Will we ever know if the source of the error was Godin, Van Loan, Globe and Mail, or did you and others sending frantic emails actually have a positive effect? I notice Dewar does not say that Godin didn't say such a thing, but perhaps Godin himself will write to the Globe too.
Personally I suspect Godin's been called on the carpet over this. But NDP communications ought to be looked at as well.
Put it this way. I used to be a VP over at the PSAC. If a story had broken that, say, the PSAC supposedly supported back-to-work legislation, I can assure you of three things. First, jammed phone lines. Second, a press release or even a press conference on the same day. And third, someone would likely be told off.
In this case, it would have cost nothing for the NDP to issue a clarification. Did they think the matter was going to be ignored? I bet they think differently now.
I think that Dewar is still using weasel words about Bill C-6, although he's really right about C-31, and that one matters.
Where is the continuing uncertainty? And why?
Very classy to admit your mistake. I wonder if the other feeding-frenziers will follow suit.
Skdald makes an important point. Dewar's statement looks great in the context of what the Globe reported. But if you look at the legislation, it really is saying you must have an uncovered face while identifying yourself with non-photo ID. That is the whole purpose of the legislation. Shouldn't it be relegated to the garbage can, rather than spiffied up with admendments? This tells me that the political climate in Canada is so changed, the even the NDP has to dance around this issue, as if there were some merit there somewhere. Is this because to do otherwise would be seen as calling some segments of Quebec racist? I don't mean to imply that they are, as I'll be the first to admit I don't understand what is going on in Quebec, but there has to be some blunt reason which requires the NDP to dance around legislation that really has no purpose except to pander to bigotry.
Dr. Dawg - Nice work on following up on this. It is good to see the record corrected. Plus, that is one heck of a picture.
Seems to me that the least we could ask, at this point, is that C-6 be amended so that uncovering the face is only required when using photo ID for identification.
Somehow, though, this suggestion is making me laugh. Right on! Can the whole thing.
I gather from Paul that Muslim women will be invited in as witnesses. Since the Muslim communities have not made an issue of this in the past, might we expect that they state the same before the committee? That way, with a shrug, the committee says, "Well, if no one feels targeted, let the Bill proceed."
The fact that it remains illogical, badly-motivated and utterly superfluous will be noticed only by a few grumps. Like me.
Dr. Dawg
That picture is priceless - LMAO
Can I use it? - there have and will be many occasions.
doug:
Why not? I found it in Google Images somewhere. Yes, it's a good one!
thanks Dawg....I have issued my own mea culpa as well....I too am curious where the communication breakdown occurred and what catalyzed the Dewar letter.....still no press release off of their site though....would have been nice to see one, oh, yesterday.
For greater certainty, readers, this letter has been sent to the Globe and Mail, but has not yet been published. Hence my asking Paul's permission to run it here.
What can I say??? Thank the heavens above for this announcement.
Dr. Dawg
I glad that you didn't have to rip up your card. Being politically homeless doesn't suit everyone.
I think your underlying suspicion that a party can either have principles or win a majority in this country is correct.
Dawg, I don't feel as comfortable with this. If this legislation does pass (say because Muslim women say it is fine) it means there is a law which says you must show your face to vote even when there is no identification purpose to showing your face. What does this mean for businesses or others who then decide Muslim women should unveil when showing any ID, say to cash a check, borrow library books, whatever. I fear that Muslims have seen the backlash and just want this issue to go away. But will those who really want this legislation be satisfied at stopping with the voting issue or will they move on to trying to widen the scope after this "victory". If the admendment says you only need to show your face when using photo ID, fine. But everyone already does this to get a passport, drivers lisence, etc. and we have never needed a law to point out the obvious. Again, there never was any problem this legislation was meant to fix, except in the minds of some bigots, and legislation will never fix that.
Catherine, I agree with you.
As I said above, C-6 really makes no sense. The Bill pretty well goes up in flames if you only have to uncover when using photo ID. I mean, how does that stop (as yet unknown) voter fraud? And how do you "fix" this Bill, exactly? Make photo ID mandatory? That'll never fly. Add an explicit religious exemption? That would be somewhat difficult to police, and would invite backlash. The legislation, any way you look at it, is a waste of time, paper and energy.
Just kill C-6, I say. But I suspect some politicians are looking for wiggle-room and a graceful way out.
Dr. Dawg.... my hat is off to you and your good work on this... Kudos.
http://
cameronholmstrom.blogspot...orrections.html
I issued a qualified mea culpa, but I still think pressure needs to be applied re: Bill C-6.
Thanks for the update, Dawg (and yeah, that puppy is teh sweetest.)
Dr Dawg, it would probably be safest for me to say that I agree with what Catherine has written, because when I think of what I could write myself to an obscenity like this --
I gather from Paul that Muslim women will be invited in as witnesses
I fear for your site and my keyboard.
Why the hell are "Muslim women" (which ones? who is stupid enough to believe that that is a monolithic group?) bearing the burden of the sexism and racism that started this whole kerfuffle up?
