brutally opressed, muslims being killed if they cahnge religion or if they are gay. I am not. Unlike you I don't think that the good things are to be kept for whities.

Now I agrree with one thing: you are not fit to judge, you are too much a morally abject, racist moron for judging. You are excused from the jury.
Posted by: JFM   2007-10-27 03:59  

#5  Who are we to judge.

First off, you utterly clueless and malignant, parasitical nit, please end your interrogative statements with a question mark.

Secondly, each and every one of us live and die by our personal judgements. Whether it be crossing a street in heavy traffic or deciding that a driver is too inebriated to safely convey one home, all of us make decisions each day that affect our entire future. Beyond even that, moral relativism—something you seem quite willing to indulge in—represents a fundamental evil on a par with Nazism, communism and Islam as well.

"Who are we to judge."

Let's try judging Islam by its most basic practices.

Sanctioning terrorism.

This one alone is a deal-breaker of phenonemal proportions. The allowance of collective and random punishment that is terrorism is such an incredible evil that few other moral atrocities can exceed it. 9-11, Bali, Beslan, Bali 2.0, 7-7 and Madrid all point towards an utterly conscienceless and horribly vile creed that masquerades as some sort of religion.

Abject Gender Apartheid:

Excising Scraping away an unanesthetized woman's clitoris—otherwise bandied about under the politically correct title and accepted feminist term of "female circumcision"—with a freshly broken shard of glass represents one of the most heinous crimes against any individual imaginable. If you can come up with some way of justifying such a perversion of cultural normatives and moral rectitude, please let me know.

Dhimmitude:

This is a pluperfect form of collective punishment on the exact same scale as terrorism itself. It represents complete and total justification for the West to use whatever collective punishment is required to PERMANENTLY avert Islam from its intended goal of global dominance.

Theocratic Rule:

Theocracy—as demonstrated by the Spanish Inquisition, not to mention Islam itself—is such a hideous evil that all who continue to advocate it, as opposed to proper separation of church and state, are the enemies of mankind.

I could go on for another thousand words of equally damning evidence but scum like yourself, Leah Ashley, are simply not worth the trouble or this site's valuable bandwidth.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-27 01:54  

#4  Zenster, you either made a new friend---or Mike N is back.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2007-10-27 01:19  

#3  Zenster, your such an as****. Did you ever consider that maybe they cover themselves because they are following their religions and that they maybe choose to wear it. Who are we to judge. Maybe the next thing we should do is stop goths from voting, they where way too much makeup. In fact their should be a law that stops anyone wearing makeup from voting. Where does it end?
Posted by: Leah Ashley   2007-10-27 01:16  

#2  Now, each time I see a woman so grabed

... so garbed ...
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-27 00:13  

#1  Most excellent. The West is just scratching the surface of making itself Islam-unfriendly. I used to think nothing of women going veiled in America. Now, each time I see a woman so grabed, I can only speculate as to how she is beaten at home, subjected to the indignity of a second illicit wife and essentially treated as chattel. The hijab and niqab's connotations are all so ugly that I have begun to be offended by their presence in a free society. I know that this sounds contradictory, it's just that Islam is so inimical to the West that any symbol of it begins to grate.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-27 00:11  

00:00