Canadian General Election

[Ottawa]

Hi Canadians and anyone else interested!

As you all know, we now have 2 weeks remaining before the general election!  I thought I'd stick this post/poll here to see if Mustachians gravitate toward any particular party.  Also, feel free to discuss all things political (in a civilized manner of course)! 

[RunningWithScissors]

So far there's too small a sampling to guarantee accuracy, but I'm following this thread with interest. 

[daverobev]

I was hoping to get citizenship in time to vote. Alas, not happnin.

I think we're almost guaranteed a minority? Hasn't Harper said he'll stand down if he doesn't get a majority?

Currently guessing NDP will lose some of Qc, pick up a few here and there; Cons will lose some esp. Alberta; Libs will do better but not well.

I love elections, really looking forward to it.

[scottish]

This is a tough one.

I can't stand Mr Harper.   His economic policies are ok, nothing special.   Low taxes, more trade, smaller government.
But his other policies are horrible.   Oh, and deficits are only allowed if it's the conservatives who have them.   Huh?

I like Justin.   But I'm a little worried the federal liberals will be like the Ontario ones instead of like the Chretien/Martin liberals.   And I can't figure out how he's going to tax the wealthy sufficiently to help the middle class.   The numbers don't work very well.

Mr. Tom Mulcair.   I don't know what to make out of him.   Rejecting the TPP without knowing what's in it seems silly.   Universal daycare seems expensive.   And don't forget the freedom to wear niqabs - or not, which seems to matter an awful lot to many people.

Anyway this is the most interesting election I can remember in over 30 years.   As long as we don't have a majority government this time I'll be happy.

[Zikoris]

I support the Conservatives, but am voting strategically Liberal in a (likely futile) attempt to oust the totally crooked NDP candidate in my riding who stole funds from a homeless shelter group to go to Disneyland. It probably won't work since my district is historically pretty die-hard NDP, but here's hoping people are sick of that person's shit.

[choppingwood]

I`ll vote NDP, though the riding will go Conservative.

I`d vote Liberal, but I haven`t seen any sign of a candidate, though Elections Canada says there is one. Even the Libertarian candidate has had a meeting within easy driving distance.

[okits]

I've read this remark elsewhere and agree: trying to decide which party to vote for in this election is like trying to decide which STD is right for you.

[Shinplaster]

I've read this remark elsewhere and agree: trying to decide which party to vote for in this election is like trying to decide which STD is right for you.

Best laugh I've had through this whole thing. 

We are committed to anyone BUT Harper, but haven't made up our minds whether it will be NDP or Liberal.   We have never voted for Harper, and never will.   We like our local NDP candidate, and have yet to see our Liberal one.   But we will vote as strategically as possible to oust the PM who thinks snitch lines are something Canadians should endorse, never mind his other policies.  (Mr. SP grew up in an Eastern Bloc country, and the mere idea of snitch lines brings up all sorts of really, really bad memories.)

It's been a very long time since we've actually been able to vote FOR someone, rather than choosing the best of 3 bad choices.  I wish that someone with vision, ethics, and who actually likes his/her fellow Canadians would run for a change.

[RetiredAt63]

I voted in the poll and will vote on the 19th.  My riding used to be Liberal, presently Conservative, looks like it could go back to Liberal.  So instead of voting where my head and heart are, I am voting to get the most likely acceptable non-conservative MP I can.  Fortunately the Liberal candidate looks OK (such a ringing endorsement, not).

I saw a poll recently like yours, but with double the choices - all the parties, and then all the parties except CPC with "party as an ABC choice".  It is interesting to see the number of strategic voters this time around.

I actually met Mulcair and chatted with him at an event I organized (non-political, he was one of our speakers 8 years ago, due to his having been Environment Minister in a Quebec Liberal government), when he had only recently joined the NDP.  He is smart, aware and sensible, I would happily have him as PM.

[Ottawa]

It is easy to dislike Harper.  The more he does, the more upset I get!  Disregard for science-based decision making and environmental concerns are at the top of my list of dislikes.  However, outright fabrication (and emphasis on) things like a balanced budget, introduction of borderline racism advocacy as a wedge issue, and propping up the economy by enabling people to access retirement monies to fuel consumerism...ugh!  These are not admirable traits on which to campaign.