Well. I know that the Tories are that stupid. But why is Paul Dewar?
The issue here isn't ID by face. The issue is a neocon assault on voters' rights, spun for the neocon base on sexist, racist, and paranoid-political grounds, and if Canadian leftists haven't wised up enough yet to recognize this kind of Rovian shit and call it for what it is, then we are in trouble ... srsly.
skadl, I agree with you too, except about Paul Dewar, whom I consider a friend, far from stupid, and an honourable, decent guy. I do believe that he will do the right thing at committee. The Muslim women will not be used as a ruse to end up supporting the Bill.
The rest of your analysis is spot on. Take, for example, the language that permits a voucher to vouch for only one person. So much for women's shelters and missions, for example, where someone on-site would be able to vouch for a number of people. This is disenfranchisement, just like that stupid earlier provision in C-31 (I believe) that one requires an address to vote. Next we'll be back 150 years with a property qualification.
I'm not doing any retractions yet because I haven't found one from the party yet. Your friend may be as you say but there is still no denial of the original story from any party leadership.
You know the low opinion I have of Layton. This is likely to be another example of him triangulating for some perceived advantage. IMO. YMMV.
Dana, I think you are correct. Upon reflection, no one has contradicted Godin or denied that the NDP will support this legislation, albeit with amendments. There is talk that an amendment will correct the problem with rural voters. The current legislation has only one purpose -- to require an uncovered face even when there is no need for anyone to look at it. I'm concerned the NDP struck a deal with the Conservatives (hence Godin and Van Loan agreeing) that will keep the uncovered face law in exchange for correcting the problem with rural voters in the SAME legislation. However, this is all speculation and we will see. At this point in time though, Dewar's letter is really not all that reassuring if one is looking for a clear statement that one shouldn't have to show her or his face simply because the government has the power to require it (after a few backroom deals and all). A clear statement from the NDP that they will not support any legislation that requires one to show one's face for no valid reason would put all this to rest. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Such are the times we live in -- who would have guessed.
I can appreciate everyone's anger at this being an issue on any committee table in the first place. I feel the same way but given that it's here let's look at it from this perspective. The ndp was the only party to not support the first bill. causing it to die when the session enede. the party is now calling for witnesses and opening up the process for concerned individuals - many of whom are more representative of this country than those guys on committee - to make statements. for the sake of participation in a process that some people think happens too much behind closed doors, I'm surprised people just want the members to say "no" and take their marbles and go home. the way it looks, if the ndp does that, it will pass nonetheless without much change. at least they're trying to do something within the process.
And that being said, I wish they were clearer about their final position.
At least Dion has come out and issued a clear statement that there is no reason for people to show their face when there is no photo identification being used and the Liberals will vote against it. To me, this is the only reasonable position to take and the NDP really has me puzzled on this one. The Bloc is voting against it (because it allows Muslim women to request a woman officer to reveal their face to), so it will NOT pass unless the NDP really wants it to.
I'm expecting the NDP to fold up like the Democrats.
DD:
A question comes to mind and I would be interested in your thoughts on it. As I understand it the source for the original NDP quote supporting this legislation came from Godin, isn't he the NDP whip and therefore the member of the party most involved in the nuts and bolts of legislative horse trading between the party and the government of the day? Wouldn't that put him in the best knowledge of party position for this bill over everyone else save the leader? Therefore while the letter from DeWar is comforting is it truly an accurate reflection of where the internal workings of the NDP are at on this bill?
I would add that this was an issue that horrified me from the moment it emerged and it was supported by all the federal parties because they did not want to upset their chances in the Quebec by-elections and future growth in the Province. So far it looks to me that the Libs are the only ones to really pull out of this bill, the BQ appear to be also but for what is let's face it rather odd reasoning and not because it is xenophobic pandering of a non-existent problem.
You see, I have a hard time understanding why the NDP are not denouncing this bill in toto, as Catherine has said this bill should be scrapped pure and simple, it will create far more problems then it will fix, especially when there doesn't appear to be a documented problem to be fixing in the first place. No one covered themselves in glory AFAIAC from the outset, yet the party whose core principles are supposed to be about protecting diversity, multiculturalism and equality of application of human rights in this country is not the one calling for it to be scrapped but instead only wants to "amend" it. I have to wonder what is going on in their minds, aside of course from not wanting to cause problems within the Quebec electorate that is.
In any event, given the lets face it lackluster response to the outrage expressed at Godin's comments on this is it unreasonable to wonder whether the NDP are looking at this legislation first from a political POV instead of a principles first POV? Thanks for any time/response you choose to provide to this.
(I should add that my usual thoroughness in following stories has been significantly impaired over the past few weeks because I have been aiding my parents since my father broke his leg, so I know I may have details wrong and I have been spending most of my time catching up on the Mulroney/Schreiber thing since that is an issue I have had questions about since the 80s when info regarding KHS being linked to Mulroney AND to Elmer and Peter MacKay was making the rounds in the local political circles which I was then a part of)
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
