Jim Crow Returns As Jean Corneille

by on 27 March, 2014

FrontOnly a fortnight ago did I opine on the upcoming Quebec elections being the end of an era of blatant xenophobia in La Belle Province.

Indeed, the news of the upcoming ballot was enough to strike warmth into even the coldest hearts as Quebec would be presented with the opportunity to voice its displeasure with the current bunch of socialist racists running the place.

Well, I spoke too soon, an error on my part based on my supposition that the bigotry couldn’t get any worse in Quebec.

It turns out that a voter in Quebec has been prevented from voting because he isn’t “Quebecois” enough.

It’s not like he lacked evidence of his residency though, as:

“he brought a manila folder full of proof that he has lived in the city since 2009: Bank statements, a Quebec driver’s licence, proof of membership in a local riding association, and even recommendation letters from Liberal MP Marc Garneau.”

How could someone be turned down as a non-genuine voter with all that in his possession?

Well, just take a look at him.

I mean, he’s clearly out to create trouble, am I right?

Others have run into similar problems because they, get this, were still using an old healthcare card or, quelle horror!, didn’t have a Quebec driver’s licence.

Indeed, Quebec’s election laws state that an elections officer can turn away anyone because “I have a doubt that you’re not a resident of Quebec; as soon as I have a doubt that you’re not a resident of Quebec, I cannot put you on the list,”.

How can an electoral process be so corrupted? I mean, both the Liberals and Parti Quebecois know a few things about corrupting things, but how can such voter suppression be allowed?

Turns out that to vote in Quebec you must be “domiciled” in the province?

What does that mean? Good question!

Turns out that being domiciled means whatever certain Government bureaucrats want it to mean, considering that a Elections Quebec handbook says:

““The simple fact of residing in a place does not establish domicile,” states an information page released by Elections Quebec.  Instead, would-be voters must prove to elections staff their “intention” to keep Quebec as their permanent home.”

I get that most Quebec bureaucrats don’t speak English, but something got lost in translation here, right?

Apparently so. Well, kind of.

An Elections Quebec official clarified it thus:

“In a Saturday statement intended to clear up any “misconception” over the domicile policy Quebec chief electoral officer Jacques Drouin wrote that “the domicile is … the place with which a person’s important actions or ‘states’ of civic life are associated.”

No set standards exist to determine domicile, but Mr. Drouin wrote that elections officials have “the power to inquire and obtain any information it considers relevant” to gauge eligibility.

This information might include a Quebec driver’s licence or a Quebec health card, but officials can also deny eligibility on factors as vague as a person’s “actions” or “behaviours.””

Just so we’re all clear, it’s patently obvious that there is a clear and unambiguous system which allows Elections Quebec officials to… pick and choose on a whim who gets to vote in Quebec.

Glad we got that figured out.

Mind you, it is hardly surprising that such Jim Crow-esque laws should spout their ugly little heads right now, given the way separatism has gone down the toilet in the latest polls.

In fact, separatism has died in its own backside so badly that most Quebcers, these days, just want the PQ to shut up about another referendum.

The PQ, now, have no choice but to talk about their values, such as… well, how the PQ hates anyone who had the gall to not be born in Quebec.

As our friend Mr Mahendiran said, when told he would have to renounce all ties to Ontario:

“I answered that I was born in Ontario and can’t change that.”

Seems the PQ wants you to, buddy.

But maybe I’m being too harsh on the PQ. I mean, surely the PQ has a right to be proud of its history as a political party founded by Quebec natives, right?

Err, sure. Whatever.

Leave a Reply