It is even easier to say anyone but Harper.  The difficulty is not knowing how Mulcair or Trudeau will actually be in a role they've never been in before.  The hard part is choosing an unproven candidate.

Strictly from an Early Retirement perspective I have concerns about how the NDP will treat the TFSA going forward.

[GuitarStv]

Harper has been a huge disappointment for a long time now.  I'm not tremendously wowed by either the Liberals or NDP though.  Probably leaning towards NDP.

[YK-Phil]

The three Northern Territories do not really matter in the Canadian political landscape. Our areas combined accounts for 40% of Canada's landmass, but we only get three seats. My vote will go to the only candidate that has always stood up for Northerners' interests in Ottawa, Dennis Bevington, who is seeking a fourth term under the NDP banner. Having him in Ottawa does not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but he championed some of our big issues related to devolution, the environmental regulatory system, cost of living and taxation. In Nunavut, the race is interesting (at least for us), as all the candidates for the three major parties are Inuit (Clyde River Mayor Jerry Natanine, known for his aggressive opposition to a now-postponed plan to conduct seismic testing for oil and gas reserves off the east coast of Baffin, was nixed by the NDP but he should have run for the Greens...whose candidate is a young teacher from the South who no longer lives in Nunavut and who will probably get no more than 10 votes). Hopefully, Leona Leona Aglukkaq, whom I know well and regarded very highly at one time, will get kicked out, as she was just a parrot for Harper and did not speak up for her constituents. West of us in the Yukon, I have high hopes for NDP Candidate Melissa Atkinson, a Whitehorse lawyer working on her first campaign. She is a former chair of the Yukon Human Rights Commission and also a member of the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation. Her campaign manager is Audrey McLaughlin, who was the NDP's national leader in the early 90s.

[daverobev]

It is even easier to say anyone but Harper.  The difficulty is not knowing how Mulcair or Trudeau will actually be in a role they've never been in before.  The hard part is choosing an unproven candidate.

I find this baffling. Often you get a new PM every 4 or 8 years. You're not even voting for the PM, you're voting for the party. Every PM was a new PM once!

[RetiredAt63]

This is obvious when there is fast turnover.  When a PM has been around for a while, and the other parties have changed leaders, it is psychologically a bigger jump.  Plus Mr. Harper has been talking it up so much, it seems like a bigger issue than it is.

I'm going to take  the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the Trans Pacific rim trade agreement over to Big Sled, No dogs.

It is even easier to say anyone but Harper.  The difficulty is not knowing how Mulcair or Trudeau will actually be in a role they've never been in before.  The hard part is choosing an unproven candidate.

I find this baffling. Often you get a new PM every 4 or 8 years. You're not even voting for the PM, you're voting for the party. Every PM was a new PM once!

[smilla]

I am seriously considering spoiling my ballot this round.  I won't vote for Harper, I'd feel like a traitor voting for Trudeau (sins of the father - it may be unfair but there it is), and Mulcair...  I was going to vote Mulcair but just when I think he's the sensible choice, he gets foolish. Maybe I'll vote Green. Not that my vote will make any difference in my riding.

Last election I voted Liberal and before that I alternated between Conservative and Green/other depending on various pet issues. This year my issues are privacy and science and flow of information and transparency and hate/fear-mongering and internet neutrality and copyright rules and stuff like that. 

Overall though, I feel less interested and more annoyed (with all parties) as time goes on.

[choppingwood]

I`ll vote NDP, though the riding will go Conservative.

I`d vote Liberal, but I haven`t seen any sign of a candidate, though Elections Canada says there is one. Even the Libertarian candidate has had a meeting within easy driving distance.

Well, the Liberals have put signs up on the highway. Looks like I`ll have to do some research now and make an informed decision.

[GuitarStv]

I`ll vote NDP, though the riding will go Conservative.

I`d vote Liberal, but I haven`t seen any sign of a candidate, though Elections Canada says there is one. Even the Libertarian candidate has had a meeting within easy driving distance.

Well, the Liberals have put signs up on the highway. Looks like I`ll have to do some research now and make an informed decision.

That's like . . . the least used approach to voting.

[RetiredAt63]

I put these up on Big sled, no dogs, but they might be useful for looking at your riding:

http://www.strategicvoting.ca/
https://www.votetogether.ca/

I have chatted with a few people here and they are all doing strategic voting - even if they prefer NDP or Green, they are planning to vote Liberal, since it looks like the best chance to remove our conservative MP.

