Opinions Veiled Voters Should Show Their Faces Jeremy Tremblay, The Cord Weekly (Wilfrid Laurier University) WATERLOO (CUP) — Recent changes to the Canada Elections Act mean all voters must show proof of identity and residential address before voting. Those who wear face coverings for religious reasons can now vote without showing their face. While these new measures are well-intentioned, the decision was not well thought out. What is particularly notable is the fact that Elections Canada received no request to allow veiled Muslim women to vote in the first place. As an engineer in Montreal who wears the niquab, Afifa Naz, told the CBC “This is not something we demand. We can accommodate the needs of society while practising our religion.” Currently, Muslim head coverings must be already removed for official photo identification, such as driver’s licenses and passports. The biggest cause for concern stems from comments given to the CBC by Sarah Elgazzar, a spokeswoman for the Canada Council on American-Islamic Relations. She says if anyone bothered to ask Muslim women affected— which are a small number—they would have noted that they always take off their head coverings to identify themselves, be it at the bank, border crossings, and at the airport. In making this unwanted reform, Elections Canada has only “Elections Canada received no request to allow veiled Muslim women to vote in the jirst place” created a loophole for people to impersonate others while voting. The decision also comes after a similar announcement for Quebec’s provincial elections, which caused public unrest and protest. After Elections Quebec made the decision that Muslim women could vote in the provincial election without showing their faces, returning officer, Marcel Blanchet, received threatening messages and had to be accompanied by two bodyguards. People also threatened to go to the polls wearing masks. Elections Quebec reversed its decision so polls could go on without problems. While society shouldn’t let fear and threats infringe on people’s rights, there is another important factor that should be considered in response to this public reaction: the safety of veiled voters at the polls. A good question to ask is why Elections Canada has made these provisions. If it was not requested and it caused great debate and was overturned at the provincial level in Quebec, why was it pushed through for Canada? It’s important that religious rights are upheld, but they cannot stand in the way of ensuring we have an effective democracy. Voting is an essential part of this. Outdated Laws Make Coquitlam a Joke Laura Kelsey, Opinions Editor D. you know it is unlawful to keep a hamster or rabbit in Coquitlam without a permit? Perhaps it is time to update Coquitlam’s bylaws, as it seems that no one has looked them over in a few years—unless City Hall is waiting for the right moment to bring its wrath down on kindergarteners caring for their first pets, or locking up preteens playing to offer younger folks a job. With BC’s booming job market, do any of the cities really need more minimum wage positions? In light of the killing of an Esso employee in Maple Ridge, the sound of less attendants sounds like a great, possibly life-saving idea. It would also solve the constraints of full-service gas stations—like the fact that most in Coquitlam must close around 11pm I pool. have no problem with Section 19 in Part “From rodents to 2d page ae pool to gasoline, the pump, or paying states that “no person it really looks as _ anemployee behind a shall keep within thou 2 hCo quitl ‘am eee glass screen, oe Sey any could do with a a ae domestic, fur bearing animal... unless he shall have first made application to, and shall have received a permit to do so from the council.” According to the bylaw, fur bearing animals include chinchillas, rabbits and hamsters. So why haven’t officers stormed Petcetera yet? Although it does seem a good idea to prevent pet stores from selling small animals to subdue the current overpopulation, (just look at www.smallanimalrescue.org for proof of the high homeless rate of small pets), keeping a bylaw that everyone ignores is just stupid. I had five hamsters as a child—fine me! Bylaw No. 562 seems just as useless: “No youth (under 16 years) shall be permitted by an owner of other person to be or remain in a Pool Room, or to play pool or another game therein, and one or more printed notices to this effect shall be displayed in a reasonably conspicuous place in the Pool Room.” I realize that there are not a lot of pool rooms in Coquitlam— perhaps because of this bylaw? — but the one I phoned, Ridgeway Avenue’s Family Fun Centre, said there were no age restriction on their pool tables. Now, the most frustrating bylaw that really affects most of the residents of the city is Trades Licensing Bylaw No. 49, 1972, which regards the sale of gasoline: “Every person carrying on the business of gasoline or other fuel service stations shall dispense such fuel either himself or by his agent, servant, or employee, but not otherwise.” This explains the complete lack of self-serve stations in Coquitlam. Supposedly Bylaw 49 originated to improve the city’s employment status, bylaw overhaul” There have been many instances where I have waited a long time for a busy gas attendant, and I have just pumped fuel into my car myself. So, if a sharp—possibly bored— bylaw officer observed this, would it mean a fine for me, or the gas station? Also, in other cities, the price of the petrol sold depends on whether you decide on full or self-serve. Gas stations that I spoke with tried to assure me prices in Coquitlam are not affected by the bylaw; but I could not find data to support or refute that claim. From rodents to pool to gasoline, it really looks as though Coquitlam could do with a bylaw overhaul. I live in the city, and my rabbit is tired of hiding in the attic, my 12-year-old neighbor would love to be playing pool instead of applying graffiti to my fence, and my busy schedule does not allow time for slow gas attendants.