Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by moon

Not sure why you feel it is beside the point but to answer your question sure why not if that is what the boss wants then he should be able to go ahead and make that a requirement, its his business he should be able to make whatever decisions he wants.

I would think that she would want to quit in the second scenario if the only thing holding him back form that request was the law, but yes I see no problem in him making that a requirement of the job.

I imagine that in these crazy scenario of your the business would have a hell of time attracting employees and that it is unlikely they would also be very successful as I would expect that their views would also effect their customers as well.

Also these "fake" scenario's are much worse than having to wear pants or not wearing a turban. In reality the majority of the things that employers ask their employees to do are so minimal that they don't even notice and other things like this that offend people or violate their "religious convictions" are really quite small as well.

I just don't get what is so bad about a if you don't like the job requirements don't work there. If you have to violate your religious believes and don't want to find another job. Nobody is forcing her to screen people at the airport, nobody has to do compulsary RCMP service.

The only reason I cooked up those crazy scenarios was to see just how far you were willing to go with the whole "the boss can do anything he wants to his employees and if they don't like it they can quit" idea.

I guess I should have saved us all some time and just asked this question:

Should an employer have the right to fire an employee who refuses any request, no matter what it is?

Your answer is "yes".

I guess I'll leave it at that.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure that voluntarily applying for a job knowing full well what the requirements are and then arguing over an aspect that is as trivial as wearing a turban or not is all that principled or something that should be admired.

He wasn't exactly fighting for decent pay or safer work conditions in a sweatshop. He wasn't fighting "intolerance" in a place that he was forced to be.

I think they are thousands more people associated with the RCMP that should have the label brave associated with them rather than a guy that sues them so he can wear a turban.

The Sikh RCMP officer did not sue for the right to wear the turban. The recurit(Baltej Singh Dhillon) applied to enter the RCMP academy and was a qualified candidate except for the turban issue. The issued reach the RCMP commissioner who was sympathetic and asked the government to change the requirements to the uniform. The government eventually accepted the change and the commissioner implemented the change and Dhillon entered the academy, passed, and became a RCMP officer. In 1995 three former RCMP officers (John R. Grant, Kenneth E. Riley, Howard S. Davis) sued the RCMP commissioner to reinstate the uniform requirments.

[moon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The only reason I cooked up those crazy scenarios was to see just how far you were willing to go with the whole "the boss can do anything he wants to his employees and if they don't like it they can quit" idea.

I guess I should have saved us all some time and just asked this question:

Should an employer have the right to fire an employee who refuses any request, no matter what it is?

Your answer is "yes".

I guess I'll leave it at that.

I guess I would say yes, so long as it wasn't unsafe or broke a rule in a signed contract. I believe their should be laws in place to protect employees in terms of safety, minimum working conditions (including maximum hours) and protection from being forced to do anything, but in terms of worrying about whether they might have a problem with the dress code or don't want a Christmas tree in the office I believe they should have much more freedom.

I would tend support it more in terms of employers being able to set up rules/regulations/dress codes/uniforms and in terms of hiring practices than just making random requests, but in reality I guess I don't have a huge problem with people running their business the way they see fit and if having stupid requests that alienate or piss off their employees, the public and possibly their customers is how they want to operate they should be permitted.

[moon]

Originally Posted by redforever

After all, if they really wanted to play that sport, well they could just take off the hijab, right?

Personally I would let them wear it if they wanted to but yes if they want to play and the people in charge aren't going to let them while wearing a hijab then they could just take it off if they really wanted to play.

Are things that black and white to you and are you saying we should have a homogeneous society where everyone is the same?

I am not sure why wearing pants at work or not wearing a turban while working for the RCMP makes everyone the same. It seems to be a little bit overboard to say that to be expected to dress a certain way for some jobs makes us a homogeneous society.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by moon

Personally I would let them wear it if they wanted to but yes if they want to play and the people in charge aren't going to let them while wearing a hijab then they could just take it off if they really wanted to play.




I am not sure why wearing pants at work or not wearing a turban while working for the RCMP makes everyone the same. It seems to be a little bit overboard to say that to be expected to dress a certain way for some jobs makes us a homogeneous society.

Well, therein lies the problem.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by jammies

Again I say, and notice that no-one has refuted the point, this is not a question of her religion, but her subjective interpretation of what that religion requires. There is NO rule in Islam that prevents her from wearing the pants provided as an option. She clearly doesn't think the pants are modest enough, but that is HER feelings on the matter, not some kind of religious requirement, like the Sikh turbans.

She is trying to bend the rules to her culture, not to her religion. This is not protected under law, nor should it be.

I think this is probably the smartest comment in this thread.