I`ll vote NDP, though the riding will go Conservative.

I`d vote Liberal, but I haven`t seen any sign of a candidate, though Elections Canada says there is one. Even the Libertarian candidate has had a meeting within easy driving distance.

Well, the Liberals have put signs up on the highway. Looks like I`ll have to do some research now and make an informed decision.

That's like . . . the least used approach to voting.

[GuitarStv]

I hate first past the post so much.  You shouldn't have to strategically vote for a lesser evil.  Your vote should matter, regardless of what the people who live near you think.

[firewalker]

I don't know the mames or the acronyms, but it appears the Canadian government and related politics is no better than the American. Am I right?

[Jon_Snow]

I cannot shake the trauma caused by NDP provincial governments here in B.C., and cannot even bring myself to consider voting for the Dippers...if the Liberals would just leave my TFSA alone that would be the obvious choice for me. I tend to alternate between voting Lib and Con...believe it or not, voting Conservative has not ALWAYS felt dirty.

If my primary residence was on my Gulf Island, Elizabeth May of the Greens would be my MP. Which would be cool. :) I can't wait to get out of Vancouver.

[GuitarStv]

believe it or not, voting Conservative has not ALWAYS felt dirty.

So, is it just since they turned into the (not so secret) reform party that it's been dirty?

[nereo]

It is easy to dislike Harper.  The more he does, the more upset I get!  Disregard for science-based decision making and environmental concerns are at the top of my list of dislikes.

Mine too.  The policies that have been put into place over the past few years constricting what a federally funded scientist can say about his or her results if they don't jive with official government policy are scary at best.  We're deciding where we want to go and then selecting what supports that.  Worse (for me at least), the restrictions have prevented a lot of collaboration with US agencies because they are not permitted to have such a stipulation placed on their reseach (aka "freedom of information act" and "required distribution of scientific findings").

Also can't vote in this election, but living in Quebec there's virtually no conservative presence.  Liberals or NDP seem to be the front-runners here, at least from what i've gathered. 
Will be interesting for sure - our departments have seen their budgets slashed to the point where good scientists are leaving in droves.  We gave our intern her own office because there's so much available space.

[RetiredAt63]

I have voted in every federal (and provincial) election since I was of voting age.  And I have voted Progressive Conservative (a Red Tory), Liberal, NDP and Green, depending on the mix of candidate and party platforms.  Not Bloc when I lived in Quebec, that was one time where the wonderfulness of the candidate (and the Bloc candidate was wonderful) was overshadowed by the stated party policy. When we still had $2/vote going to every party, it was worthwhile voting Green even though I knew the green candidate would come 4th in the riding - it was funding and protest and policy endorsement all in one.  Now I have to vote strategically, and I DO NOT LIKE IT!!!  Yes I was yelling, sorry, but so not good for democracy and getting the country the voters want.  I don't want to go back to a two party system where first past the post sort of works, but we need to fix this. 

Unfortunately the party that benefits (and historically it has happened both on the liberal and conservative sides) means that a party in power has little incentive to change things.

[Ottawa]

It is even easier to say anyone but Harper.  The difficulty is not knowing how Mulcair or Trudeau will actually be in a role they've never been in before.  The hard part is choosing an unproven candidate.

I find this baffling. Often you get a new PM every 4 or 8 years. You're not even voting for the PM, you're voting for the party. Every PM was a new PM once!

I used to live in an MMP country.  This is a superior option in my humble opinion.  Everyone gets two votes.  First is an electoral vote, the second is a party vote. 

Anyway, reality: In my current riding most of the candidates are new.  All I've got to go on is a candidate bio.  As above; I also don't know what Mulcair or Trudeau will be like as leaders.  Sure every PM is a new one, but that doesn't tell me anything about whether they will perform in the job (as advertised during the campaign).  So, on what basis do I weight my vote?  Do I vote for the candidate I like the best (regardless of party)?  Do I vote for the candidate that represents a party that I think is most likely to beat Harper (even if I don't like the local candidate)?  Not an ideal situation. 

[choppingwood]

I put these up on Big sled, no dogs, but they might be useful for looking at your riding:

http://www.strategicvoting.ca/
https://www.votetogether.ca/

I have chatted with a few people here and they are all doing strategic voting - even if they prefer NDP or Green, they are planning to vote Liberal, since it looks like the best chance to remove our conservative MP.

