Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[redforever]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Agreed.. This is the proper approach and people are too concerned with hurting any feelings so we bend over backward to appease everyone.



My boss who is a devote Sikh was the first person to say this to me.. I was so floored because it was so unexpected.. But he was absolutely right.. He used the example of the Simitar (sp) (Ceremonial sikh dagger) and the case about 10 years ago where there was outcry within the Sikh about telling their boys they can't have a dagger in school. He was so dead against allowing them to do this, and its part of his religion, he said if it starts there where does it end?? He said there is no way he could follow the letter of the law in his religion and still function in Canadian society. People who want to follow whatever religion to the letter of the "law" can feel free to, but they had better find a role in society that fits their way of life. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Society should not bend over backwards for every special interest group.

How can you even begin to compare taking a dagger to school and wearing a skirt that is 2" longer than knee length?

Wearing a skirt that is 2" longer is bending over backwards? Come on. This whole issue is so silly, I do not take it as an issue of appeasement whatsoever.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by llama64

Might have to make a Human Rights Issue out of it so the employer loosens up on their stubbornness. Firing an employee for wearing a *more* conservative skirt? Gimmie a break.

By offering her that position they are conceding she was dismissed without cause. That is the rights violation.

She was never fired, she was sent home SUSPENDED. why does everyone think she was fired?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by redforever

How can you even begin to compare taking a dagger to school and wearing a skirt that is 2" longer than knee length?

Wearing a skirt that is 2" longer is bending over backwards? Come on. This whole issue is so silly, I do not take it as an issue of appeasement whatsoever.

explain how my comparison fails..

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It's funny. So many Cp'ers are self proclaimed Aethists. Always saying that the government should be secular. This is a government agency, is should be secular.

Not believing in God does not equate to not believing in freedom of religion. A government agency should make decisions that allow people to freely practise their religion, not because they agree or disagree with any particular religious doctrine, but because it is a basic right afforded to all Canadian citizens.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Garda has agreed to offer the screener, Halima Muse, 33, a full-time administrative position in civilian attire at her previous salary. She will be paid full back pay for the time she lost due to this issue.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...20News/848241/


Seems the union is helping as they should be. No need to make this a Human Rights Issue.

From your link:

Teamsters Local Union 847 and the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (Canada), a non profit advocacy organization dedicated to educating non-Muslims about Islam, jointly filed a complaint on behalf of Ms Muse with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The complaint stated that Ms Muse has been discriminated against on the basis of her religion by CATSA and Garda.

Teamsters Local Union 847 and the Council have agreed to hold the complaint in abeyance to allow all parties, including CATSA and Ms Muse to discuss the issue.

Her union helped her file the complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

explain how my comparison fails..

Anyone can use a dagger as a weapon. Only Chuck Norris could use the extra 2" on a skirt as a weapon.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No she hasnt been fired. And she can deal with the issue like everyone else does. If she has a union, then have the union help her with her complaint. If she doesn't have a union and can't get satisfaction, then maybe it is time to move on to another job where they allow here to wear whatever she wants.

As a Canadian, I am ashamed when I hear comments like this.

Sadly in Canada, a lot of people fall into this category. They are poor, there is no one to help them, they are told "you can take this job or shove it"

Comments like this do not make our society richer.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Wearing a standard uniform is a job requirement.

No its not. If a person can meet the requirements of their job without wearing a standard uniform, its not a job requirement!

[4X4]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Anyone can use a dagger as a weapon. Only Chuck Norris could use the extra 2" on a skirt as a weapon.

Beauty.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by llama64

There is no valid reason to block the wearing of that skirt. It doesn't impact her job performance and there isn't a safety concern.

I doubt there was any discrimination behind it, just laziness on her employers part.

Let her wear the skirt, no harm done.

Is it possible if she has to chase down someone that she cant run in that kind of dress. Dress codes are things of life, whether there are religious reasons or not. She knew the dress code before they job. I want to wear jogging pants and a Tshirt to work but guess what, I cant.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Swarly

She was never fired, she was sent home SUSPENDED. why does everyone think she was fired?

Semantics. She's not allowed to do her job since she's not wearing the right skirt. There is no justifiable reason not to allow her skirt option. At least from what I've read.

The "it's policy" argument is fatally weak, especially in light of Human Rights laws in Canada.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Anyone can use a dagger as a weapon. Only Chuck Norris could use the extra 2" on a skirt as a weapon.

