babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Cameron on Quйbec
March 24, 2007 - 5:45am
Robert
St John's, Newfoundland
Duncan Cameron
I should point out that Duncan lived in Quebec for many years and only quite recently moved to BC. He's a political scientist and has vast knowledge of politics in all parts of our country.
I'm actually hoping for a PQ minority Monday night, because (as Don Newman suggested yesterday) that might tempt Duceppe to change his mind Tuesday and vote against Flaherty's budget, forcing us into an election Wednesday. A federal election right now might be our only opportunity to deny Harper a majority. It appears to me that the longer he stays in office, the more Harper is able to fool the electorate into believing he's not so scary, after all. And, as an added bonus, if Harper just manages another minority, that might convince the Cons to question his leadership and vote against it (the Cons are trying to cover up his latest arrogance on Quebec - article here).
If Boisclair doesn't win, I think he'll be ejected from leadership pretty quickly. Even if he DOES win (with like, 30% of the vote), most people will still think he's undeserving of the leadership.
Charest said all voters must properly identify themselves, a position backed by Parti Quйbйcois Leader Andrй Boisclair and Action dйmocratique du Quйbec Leader Mario Dumont. Link here.
And it's already been decided, regardless.
It is actually telling and sad that all leaders have had to posture on this, as opposed to looking at the issue and dismissing it for what it is -- a symptom of a far greater malaise and poisoned political atmosphere tacking hard to the right.
It's been "decided" as a result of improper political pressure on the chief returning officer, who was forced to reverse the sensible decision he made initially.
The PQ promises to take the matter out of the hands of the chief returning officer in future by passing legislation that will require presentation of photo ID before you can vote.
It's another step on the road to a total "security state."
You may not be aware that all Quebeckers have health care photo ids. They must present it to get health care, or else pay.
But I see your point. It's a slippery slope. Next they may ask to see photo id when you're out with the family for a Sunday drive!
It's not the same thing as a drivers licence, though. For one thing, it's against the law in Ontario to demand to see a health card as ID for any purpose other than obtaining medicare.
For another thing, it's wrong to exclude citizens from voting simply because they don't have photo ID. That's always been recognized to be true, which is why you can vote on swearing an oath as to your identity and residence if you aren't on the list.
Homeless people, for example, should be able to vote without having to show photo ID.
From what I've read, it seems that this would result in a rightward shift of Quebec politics, given the direction of the Charest government and that the right-wing ADQ will hold the balance of power. Further to that, I don't see how a PQ minority would cause Duceppe to change his mind on the budget. It's not like the PQ would have the mandate to do as it pleased, and I don't see what Duceppe would have to gain in an election anyhow.
I don't think that Canadians will think of Harper being "not scary" the longer he stays in office. I think the fact that they elected him says they think he's "not scary" already. And I don't see that an impending election would result in a Harper defeat or even come close to that possibility, given that Harper could easily ride his budget (and election fatigue) to victory. The only people calling for an election right now are those who would never vote for him anyways. And of course, if Harper were to win, we'd have to have another election to try and get him out, and on it goes.
Certainly Harper needs to go, but in order for that to happen, there needs to be an election at the specific time when the factors that would contribute to Harper's defeat would be there. That simply isn't in the cards right now. Personally, I'd rather wait until Harper's elimination of the budget surplus starts to show up, combined with a full-blown recession that may very well be in place by the end of the summer. That won't be nice for him at all.
This is so different from where I now live in Trinity Spadina where they rarely check ID, and go by your registration card only you get in the mail.
This is a key article about the latest raked up controversy.
I hate the Journal de Montreal, but a lot of people read it.
Tghis part of Cameron;s analyis is dead wrong. If Duceppe is so "consistently leftwing" how do you explain the following:
*The BQ votes for the first Conservative budget in 2006
*The BQ votes with the Conservatives on the Softwood Lumber sellout
*The BQ votes with the Conservatives to stop an NDP motion backed by the Liberals denouncing the growth of poverty in Canada and to increase the federal minimum wage to $10/hour.
*The BQ announces it will vote for the 2007 Conservative budget.
Maybe cameron calls this being consistently leftwing. I call it Gilles Duceppe being Stephen Harper's regular fuck-buddy!!!
