Just like I predicted.
At least one voter in the riding of Roberval-Lac-St-Jean and as many as five in St-Hyacinthe-Bagot reportedly wore veils when they cast their ballot. Local media outlets say all were protesting federal election laws that allow voters to cover their faces as long as they swear an oath and present two valid pieces of identification.
So that's about a half-dozen who were allowed to vote with their faces hidden.
Interestingly...
In St-Hyacinthe-Bagot, where the protesters included a man, one person was asked to reveal their face at the request of election officials.
Aha! One of the hidden-face voters was required to show their face. But I thought there was no such requirement, according to the revolutionary leftwing activist Chief Electoral Officer? There are alternatives to showing one's face, as we well know, but here we have someone being singled out for some unspecified reason to show their face. Interesting. Why doesn't the MSM report tell us more? Was it a man who was required to show his face?
What happened? Anyone got any information?
As for any leftists complaining as to why I refer to the Chief Electoral Officer as a "revolutionary leftwing activist", I raise the following...
Electoral officer says he won't 'juggle' fundamental rights over veil issue
Sound disturbingly familiar? Who is he to unilaterally deem what are and what aren't "fundamental rights"?
This is classic left-wing propaganda/psychological manipulation of the People via slickly-oiled psychoaffective semantics. Calling your preferences "fundamental rights" has for so long worked, as most are intimidated from arguing against what someone claims (and is backed up by the MSM) as a "fundamental right".
(Covering one's face while voting is NOT a "fundamental right", Mr. Mayrand, and you KNOW it... and it's not even a right in the few Muslim nations that allow people to vote)
This reminds me of the Big Lie campaign that led to, in Canada under Liberal rule, the undemocratic, illegal, unconstitutional imposition of the sexual liberalization/expansion of the sacred, exclusive fundamental social institution of marriage, effectively neutralizing/rendering impotent the true, accepted purpose of marriage as being in the interest of society and children and not really in the interest of individuals getting married (that is why society granted special preferences to married people to reward them for their personal, altruistic sacrifices and contribution to society via the raising of children in safe, stable, positive environments).
Here's some excerpts from a Commons Committee q&a session:
"You have the power for veiled women to remove their veil … but you're suggesting you do not wish to exercise that authority that you have and I'm wondering why," asked Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski.
"Fundamental reason is that this authority … I believe is designed much more for operational matters as opposed to dealing with some fundamental rights protected by the Charter, including the right to vote and freedom of religion," Mayrand responded. "And I think it's not up to an administrator of the electoral system to juggle those rights."
Asked whether he would use those powers if directed to do so by the committee, Mayrand said he wouldn't, because it would require him to "offend the act and not uphold the law."
His self-defence is purely nonsensical and he didn't even try to back it up with any proof. He merely gets all big-headed, acting like some righteous guru or something, and claims that what he's doing is somehow "defending rights". Interesting, as he initially only said he was "interpreting the legislation" and didn't try to suggest that he was some kind of saint! He has clearly had coaching in how to spin what he's done, in my estimation.
This guy is indubitably a progressive liberal leftist revolutionary deliberately abusing his awesome power to unilaterally impose things upon society that aren't supported by legislation, nor the Charter, nor called for by anyone who's spoken up. People who do what he's doing are immoral, unethical, a de-facto enemy of the People for doing this, just as are judges who say the Charter says something it doesn't! He's part of the Big Lie community of revolutionaries who infiltrate the state apparatus for the purpose of transforming society without the support of the Charter, laws, nor the consent of the People. And they fabricate Big Lies, using sugarcoated rhetoric designed to silence opposition with the implied threat that opponents to their propaganda will be slurred as "bigots" or "haters", etc.
And the Islamic supremacism/imperialism connection looms large throughout the whole issue.
I'd like for there to be a CSIS/RCMP investigation into whether there has been any extremist Islamic influence on this very important position currently held by Mr. Mayrand.
If there was any interference; if there is any Dhimmitude involved in the decision...
I believe Mr. Mayrand must step down pending an investigation.
Better yet, he must resign. Or be fired.
He is clearly, in my opinion, unfit to command Canada's agency responsible for democracy.
After all, his ruling has nothing to do with democracy, but rather everything to do with his personal political ideology!
Finally, to pre-emptively address any leftist accusation of "Islamophobia", might I allude to the fact that in America, George Soros has demanded that any and all Christians who ever visited the Bush White House be investigated... and the MSM didn't make a stink over it, nor did Soros's leftwing minions, at his apparent, unjustified Christianophobia. So I'll take no ludicrous defamation in response to my perfectly legitimate, justifiable, PROTECTED BY THE CHARTER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT analysis and calls for investigation.
I have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to criticize those entrusted by the People to only act in their interests and in the interests of Canada and her national security and to demand that they be investigated when they behave suspiciously as is Mr. Mayrand.
If we allow subversives to infiltrate the state apparatus and do illegal, unconstitutional things in line with an agenda to transform the country in the interests of any special interest or extremist groups, without the proper, full, scrupulously truthful information of and direct consent by, the People, then we're allowing our country to be transformed by criminals.
I call for Mr. Mayrand to withdraw his ruling immediately and resign.