I`ll vote NDP, though the riding will go Conservative.

I`d vote Liberal, but I haven`t seen any sign of a candidate, though Elections Canada says there is one. Even the Libertarian candidate has had a meeting within easy driving distance.

Well, the Liberals have put signs up on the highway. Looks like I`ll have to do some research now and make an informed decision.

That's like . . . the least used approach to voting.

Thanks, these links were very helpful. Biased, but still very helpful. Apparently my riding is so grossly skewed towards the Conservatives that I am free to vote my conscience. And here in Alberta, we have discovered recently that anything is possible.

[Cathy]

I've already mailed in my vote pursuant to the Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c 9, §§ 220-230. This may be the last Canadian election in which I am permitted to vote, because, back in July, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a federal statute stripping Canadians of their voting rights after they have resided outside of the country for a certain period of time. See Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 536, ¶¶ 8, 156 (claiming that, although "it is conceded that over one million [otherwise eligible] Canadian citizens ... have no voting rights as a result of the impugned legislation", the legislation is nonetheless justifiable because "[t]he legitimacy of elected representatives is strengthened by the fact that they are elected by, and are answerable to, those who live in the jurisdiction"). Of course, Frank might not be the final word on this matter.

[Zikoris]

For what it's worth, I'd support the Liberals if they'd just keep those paws off my TFSA. I think a lot of non-diehard Conservative supporters feel the same.

[Ottawa]

For what it's worth, I'd support the Liberals if they'd just keep those paws off my TFSA. I think a lot of non-diehard Conservative supporters feel the same.

I agree.  Although I don't mind them rolling back to 5500 with indexing from there.  The 10K was a vote-buy tactic.

[RetiredAt63]

MMP - That sounds interesting - can you give more detail?  I am guessing your first vote go to the candidate in your riding, but the second vote goes where?  Does this article in Maclean's present the likely arrangement?
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-case-for-mixed-member-proportional-representation/
I suppose that if we get a minority Liberal or NDP government, we will need to write our MPs a lot to push this, or it will go nowhere.

Re the TFSA, it is useful as an alternate savings vehicle.  Many of my DD's friends are using them to save up for a house down payment, and for low income earners they are probably better than an RRSP for retirement savings.  I am happy to have it indexed (although not fond of the $500 jump arrangement) but I could live with the $10,000 being a one shot deal.  From a more general perspective, this government seems to be in the circle of "lower taxes, get less revenue, cut services, complain about how poorly the public service does things and go for private instead, cut more taxes".  Being near Ottawa, I know many people in the Public Service, and they point out that the payroll branch in New Brunswick does things very poorly, but that is because their staffing has been cut so badly.

I used to live in an MMP country.  This is a superior option in my humble opinion.  Everyone gets two votes.  First is an electoral vote, the second is a party vote. 

[RetiredAt63]

Scientists?  Canada?  Good cartoon.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2015-10-07-editorial-cartoon

[Ottawa]

MMP - That sounds interesting - can you give more detail?  I am guessing your first vote go to the candidate in your riding, but the second vote goes where?  Does this article in Maclean's present the likely arrangement?
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-case-for-mixed-member-proportional-representation/

Exactly like the article you linked!

[smilla]

believe it or not, voting Conservative has not ALWAYS felt dirty.

So, is it just since they turned into the (not so secret) reform party that it's been dirty?

I think it only really started to feel dirty after Harper had been in a couple years and began to display his ego-maniacal need to control everything. The 2006 Conservative platform looked fairly clean to me at the time, although I was focused on the Accountability and Canada sections and very meh about the Security section. Looking at it now though - well obviously he betrayed Canadians on accountability more or less entirely, but much of the rest looks like an ominous warning of the things to come. Maybe it should have been obvious at the time but ...

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/pdf/conservative_platform20060113.pdf

[RidinTheAsama]

Maybe I'll vote Green. Not that my vote will make any difference in my riding.

This isn't exactly true.  If you vote Green even knowing full well it won't affect who your MP becomes, your vote still counts towards future federal funding for the Green Party.

Sadly, it is still quite true that money is a major factor in who wins elections...

So your vote for a party you know will not win your particular riding, is still a vote for that party's future funding, and future ability to win elections.

