Requiring photo identification from voters is a complicated thing to mandate. Apparently. Our New Government failed in its first attempt to impose the same standards of identification verification at polling booths as are in place at the average mom-and-pop dépanneur. And it embarrassed itself horribly in the wake of this revelation by hauling Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand before MPs to explain just where he got the flaming cheek to correctly interpret a bill the same committee had apparently not bothered to read as it swanned its way towards royal assent. I’d have felt bad for Mayrand had he not exposed the members in attendance as blithering jackasses, not that they noticed.

Fast forward a little over a month to the Throne Speech, and the Prime Minister decides to take a second kick at this wholly inconsequential can (we await with slingshots cocked the discovery of a single Muslim woman who wishes to vote while veiled). “[T]he integrity of our federal voting system will be further strengthened through measures to confirm the visual identification of voters,” the Governor General intoned, promisingly. And here it is: Bill C-6, tabled today.

And glory be, they fucked it up again. This bill does not require that voters be visually identified at all—indeed, the ID requirements remain unchanged. Canadians can still “prove” their identity with “two pieces of [non-photo] identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.” But to do so, they’ll have to show their faces.

So, let’s follow along. The concern was that a veiled woman could provide photo ID but not have to show her face, rendering the photo ID pointless. All hail the new reality: a veiled woman can provide non-photo ID but has to show her face, rendering the unveiling pointless. Well, I should say, pointless when it comes to ensuring the integrity of our electoral system. But it’s been a long time since anyone could assume with a straight face that this had anything to do with the Elections Act. It would almost be better if there were aspiring veiled voters out there—at least then we could legitimately discuss how they fit into the process. At the moment it’s difficult to conclude anything except that the Tories—and any other party that doesn’t come out against this in the strongest possible terms; Mr. Dion, I’m looking in your direction—are content to score points off the imagined humiliation of Muslims.

Holy shittier instant update: Forget that - Pitchfork has the real goods, complete with about-to-drop-dead fan reaction. I think “Oh my god. What the fuck?!” is pretty much exactly what I’d have said in that situation.

Man, this place is dead, eh? If y’all are looking for some Selley-brand content, you’ll have to head over to Macleans.ca. A sampling of recent things there by me:

“A shopaholic’s Thanksgiving” - How to calculate the duty you’ll owe on your cross-border purchases, combined with a look at our hilariously convoluted tariff schedules.

“Bienvenidos a Windsor”- How do we stop Mexicans from launching so many doomed refugee claims in Canada?

“Hope springs Bountiful?” - The B.C. A-G insists the American approach to charging polygamists won’t work here, asks us to bear with him for just another month.

“Goodbye to Wi-Fi” - From the 9/24 print issue, a look at why the first wave of municipal wi-fi movements went to hell.

And, of course, there’s always Megapundit, my sideways take on the day’s columnists from across the country.