For the record, I certainly don't think this stupidity shows that the Prime Minister is incompetent and should be removed from office, though I do think it possibly suggests that ALL of our MPs are incompetent and should be removed from office (or at least most of them, including Dion, Duceppe and Layton). I'm not really sure anymore, given some of the crap they've all been shoveling, if ANY of them actually READ the law they passed.
Phantom Observer has an excellent post on this here, and presumably he's not one to be dismissed as a wacky lefty!
The main point to keep in mind, imho, is that Elections Canadea isn't just SAYING that the legislation governing how people can cast a vote does not require people to show their faces, the legislation governing how people can cast a vote simply does not require people to show their faces!!! More importantly, the law does not require voters to show photo ID.
If the law required voters to show photo ID, then one COULD legitimately argue that Elections Canada must "read in" that the law requires voters to show their faces. It would be inane to require voters to show photo ID, but not require then to show their faces, so as to be compared to the photo ID. A requirement to show photo ID at the polling station would indeed imply that the intention of Parliament was to require the visual identification of voters before they are allowed to vote, so even if the legislation didn't explicitly state that people have to show their faces, that would be the clear implication of the "you must show photo ID to vote" requirement. So yes, Elections Canada would have to work within that framework in that hypothetical scenario.
However, the law Parliament passed does NOT require voters to show photo ID before they can vote. It just DOESN'T (sadly dmorris, you can't go by what poll workers have told you in the past, or implied in their conversations with you... I think the only people who know less about Canadian election law than polling station volunteers are Members of Parliament!). I don't see how Elections Canada can simply "read in" that Parliament intended voters to be required to show their faces at the polling stations in order to confirm their identity, when the law SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS for voters to vote at a polling station without showing photo ID. One can't claim that voters must show their faces to prove that they are who they claim they are, when the legislation itself does not require voters to present a piece of photo ID to which their faces would be compared. How does unveiling these women help Elections officials determine they are who they say they are if the law doesn't require them to provide photo ID to the officials to compare to their faces? How can Elections Canada "read in" that the intention of Parliament was to require voters to be visually identified prior to voting, if the law doesn't require the voter to produce the one thing that would be needed to visually identify that a voter is who they say they are (i.e. a photo ID)?
This problem is one of PARLIAMENTARY INCOMPETENCE, and it's not the fault of Elections Canada that Parliament passed a law with a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. Nor is it Elections Canada's responsibility to throw up a road block once the politicians realize the legislation they passed isn't stopping any trucks! Elections Canada isn't in the business of WRITING laws, they just FOLLOW the law. That Parliament passed a crappy law isn't Mayrand's fault (plus, he told them this was a problem BACK IN JULY, and no one seemed to care back then!).
This is Parliament's mess. Parliament needs to clean it up.
Phantom Observer has an excellent post on this here, and presumably he's not one to be dismissed as a wacky lefty!
The main point to keep in mind, imho, is that Elections Canadea isn't just SAYING that the legislation governing how people can cast a vote does not require people to show their faces, the legislation governing how people can cast a vote simply does not require people to show their faces!!! More importantly, the law does not require voters to show photo ID.
If the law required voters to show photo ID, then one COULD legitimately argue that Elections Canada must "read in" that the law requires voters to show their faces. It would be inane to require voters to show photo ID, but not require then to show their faces, so as to be compared to the photo ID. A requirement to show photo ID at the polling station would indeed imply that the intention of Parliament was to require the visual identification of voters before they are allowed to vote, so even if the legislation didn't explicitly state that people have to show their faces, that would be the clear implication of the "you must show photo ID to vote" requirement. So yes, Elections Canada would have to work within that framework in that hypothetical scenario.
However, the law Parliament passed does NOT require voters to show photo ID before they can vote. It just DOESN'T (sadly dmorris, you can't go by what poll workers have told you in the past, or implied in their conversations with you... I think the only people who know less about Canadian election law than polling station volunteers are Members of Parliament!). I don't see how Elections Canada can simply "read in" that Parliament intended voters to be required to show their faces at the polling stations in order to confirm their identity, when the law SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS for voters to vote at a polling station without showing photo ID. One can't claim that voters must show their faces to prove that they are who they claim they are, when the legislation itself does not require voters to present a piece of photo ID to which their faces would be compared. How does unveiling these women help Elections officials determine they are who they say they are if the law doesn't require them to provide photo ID to the officials to compare to their faces? How can Elections Canada "read in" that the intention of Parliament was to require voters to be visually identified prior to voting, if the law doesn't require the voter to produce the one thing that would be needed to visually identify that a voter is who they say they are (i.e. a photo ID)?
This problem is one of PARLIAMENTARY INCOMPETENCE, and it's not the fault of Elections Canada that Parliament passed a law with a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. Nor is it Elections Canada's responsibility to throw up a road block once the politicians realize the legislation they passed isn't stopping any trucks! Elections Canada isn't in the business of WRITING laws, they just FOLLOW the law. That Parliament passed a crappy law isn't Mayrand's fault (plus, he told them this was a problem BACK IN JULY, and no one seemed to care back then!).
This is Parliament's mess. Parliament needs to clean it up.