[smilla]

I thought the Harper government cancelled that funding system. No? 

[RetiredAt63]

Sorry, Harper got rid of per-vote funding.  One reason why the CPC has such deep pockets.

I really need to get my act together and start writing cheques.  Limits are for calendar years.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=ces&document=part6&lang=e

Maybe I'll vote Green. Not that my vote will make any difference in my riding.

This isn't exactly true.  If you vote Green even knowing full well it won't affect who your MP becomes, your vote still counts towards future federal funding for the Green Party.

Sadly, it is still quite true that money is a major factor in who wins elections...

So your vote for a party you know will not win your particular riding, is still a vote for that party's future funding, and future ability to win elections.

[nereo]

Scientists?  Canada?  Good cartoon.

that one hit too close to the belt for me to find it funny....sigh.

[RetiredAt63]

We laugh so we do not cry.

Scientists?  Canada?  Good cartoon.

that one hit too close to the belt for me to find it funny....sigh.

[hunniebun]

As a scientist in the public service this cartoon makes me want to laugh and weep at the same time.  I met my husband at the Experimental Lake Area in the 90s and I was sick when they stopped funding it...all to save a million bucks a year in operating costs.  My department spends that on cells phone each year FFS.  ANYONE but HARPER. Please, for the love of all that is good. Anyone but him.    And I haven't heard that he would step down if he doesn't get a majority. I think the conservatives would have done way better this time around with a different leader. 

[RidinTheAsama]

Sorry, Harper got rid of per-vote funding.  One reason why the CPC has such deep pockets.

I really need to get my act together and start writing cheques.  Limits are for calendar years.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=ces&document=part6&lang=e

Maybe I'll vote Green. Not that my vote will make any difference in my riding.

This isn't exactly true.  If you vote Green even knowing full well it won't affect who your MP becomes, your vote still counts towards future federal funding for the Green Party.

Sadly, it is still quite true that money is a major factor in who wins elections...

So your vote for a party you know will not win your particular riding, is still a vote for that party's future funding, and future ability to win elections.

Well Shoot.
Thanks for correcting me...



Edit:quote misplacement

[scottish]

This week the election appears to be degenerating into whether or not women should be allowed to wear a scarf on their heads.    Two of the political parties want to begin banning niqabs, starting with government employees and anyone doing business with the government.

[The Fake Cheap]

So glad this thread was started, I was going to start something similar. 

I really have my fingers crossed (to put it nicely) that Harper and the Cons get the boot in this election.  Just so many reasons to vote Harper out.

I'll be voting Liberal, however my riding has a strong Liberal history so it shouldn't be much of a race in my area.  If the Liberal candidate wasn't clearly favored to win, I would be taking up the ABC strategy for sure.  I also think it is time for a change from the first past the post rule.  When ~60%  of people who voted, voted for someone other than the government, like in the 2011 election (as per Wikipedia), and the winning party somehow still gets a majority government, that just doesn't make sense to me. 

[RetiredAt63]

Um, the hijab is the scarf - teaching in Montreal, I had students who wore hijabs to class.  The niqab is the full covering, no face showing.  Headscarf, no big deal, the fuss is about no face showing. These days, when I see a woman in Ottawa in the full summer heat and humidity fully clothed in black (to her ankles), including the niqab, my first reaction is "oh my, heatstroke coming".  Truly I do not know how they manage, it is the black (versus a light colour) more than the amount of fabric, that gets me.

When I first saw women wearing niqabs I was taken aback, I admit, but I had a chance to talk with a woman who had worked with Algerian Muslim immigrants in France, and the women who wore it saw it as a psychological barrier between them and strangers.  Once they knew and trusted her, in private they showed their faces.  This reminded me of a time (back in my 20s) we vacationed at a Club Med in Guadeloupe, where almost all the visitors were European (mostly French) with a few Canadians and no Americans.  Most of the women went topless at the beach.  But no-one was rude to me or teased me because I kept my bathing suit top on.  I have come to realise that for these women to go without the niqab in public in a new country would be as psychologically difficult as going topless at a beach would have been for me.

For me the acculturation issue is more with the male attitude that women are second class citizens with no say in their lives, and that honour killings are acceptable.  But we have seen how little women's murders matter to this government as a policy issue.

