Sorry, but at moment the radio is offline. |
|||
|
|
 |
|
Tories introduce bill to ban veiled voting |
|||
mobile version
 Tories introduce bill to ban veiled voting The Conservative government introduced legislation Friday to force all voters — including veiled Muslim women — to show their faces for identification before being allowed to vote in federal elections.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mail-in ballots are still allowed though, right?
This is nothing more than political pandering.
now you have a problem with mail in ballots ? whats ever been considerd wrong with those ?
Mail-in ballots are still allowed though, right?
This is nothing more than political pandering.
now you have a problem with mail in ballots ? whats ever been considerd wrong with those ?
Reverse your perceptions. Lily's got a point.
Mail-in ballots are still allowed though, right?
This is nothing more than political pandering.
Think again Vicky....
Mail-in ballots are still allowed though, right?
This is nothing more than political pandering.
now you have a problem with mail in ballots ? whats ever been considerd wrong with those ?
Reverse your perceptions. Lily's got a point.
well i was being a little harsh , but veiled voting for whatever reasons is considered more controversal since voter enters polling station hiding their face . and it was just allowed , mail in voting well i'm not sure of exact details but its been used for years so it can't have too many problems or why would it be allowed ?
Are they going home yet ?
1,000 votes are often enough to decide an awful lot of elections.
Had such a thing been going on in Florida or Ohio the US would have a different President today.
Only so many ballots can be mailed to a certain address before it attracts attention. But if veiled voting is allowed then what stops someone wearing a burqha from voting and then leaving, putting on a different burqha, and returning to vote again? And then repeating the process not just at one precinct, but at several across a town? With an organized effort 100 people could easily vote in a large city 1,000 times and no one would be able to prove anything wrong happened.
1,000 votes are often enough to decide an awful lot of elections.
Had such a thing been going on in Florida or Ohio the US would have a different President today.
Well philosophically I am against this but that seems a bit much.
What we need is to introduce laws that state when identification is required then only these are deemed acceptable:
(insert various ID sources).
It should further state that an acceptable ID will contain certain information and bear a detailed photograph and signature.
We aren't forcing them to vote or drive or whatever. If they want that priveledge then they obey our rules governing them.
If that is unacceptable then the doors is thataway.
Of course this kind of attitude cannot be easily defended when we invade their countries and tell them what to do.
If we want to demand "they"obey our laws then we cannot dispute "their" right to enact and enforce laws in their country regardless of how we feel about them.
In other words, if we want the right to force them not to wear burkas (for our reasons) then we cannot ever ever object to their right to force women to wear them.
Its blackletter logic.
I think presented this way Bart you would have to agree.
You have to provide ID proving not only your identity but your address as well. You also have to provide a signature.
And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.
And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.
You have to provide ID proving not only your identity but your address as well. You also have to provide a signature.
And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.
And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.
I wonder how long before thumbprint ID will become as commonplace as a sig?
It would certainly dispense with this type of argument.
You have to provide ID proving not only your identity but your address as well. You also have to provide a signature.
And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.
And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.
I wonder how long before thumbprint ID will become as commonplace as a sig?
It would certainly dispense with this type of argument.
Or, as they do in Iraq and any other place where veiled women are allowed to vote, everyone has to have their thumb stained with indelible ink after they vote. This prevents the scenarios I presented rather effectively.
You have to provide ID proving not only your identity but your address as well. You also have to provide a signature.
And what good is an ID when you can't match it to a face? Because with a veil or a burqha you can't see the person's face.
And comparing signatures does you little good if the person's legal signature is in Arabic.
I wonder how long before thumbprint ID will become as commonplace as a sig?
It would certainly dispense with this type of argument.
Or, as they do in Iraq and any other place where veiled women are allowed to vote, everyone has to have their thumb stained with indelible ink after they vote. This prevents the scenarios I presented rather effectively.
I think permenant purple ink might just push our stellar voter turnouts even lower.
Voters using a mail-in ballot don't have to match their face to an ID.
Go back and read my earlier post. I already covered that one.
Do Arabic signatures all look alike?
To people who read and write Arabic, no.
To people who don't read and write Arabic they can't tell the difference between a person's signature and a .