Unfortunately posters are too busy arguing the religious implications of this case and fail to realize that there SHOULD BE NONE.

As I said a few pages back (to no response as well) obviously OTHER MUSILIM WOMEN have worked in this position. It didn't seem to go against their religious beliefs... so why now?

Sadly, the poster who made the "cankle" joke at the very beginning of the thread is probably closest to the truth here. That would also explain why it took five years for her to change. She may have looked good in those pants the first 4 and a half years but now she'd feel more comfortable in a long skirt.

That's fine, but don't pretend it's a human rights issue.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off insensitive, and for the record if I truly did believe this was a religious issue I would be on her side. But there are too many things that point in another direction.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I'm sorry if I'm coming off insensitive, and for the record if I truly did believe this was a religious issue I would be on her side. But there are too many things that point in another direction.

My god people... are you this obtuse?!?!?!

First off, you talk like all Muslims are homogeneous. Which is an absolute complete farce. I know some Muslims, who proudly state their belief in Islam, who drink beer while watching the football game. Some Christians believe abortion is okay while others not. You can't say "well some Muslims have done thing X, therefore I don't understand why this particular Muslim refuses on religious grounds".

As for the hijab and non-form fitting clothes, while there may not be anything DIRECTLY written in the Quran about these things, it is a teaching of the Muslim faith. My ex-GF, also ex-Muslim, would wear pants every day to work - but she would NEVER, EVER wear them to see her parents because she knew, as Muslims, they would be offended.

There is nothing in the Bible directly on topic regarding stem cell research. At least I don't remember any passages about recoding DNA. Yet some churches oppose it. Members of that church would say that they are against it on religious grounds even though there is nothing in the bible - it is simply a teaching of their church. Same deal here.

As for the 5 year thing, I also know several Muslim women who went to school and university not wearing the hijab, but decided to start wearing it when they got to their mid-20s. Those guys that drink beer while watching the football game can stop at any time and be more in step with their religion. A Christian that is pro-choice can talk to their priest & change their mind. People grow and people change.

End-all-be-all: "This is the woman's CURRENT, PERSONAL interpretation of what her religion requires."

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

My god people... are you this obtuse?!?!?!

First off, you talk like all Muslims are homogeneous. Which is an absolute complete farce. I know some Muslims, who proudly state their belief in Islam, who drink beer while watching the football game. Some Christians believe abortion is okay while others not. You can't say "well some Muslims have done thing X, therefore I don't understand why this particular Muslim refuses on religious grounds".

The debate over whether a fetus is a "person" is a bit more serious and thus polarizing debate then 2 inches of skirt. That being said, you are obviously right, different Muslim women will interpret the dress code differently. I just find it strange that this is the first time we've ever heard of it being a problem. Maybe every other woman either sucked it up or quit.....

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As for the hijab and non-form fitting clothes, while there may not be anything DIRECTLY written in the Quran about these things, it is a teaching of the Muslim faith. My ex-GF, also ex-Muslim, would wear pants every day to work - but she would NEVER, EVER wear them to see her parents because she knew, as Muslims, they would be offended.

Don't see what this has to do with the argument other than to prove that in certain situations it is not "against one's religion" to wear pants......

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

There is nothing in the Bible directly on topic regarding stem cell research. At least I don't remember any passages about recoding DNA. Yet some churches oppose it. Members of that church would say that they are against it on religious grounds even though there is nothing in the bible - it is simply a teaching of their church. Same deal here.

Well... I believe the only thing they have against stem cell research is that in involves a dead fetus.... and well.. thou shalt not kill.... again though, not sure why you are trying to compare a life/death debate to someone who just wants to wear a longer skirt

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As for the 5 year thing, I also know several Muslim women who went to school and university not wearing the hijab, but decided to start wearing it when they got to their mid-20s. Those guys that drink beer while watching the football game can stop at any time and be more in step with their religion. A Christian that is pro-choice can talk to their priest & change their mind. People grow and people change.

I agree with you... I guess I just don't see what would "grow" in a person to make them all of a sudden be uncomfortable with 2 inches less of skirt on.. unless the only thing growing was... well you know.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

End-all-be-all: "This is the woman's CURRENT, PERSONAL interpretation of what her religion requires."

And that's the problem. If we let personal interpretations in to these laws then anything at all will end up open to debate.

Look, I am all for freedom of religion. I think it's part of what makes this country great and I would never want to make someone feel uncomfortable or excluded for practicing their beliefs. I guess I just have a hard time considering 2 inches of skirt a religious belief

Also, for the record, I think her employer is stupid for not just letting her wear it. Doesn't cost them a cent, and she can still do her job. They are just making themselves look bad for letting it get this far.