This week the election appears to be degenerating into whether or not women should be allowed to wear a scarf on their heads.    Two of the political parties want to begin banning niqabs, starting with government employees and anyone doing business with the government.

[scottish]

Does this mean banning the niqab would be the psychological equivalent of forcing these women to go to work without any clothing?   

The idea behind freedom is that we're free, as long as we don't intrude on other people's freedom.   I don't like it that these women feel the need to wear a niqab, but it's really their choice.

[Ottawa]

Last couple days we have the following:

Oil Ignorance by the Cons: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/absorb-oil-spills-conservative-1.3260460

Plain Old Ignorance by both the Cons: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservative-candidate-jagdish-grewal-gay-youth-1.3259324

and the Libs: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cheryl-thomas-liberal-candidate-resigns-1.3251338

Shakes Head

[RidinTheAsama]

If you are serious about being strategic to oust the conservatives, take a look at your riding here to see which candidate has the best shot at beating the Conservative candidate.
http://www.votetogether.ca/riding/list/

ESPECIALLY if you are in one of these 16 ridings.
https://medium.com/@kashani/there-is-actually-a-way-to-guarantee-harper-s-defeat-here-s-how-11ca79cec748

[RetiredAt63]

I got this viewpoint second hand, and from only one person, so I really would love to hear/read a first-hand account of a Canadian woman who wears the niqab.  However, I got the impression it was more like the psychological equivalent of going to work in a formal office wearing a cutoff t and short shorts, there would be a lot of unwanted visual interest.  For a physical example, going out in -20C weather wearing shorts and a tshirt. 

Also (this was in France) there was such an overall push on them to not wear it (to work, to school) that wearing it was a statement of solidarity with one's community, and not wearing it was a definite statement of not being part of one's community.

I have to add that as a biologist, I just hope that they are getting enough vitamin D.  Our weak sunlight for half the year means we are all vulnerable to not making enough of our own, especially since sunblock/clothing blocks synthesis during the summer.

Does this mean banning the niqab would be the psychological equivalent of forcing these women to go to work without any clothing?   

The idea behind freedom is that we're free, as long as we don't intrude on other people's freedom.   I don't like it that these women feel the need to wear a niqab, but it's really their choice.

[YK-Phil]

I got this viewpoint second hand, and from only one person, so I really would love to hear/read a first-hand account of a Canadian woman who wears the niqab.  However, I got the impression it was more like the psychological equivalent of going to work in a formal office wearing a cutoff t and short shorts, there would be a lot of unwanted visual interest.  For a physical example, going out in -20C weather wearing shorts and a tshirt. 

Also (this was in France) there was such an overall push on them to not wear it (to work, to school) that wearing it was a statement of solidarity with one's community, and not wearing it was a definite statement of not being part of one's community.

I have to add that as a biologist, I just hope that they are getting enough vitamin D.  Our weak sunlight for half the year means we are all vulnerable to not making enough of our own, especially since sunblock/clothing blocks synthesis during the summer.

Does this mean banning the niqab would be the psychological equivalent of forcing these women to go to work without any clothing?   

The idea behind freedom is that we're free, as long as we don't intrude on other people's freedom.   I don't like it that these women feel the need to wear a niqab, but it's really their choice.

This is an interesting perspective of an Hutterite woman on the niqab (non-) issue. I personally do not care about what someone wears or doesn't wear, whether it is a niqab, a speedo, or nothing at all. The idea that someone's personal or material life is affected or harmed by another person's choice of clothing seems to be particularly ridiculous and unfounded.

http://www.polkadotpress.ca/#!My-Hutterite-perspective-on-the-Niqab/cyvb/5615521a0cf25fa7fe2c37e1

[daverobev]

With the whole veil thing... I think the only relevant point is that a person, in some situations, needs to be identified. You can't wear a balaclava into a bank, for example. I think the various muslim dress levels are the same - if you are in a place that requires, for security purposes, your face to be visible, it's ok. In the sweet shop or supermarket? Not really. Anywhere you need to show ID? Then absolutely you need to show your face.

If you're becoming a citizen, you need to prove you are you. If you are voting, ditto. If you're walking down the street, not at all.

[Gerard]

On the niqab issue -- which for some of us is the thing that finally makes the Harper Conservatives go from Tolerable Unpleasantness to Repulsive Power-mad Dirtbags -- this is a more fun take:

http://niqabsofducanada.tumblr.com