Some progressives have been hailing the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing Ted "Homo-Hater" Opitz his theft of the Etobicoke-Centre election. Supposedly, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that our rules, procedures and safeguards for conducting free and fair elections shouldn't interfere with Canadians' right to vote. At least, say progressives, that will be the end of right-wing caterwauling about Muslim women wearing veils being denied the vote, or Conservative Party goons disrupting polling stations talking about "illegal" polls. Right?
1. Such thinking underestimates harpercon shamelessness. They can, and they will, take advantage of this ruling while simultaneously pressing hot-button issues or hypocritically citing "procedural errors" to disrupt polls. (Something Ted Opitz's crew of goons did themselves in Etobicoke-Centre.) As long as disruption during elections prevents people from voting (in polls where their opponents tend to do well) these harpercon scum will disrupt.
2. The corrupt Supreme Court justices deliberately made a partisan jab at the Liberal plaintiff Borys Wrzesnewskyj in their ruling, just to rub it in:
The majority on the Supreme Court have extended an open invitation to everyone (but really, only harpercon scum will take them up on it to any great extent) to "vote early and vote often."
It's pretty easy to vote in Canada. And it should be. We don't need to introduce all the barriers to voting that presently exist in the USA and which procedures are exploited by partisan hacks to deliberately exclude likely supporters of the opposing team.
If you show up and state your name at the polling station and you're on the voters list, you can vote.
If you're not on the list but you show some ID and proof of residency in the form of, say, mail to you at that address, you're put on the list and you vote. (This information is written down by the poll clerks for obvious reasons. If the election is very close, there might need to be a re-count and we need to have CONFIDENCE in the voting results.)
If you're not on the list and you have no ID or proof of address, you can get a person who can prove they live in the riding to vouch for you. An oath is sworn and signatures are given. (A person can only vouch for one voter per election.)
These seem like pretty reasonable standards. Nothing to prevent poor people who might not have all their ID from voting. Nothing to prevent newcomers who might not have proof of residency from voting. But at the same time, ... well, ... isn't it obvious? Isn't it obvious that there need to be SOME standards?
Not for the majority on the Supreme Court:
The fact of the matter is that I don't trust the Conservative Party of Canada. They despise democracy. They despise the rules. They're proven liars and thugs.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, I can show up in Etobicoke-Centre and say my name is Ted Opitz, be given a ballot, vote and it will be counted. Then I can go to Tony Clement's riding, say my name is Pierre Poutine, be given a ballot, and vote.
According to the majority on the Supreme Court of Canada, the number of votes doesn't even have to match the number of people on the list who voted! Furthermore, if it's a close election and they do any sort of checking, and they see "Pierre Poutine" with no voucher, no ID or proof of address, it will be up to anyone who wants to dispute that vote, to PROVE that "Pierre Poutine" meant to commit voter fraud. And how the fuck do you do that, since it's just a name with nothing else? The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada doesn't say how you can establish fraud in that instance.
I did, at one time, have confidence in Canada's voting system. That was before I found out how slipshod the process was in Etobicoke-Centre. And I now have ZERO CONFIDENCE in our voting process now that the Supreme Court has ruled that such staggering incompetence is hunky-dory.
This ruling is so idiotic, so transparently stupid, that I can only believe that it is a politicized ruling. A ruling that is the result of harpercon pressure and intimidation.
All of our institutions have failed. There is no official body that can redeem our political system now. It is up to us.
So how
1. Such thinking underestimates harpercon shamelessness. They can, and they will, take advantage of this ruling while simultaneously pressing hot-button issues or hypocritically citing "procedural errors" to disrupt polls. (Something Ted Opitz's crew of goons did themselves in Etobicoke-Centre.) As long as disruption during elections prevents people from voting (in polls where their opponents tend to do well) these harpercon scum will disrupt.