That being said, I still don't think it's a human rights issue.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by redforever

Ahha, define to me what Canadian culture is?

<snip>

And if you are not willing to change and grow, sadly, you will go the way of the dinosaur. Personally, I feel so much richer for having many cultures in our country.

I feel somewhat robbed of the chance to have any culture of my own. Being born in Canada, I have nothing that I can say "This makes me Canadian." Anything that may become uniquely Canadian gets compromised at some point because our country has so many people from such diverse social and ethnic groups who hang on to the ways of their old countries or ancestors and we have to make allowances for them. So I feel like I've slipped through the cultural cracks and had to turn to my Scottish ancestry just to have any sense of it.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jammies

Again I say, and notice that no-one has refuted the point, this is not a question of her religion, but her subjective interpretation of what that religion requires. There is NO rule in Islam that prevents her from wearing the pants provided as an option. She clearly doesn't think the pants are modest enough, but that is HER feelings on the matter, not some kind of religious requirement, like the Sikh turbans.

She is trying to bend the rules to her culture, not to her religion. This is not protected under law, nor should it be.

I understand your point. As others may have mentioned, though, homogeneity doesn't exist in the Muslim (or any other) religion. You and I can sit here and rationally debate the proper or most popular interpretation of any religious requirement but it won't change the meaning of religion to Ms. Muse.

As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's no Official Guide to the Muslim Religion. You've got your moderates and liberals and fanatics and all shades in between. So long as the interpretation is not violent or hateful then it's probably protected. Help us Jebus if the government has to appoint an official arbiter of Muslim beliefs to determine the validity of this woman's practices.

I don't think it's fair to tell Ms. Muse that because other Muslim women have worked in pants or done something else that she may not be comfortable with, that by their actions her interpretation and the way she practices her religion are therefore improper. I missed confession last week and I would hate for my actions to ruin all of Catholicism for every other Canadian.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I understand your point. As others may have mentioned, though, homogeneity doesn't exist in the Muslim (or any other) religion. You and I can sit here and rationally debate the proper or most popular interpretation of any religious requirement but it won't change the meaning of religion to Ms. Muse.

As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's no Official Guide to the Muslim Religion. You've got your moderates and liberals and fanatics and all shades in between. So long as the interpretation is not violent or hateful then it's probably protected. Help us Jebus if the government has to appoint an official arbiter of Muslim beliefs to determine the validity of this woman's practices.

Well, you are wrong. Depending on whether she is Shia or Sunni, either an mujtahid or mufti is able to rule on whether or not her dress code issue is valid or not. In Islam you don't just get to decide how you are going to interpret "scripture" - for example, if you don't want to fast during Ramadan, it's a sin, not a "personal choice". She is not any kind of Muslim authority(which I can be sure of, as she is a woman, and women's "protected status" (ie - subservient role) in Islam prevents such), so in fact it WOULD be appropriate to consult an official arbiter, as they are readily available.

Of course, she might end up having to wear a scarf over her face, or similar, if they went this route, which would be a problem considering she is working in an area where security concerns would prohibit such, religious belief or not.

This applies to other religions, too - if I am a Catholic, I can't be pro-contraception and claim it is my "religious right" to obtain access to condoms (in the unlikely event the issue ever arose, to be sure) because Catholic authority condemns contraception. What I personally feel on the matter is irrelevant, what is important is what the religious authority on the matter has ruled. You can't just make up your own rules (or adhere to your cultural rules) and say they are "religious" in nature.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

As I said a few pages back (to no response as well) obviously OTHER MUSILIM WOMEN have worked in this position. It didn't seem to go against their religious beliefs... so why now?

Exactly. If it truly was a religious issue, she wouldn't be the lone voice crying out against the injustice of having to wear uncomfortable pants to protect her modesty. It's not like they are asking her to work in a g-string with a couple pasties up top (although this would certainly make Customs and security at the airport more entertaining, if nothing else).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I just find it strange that this is the first time we've ever heard of it being a problem.

This is probably the first time we've heard of it being a problem because it isn't a problem, and hasn't been one before. These kinds of "problems" are usually dealt with in the following manner...

Employee: "Mr. Supervisor, this skirt is too short. Can I wear one that is a couple inches longer"?
Mr.Supervisor: "Yes".
Employee: "Can I take my break now"?
Mr.Supervisor: "Can you wait 10 minutes"?
Employee: "Yes".

[jammies]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This is probably the first time we've heard of it being a problem because it isn't a problem, and hasn't been one before. These kinds of "problems" are usually dealt with in the following manner...