You've gotta be kidding. Why would you be so eager to have an election at a timke when Harper has all his ducks in order what with the budget etc... If the election is delayede, there is a greater chance that events beyond Harper's control can intrude. Remember how in March and April 2006 everyone thought that the CPC was so in control that they woukld rule for the next decade. Then there was a long hot summer of bad news from Afghanistan, verbal miscues on the situation in Lebanon and a new public focus on the environment that caught the Tories flat-footed. I think that if we wait, there is a good chance that unexpected things will erupt over the summer and fall that could totally scuttle the Conservatives electoral chances.
Why are you so testy? You singled out Boisclair on this issue; all I did was point out that Charest and Dumont take the same position.
I'm making the argument that Harper does not have all his ducks in a row. He is not positioned right now for a majority. The budget was enjoying a 'halo effect' in those polls that came out right afterwards. Harper is playing us; he knows that the longer he remains in office under his present minority mandate, the more the electorate will become accustomed to him, and the more likely they will be to give a majority later, and especially more so if the Liberal's train wreck continues. If an election can be forced right now, Harper gets denied a majority for the second time, and questions about his leadership style surface.
As for Duceppe triggering all this by changing his mind and voting aginst the budget, Duceppe has already said several times he waants to show that federalism does not work, and especially so for Quebec. He will throw a monkey wrench and gum up the works when he feels like it. He has already claimed all of the credit for obtaining this equalization money from Ottawa, and if the PQ manage to achieve a minority government tomorrow (Charest looks desperate this weekend, outright begging Quebecers not to elect a minority), then, buoyed by that success, Duceppe would be tempted to vote 'no' on Tuesday, thus beginning a march towards his goal of sovereingty for Quebec. Maybe even another election in Quebec within a year's time. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Should the BQ change their mind on the budget, the LPC will support it. No-one but the CPC and maybe the Greens are ready to go.
On the other hand, people - especially Liberals - cheat during election campaigns and we already do a piss poor job of stopping them. I wish I could say that we lived in a country where no one would ever consider stealing a vote - but it ain't the case.
I think it's reasonable to ask people to produce photo ID when voting. The person giving them a ballot should be able to confirm their identity. If, for whatever reason, they're unwilling or unable to do this some reasonable accomodation should be made. I don't know what that is but I'm sure (outside of the opportunistic political rhetoric) something could work.
A photo ID requirement is just another way to exclude people from voting.
I'm repeating myself, but in Quйbec (which this thread is ostensibly about), everyone with 3 months' residency aged 16 and over has a photo id RAMQ (Rйgie d'assurance mйdicale du Quйbec) card. Exceptions are made only for people who are (for instance) disabled and can't get to the distribution facility. So, photo id would not exclude anyone from voting in this province.
And, those who don't have an id card with them can still use the existing procedures to confirm their identity. Not having an id card cannot stop you from voting.
[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
But the only reason to require women to lift their veils at the polling station is to compare their face with a photo ID. It's not as if the poll clerks are going to recognize every voter by their face alone.
If photo ID is not essential to be allowed to vote then neither is showing your face. One is of no consequence without the other.
The original decision by Elections Quebec was that Muslim women would be allowed to vote without removing the veil if they signed a sworn statement attesting to their identity, showed two pieces of identification and were accompanied by someone who could vouch for their identity. The "identification" in question obviously would not need to be photo ID. I see nothing wrong with proceeding in that fashion.
But the politicians want to make women show their faces, which only makes sense if they are also going to require photo ID, since showing your face to a stranger proves absolutely zilch about your identity.
ETA: I have just discovered the Globe and Mail's excellent editorial on the subject, which says essentially the same thing.
[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
No women have complained to date, as far as is known publicly. All Muslim spokespersons whose comments have appeared in the media so far have said this is a non-issue for them, because Muslim women who wear niqab regularly lift them (some prefer it be done in presence of a woman) for passports, banks, drivers' licence, health care cards, etc.
There is nothing wrong with proceeding in that fashion.
What is wrong is:
1. A public authority deciding to create an "accommodation" that has not been requested (as has been confirmed over and over again by Muslim spokespersons, without exception).
2. A sensationalist newspaper trying to create an anti-Islamic xenophobic hysteria out of this.
3. Opportunist politicians making comments on this issue which are questionable.
4. The same public authority, who made a gratuitous "accommodation" directive, rescinding the directive based on some media hysteria.
All this is wrong.