2. The corrupt Supreme Court justices deliberately made a partisan jab at the Liberal plaintiff Borys Wrzesnewskyj in their ruling, just to rub it in:
A candidate who lost in a close federal election attempts to set aside the result of that election. We are asked to disqualify the votes of several Canadian citizens based on administrative mistakes… We decline the invitation to do so. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms… [has] clear and historic purposes of enfranchising Canadian citizens, such that they may express their democratic preference, and of protecting the integrity of our electoral process… we reject the candidate’s attempt to disenfranchise entitled voters and so undermine public confidence in the electoral process.3. The fact of the matter is that the corrupt Elections Canada and the corrupt Supreme Court of Canada are the ones undermining public confidence in the electoral process. When I found out how lackadaisical the Etobicoke-Centre vote had been conducted (as is outlined in the original Ontario Supreme Court decision ordering a new vote) I was appalled and I was certain that the Supreme Court would uphold the decision, if it were honest. Alas. The process is not honest. Our institutions are corrupt. Canadian democracy is a sham.
The majority on the Supreme Court have extended an open invitation to everyone (but really, only harpercon scum will take them up on it to any great extent) to "vote early and vote often."
It's pretty easy to vote in Canada. And it should be. We don't need to introduce all the barriers to voting that presently exist in the USA and which procedures are exploited by partisan hacks to deliberately exclude likely supporters of the opposing team.
If you show up and state your name at the polling station and you're on the voters list, you can vote.
If you're not on the list but you show some ID and proof of residency in the form of, say, mail to you at that address, you're put on the list and you vote. (This information is written down by the poll clerks for obvious reasons. If the election is very close, there might need to be a re-count and we need to have CONFIDENCE in the voting results.)
If you're not on the list and you have no ID or proof of address, you can get a person who can prove they live in the riding to vouch for you. An oath is sworn and signatures are given. (A person can only vouch for one voter per election.)
These seem like pretty reasonable standards. Nothing to prevent poor people who might not have all their ID from voting. Nothing to prevent newcomers who might not have proof of residency from voting. But at the same time, ... well, ... isn't it obvious? Isn't it obvious that there need to be SOME standards?
Not for the majority on the Supreme Court:
The court said procedural safeguards of entitlement to vote include the list of electors, and various voting day registration procedures, and identification and vouching requirements that may be followed if a voter shows up at a poll and is not on the electors list. But they are just that.
The fact of the matter is that I don't trust the Conservative Party of Canada. They despise democracy. They despise the rules. They're proven liars and thugs.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, I can show up in Etobicoke-Centre and say my name is Ted Opitz, be given a ballot, vote and it will be counted. Then I can go to Tony Clement's riding, say my name is Pierre Poutine, be given a ballot, and vote.
According to the majority on the Supreme Court of Canada, the number of votes doesn't even have to match the number of people on the list who voted! Furthermore, if it's a close election and they do any sort of checking, and they see "Pierre Poutine" with no voucher, no ID or proof of address, it will be up to anyone who wants to dispute that vote, to PROVE that "Pierre Poutine" meant to commit voter fraud. And how the fuck do you do that, since it's just a name with nothing else? The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada doesn't say how you can establish fraud in that instance.
I did, at one time, have confidence in Canada's voting system. That was before I found out how slipshod the process was in Etobicoke-Centre. And I now have ZERO CONFIDENCE in our voting process now that the Supreme Court has ruled that such staggering incompetence is hunky-dory.
This ruling is so idiotic, so transparently stupid, that I can only believe that it is a politicized ruling. A ruling that is the result of harpercon pressure and intimidation.
All of our institutions have failed. There is no official body that can redeem our political system now. It is up to us.
So how
2 comments:
What was truly amazing about the majority opinion was its assertion that Wrzesnewskyj was trying to overturn the election -- not that votes may have been manipulated.
It tells you what side the Harper appointees are on.
Owen,
yeah. It's like they're begging us to despise them.
Mission accomplished.
Post a Comment