Elections Canada and the niqab or burqa
Sep. 10th, 2007 03:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcCanada's recent history has been much more focussed on a genuine accommodation of secular pluralism and religious and cultural beliefs and practices in the last two decades. I arrived in BC just as two issues related to Sikh were high on the political agenda. In the first, the RCMP was forced to allow its Sikh cadets (and officers) wear their turbans when in uniform; in the second, a Canadian Legion that refused to allow Sikh veterans in with their turbans on eventually was disbanded (there was a prohibition against any headwear, in deference to those who died whilst serving). Today both seem like non-issues compared to the rhetoric of the day. But in context: there was a sizable community of Sikh British Columbians in place for almost a century before those issues were resolved--in the last two decades.
There is no shortage of bogus secular humanists in the world today; there's a fair number on here, in fact. They're very keen to use the concepts of diversity and acceptance when faced with religionists espousing views contrary to their own. You cannot discriminate against us! We have a right to live our lives! We have a Charter of Rights and Freedooms and human rights legislation that protect us! All true, all true. But when persons of faith seek accommodation--not control or power, accommodation--these same persons generally turn away....or fight the religionists.
It's a two way street people: either you believe in diversity and a shared common sphere, or you don't. If you don't, stop bullshitting yourself and everyone around you. It's tedious.
Recently Elections Canada--the non-partisan public entity that administers federal electoral matters in Canada--announced new policies for determining voter identity. To put them in perspective, until a decade ago a person living in a rural riding need only show up and swear they live in the riding to vote: no ID, no proof of address, no registration card; the idea being, with 100km between polling stations, the likelihood of voter fraud was slim, and any fraudelent votes were serialized anyway. In the last election, one only had to give their name and address if they were already on the list: no ID needed.
The current proposal that's drawn the ire of many is that Muslim women wearing a face covering: a niqab (veil) revealing only their eyes, or a burqa that wholly obscures their face behind a screen, have the following three options, in addition to one form of official photo ID:
1.) reveal their face to the electoral officer;
2.) provide a 2nd official form of ID; or
3.) bring another voter registered at the same voting station who will verify their identity.
I think it's important that we allow persons to follow their own religious or cultural practices, unless such practice put them in harm's way or are enforced through coercion. My mother's interest in saying the Rosary, for example, is no more coercize than my colleague's interest in niqab--regardless of what I think about these acts of faith.
But I am against the new policy announced by Elections Canada.
In terms of governance, we have a vested interest in knowing who is around us. Our system of democratic entitlements are largely afforded on the basis of who we are as individual citizens. Thus our government has a right to verify who is (or is not) eligible for these entitlements. There is nothing preventing, for example, a Muslim woman from revealing her face to a female electoral officer. There's certainly no prohibition in Islam itself, so long as there are no men unrelated to her who can also see her face. It's a simple and obvious accommodation of both parties' interests: society's right to transparent and honest elections, and a person's right to live within the norms of their faith.
The sad truth is that using the principles of hijab in unprincipled ways isn't unknown. In the Europe, one of the alleged London tube bombers tried to use a burqa to escape when his bomb failed to detonate. Recently in Pakistan the head imam of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) tried to escape a siege using a burqa--leaving his followers behind.
I'm not terribly concerned about someone using niqab for criminal purposes. OK, I'm not concerned at all about it. But when I worked as a scrutineer in the last election I was troubled that there was no requirement for ID to vote: if you knew the name, address, and birth date of someone on the roll, you could steal their vote (or vote in their stead if you knew they would not be voting). That undermines the transparency of the system.
One person, one vote, verified by photo ID. Period. For everyone.
There is no shortage of bogus secular humanists in the world today; there's a fair number on here, in fact. They're very keen to use the concepts of diversity and acceptance when faced with religionists espousing views contrary to their own. You cannot discriminate against us! We have a right to live our lives! We have a Charter of Rights and Freedooms and human rights legislation that protect us! All true, all true. But when persons of faith seek accommodation--not control or power, accommodation--these same persons generally turn away....or fight the religionists.
It's a two way street people: either you believe in diversity and a shared common sphere, or you don't. If you don't, stop bullshitting yourself and everyone around you. It's tedious.
Recently Elections Canada--the non-partisan public entity that administers federal electoral matters in Canada--announced new policies for determining voter identity. To put them in perspective, until a decade ago a person living in a rural riding need only show up and swear they live in the riding to vote: no ID, no proof of address, no registration card; the idea being, with 100km between polling stations, the likelihood of voter fraud was slim, and any fraudelent votes were serialized anyway. In the last election, one only had to give their name and address if they were already on the list: no ID needed.
The current proposal that's drawn the ire of many is that Muslim women wearing a face covering: a niqab (veil) revealing only their eyes, or a burqa that wholly obscures their face behind a screen, have the following three options, in addition to one form of official photo ID:
1.) reveal their face to the electoral officer;
2.) provide a 2nd official form of ID; or
3.) bring another voter registered at the same voting station who will verify their identity.
I think it's important that we allow persons to follow their own religious or cultural practices, unless such practice put them in harm's way or are enforced through coercion. My mother's interest in saying the Rosary, for example, is no more coercize than my colleague's interest in niqab--regardless of what I think about these acts of faith.
But I am against the new policy announced by Elections Canada.
In terms of governance, we have a vested interest in knowing who is around us. Our system of democratic entitlements are largely afforded on the basis of who we are as individual citizens. Thus our government has a right to verify who is (or is not) eligible for these entitlements. There is nothing preventing, for example, a Muslim woman from revealing her face to a female electoral officer. There's certainly no prohibition in Islam itself, so long as there are no men unrelated to her who can also see her face. It's a simple and obvious accommodation of both parties' interests: society's right to transparent and honest elections, and a person's right to live within the norms of their faith.
The sad truth is that using the principles of hijab in unprincipled ways isn't unknown. In the Europe, one of the alleged London tube bombers tried to use a burqa to escape when his bomb failed to detonate. Recently in Pakistan the head imam of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) tried to escape a siege using a burqa--leaving his followers behind.
I'm not terribly concerned about someone using niqab for criminal purposes. OK, I'm not concerned at all about it. But when I worked as a scrutineer in the last election I was troubled that there was no requirement for ID to vote: if you knew the name, address, and birth date of someone on the roll, you could steal their vote (or vote in their stead if you knew they would not be voting). That undermines the transparency of the system.
One person, one vote, verified by photo ID. Period. For everyone.