A pair of scissors makes a better weapon than a dull dagger.. Its just a matter of public safety and applying the same right to everyone. She works in a field where public safety is paramount, should she not abide by the same rules that govern all employees within that field? Like mentioned earlier, what happens when someone else decides they prefer shorts, if they framed their justification in a religious context how can a court deny them that? I'm just merely trying to put some perspective on this, we start making exceptions where do they end?

[Pagal4321]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is it possible if she has to chase down someone that she cant run in that kind of dress. Dress codes are things of life, whether there are religious reasons or not. She knew the dress code before they job. I want to wear jogging pants and a Tshirt to work but guess what, I cant.

But is it your religious beleif that says you must wear jogging pants and a t-shirt.....we all WANT alot of things, but if our faith tells us to do something we tend to try and oblige (depending on the strength of your beleifs).

OK, now we are comparing a DAGGER to a skrit?
I'm pretty sure there are some laws about carrying around a dagger....also known as a concealed weapon.
Last time I checked there were no laws about wearing a skirt that is LONGER than the norm. Now if it were a short skirt, she couldn't fly on Sotuhwest Airlines of course.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

From your link:


Her union helped her file the complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

Stupid Union.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

But is it your religious beleif that says you must wear jogging pants and a t-shirt.....we all WANT alot of things, but if our faith tells us to do something we tend to try and oblige (depending on the strength of your beleifs).

OK, now we are comparing a DAGGER to a skrit?
I'm pretty sure there are some laws about carrying around a dagger....also known as a concealed weapon.
Last time I checked there were no laws about wearing a skirt that is LONGER than the norm. Now if it were a short skirt, she couldn't fly on Sotuhwest Airlines of course.

If that dagger is vital to my religious beliefs and I will go to hell if I leave the house in the morning without it, how does it differ? I realize its a weapon but its for religious purposes, free pass should apply here if thats the case.

Just to clarify I have no issue with what the changes to her dress, I realize 2 inches is nothing to write home about, and the average person would be none the wiser. It just opens the door for alot of things.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

A pair of scissors makes a better weapon than a dull dagger.. Its just a matter of public safety and applying the same right to everyone. She works in a field where public safety is paramount, should she not abide by the same rules that govern all employees within that field? Like mentioned earlier, what happens when someone else decides they prefer shorts, if they framed their justification in a religious context how can a court deny them that? I'm just merely trying to put some perspective on this, we start making exceptions where do they end?

People keep saying this is religious. It's not. Her objection to the pants/shorter skirt have logical reasons behind them, not beliefs.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is it possible if she has to chase down someone that she cant run in that kind of dress. Dress codes are things of life, whether there are religious reasons or not. She knew the dress code before they job. I want to wear jogging pants and a Tshirt to work but guess what, I cant.

This person is a screener, not security who deals with dangerous individuals. I mean, we are really grasping at straws now aren't we.

Suppose someone wore the slacks that are an issued uniform, suppose it was a man, and suppose he wore those slacks way below his waist, and they are now loose on the ground or floor. That person will trip much quicker than a woman who wears a skirt that is 2" below her knees.

You gonna go around now too to make sure every employee has their shoelaces tied? Heavens forbid if they had to try and run in that condition. My God, I never realized how the public can get compromised so quickly. Yeah, public safety really is an issue here. And I tell you, pretty soon we won't recognize Canada anymore. I mean, just think, some women will be wearing skirts that are 2" below their knees, unheard of in our society.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by llama64

People keep saying this is religious. It's not. Her objection to the pants/shorter skirt have logical reasons behind them, not beliefs.

It is religious, she feels the pants show her profile and that is unacceptable in her religious opinion.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

But is it your religious beleif that says you must wear jogging pants and a t-shirt.....

My religon tells me not to even wear pants, but I still do it for the world. Plus when it gets cold its kinda embarrassing

What exactly makes a religon, A relgion? If I get a group of buddies together and we agree on a god and some rules are we good to go? Or do we have to get it approved by God himself?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by HOOT

My religon tells me not to even wear pants, but I still do it for the world. Plus when it gets cold its kinda embarrassing

What exactly makes a religon, A relgion? If I get a group of buddies together and we agree on a god and some rules are we good to go? Or do we have to get it approved by God himself?

Its against my religion to bathe, after 23 years the smell is finally starting fade, either that or my sense of smell is gone.. I think if you can come up with anything its valid, after all how do you validate the other religions as being legit? Last time I checked its all "faith"