Employee: "Mr. Supervisor, this skirt is too short. Can I wear one that is a couple inches longer"?
Mr.Supervisor: "Yes".
Employee: "Can I take my break now"?
Mr.Supervisor: "Can you wait 10 minutes"?
Employee: "Yes".

Good point, and honestly I don't see why the upper management doesn't just amend the regs and make a third uniform option of a long dress - it would solve the situation here, protect the organization from similar problems in the future, and be a good PR move. They are being petty for no discernable gain, and I think they are also being very dumb - but that being said, the stupidity is not of the religious-freedom-denying kind, just of the normal clueless-management type.

EDIT - I also think she is not being very smart, either. As usual in most of these situations, you have the idiots vs the morons, and somehow the rest of us get sucked into cheering for one side or the other.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I feel somewhat robbed of the chance to have any culture of my own. Being born in Canada, I have nothing that I can say "This makes me Canadian." Anything that may become uniquely Canadian gets compromised at some point because our country has so many people from such diverse social and ethnic groups who hang on to the ways of their old countries or ancestors and we have to make allowances for them. So I feel like I've slipped through the cultural cracks and had to turn to my Scottish ancestry just to have any sense of it.

Well I feel sad for you then. First of all, what to you is "uniquely" Canadian and why is it no longer uniquely Canadian, and how did it come about that your "uniquely" Canadian thing became compromised?

When I married, there were unique customs that came from my husband's side of the family, there were unique customs that came from my side of the family. We have not compromised either BUT we have blended.

Both of us used to go to church on Christmas Eve, then come home for a light meal and we opened our presents that night as well. And for both sides of the family, the big turkey meal was the 25th of December.

How did we find a solution? Well on my side of the family, one of my siblings was already married. Her husband too used to have a lot of celebrations on Christmas Eve, but he was of the Catholic faith and it involved different hours from ours and seemed to be very important for him to keep that evening, so he did. Instead, our family then still did the church and small meal thing on Christmas Eve, but we waited until early afternoon of the 25th for my sister and her husband and family to join us and we opened our presents then and had our big meal later.

Since that was already established on my side of the family and since it was quite important for my husband's side of the family to maintain Christmas Eve as the night to open presents, we went with the flow and joined them for Christmas Eve.

In other words, our family now accepted the importance of Christmas Eve for both my brother in law's side of the family and my husband's side of the family. We also recognized that the significance of both days would be compromised if we tried to do both. So I joined my husband's family on Christmas Eve and my sister joined her husbands' family on Christmas Eve and then my side of the family was altogether on Christmas Day. Oh, I should mention that my husband and his family are naturalized Canadians.

Does that now mean I have lost my culture as a Canadian? and I am a Canadian by virtue of the fact that I was born here and so were my parents. Did my inlaws force any change upon either me or my family? Heavens no. It just means that we have adapted to a situation that presented itself.

In turn, as my husband's brothers married, my mother-in-law added customs from her daughter in laws. So for instance, when one of my brother in laws married a Ukrainian girl, she now started serving perogies with the Christmas Eve meal. I am sure if you would ask my MIL if her culture was compromised because she started serving perogies, she would laugh at you.

As a Canadian, I feel enriched by being exposed to other cultures. I do not feel threatened and I certainly do not feel that how I feel as a Canadian has ever been compromised.

Edit: I should add that since our families are only a few towns apart, that my side of the family included the in laws for celebrations on Christmas Day. They were not excluded or left out. So there was a new blend perhaps, a new culture perhaps, and a richer blend. But none of the families have been required to give up their culture.

[corporatejay]

The debate over whether a fetus is a "person" is a bit more serious and thus polarizing debate then 2 inches of skirt

To you....to muslims...maybe not. The problem here lies in the fact that most people who are telling her it's no big deal can't see beyond their own beliefs that religion is "no big deal". It's a big deal to some...it isn't to others, it's not up to you to say "wearing a short skirt is stupid" to her it could mean everything in the world.

Also, someone made a comment about how if an employer required everyone to grow a beard and wear a turban they "wouldn't be in business very long". That's because most people believe in the western style of dress. But human rights commissions are there to protect minorities, just because the majority of canadians don't accept something doesn't mean it's wrong.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I feel somewhat robbed of the chance to have any culture of my own. Being born in Canada, I have nothing that I can say "This makes me Canadian."

What in the existence of Canada would have been a Canadian cultural symbol that has been destroyed? People have asked for examples like 6 times and none of the "it's destroying our cultural" people have given an example.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Anything that may become uniquely Canadian gets compromised at some point because our country has so many people from such diverse social and ethnic groups who hang on to the ways of their old countries or ancestors and we have to make allowances for them.

Can you give an example of something that has been compromised because our country has people from such bla bla bla?

Since you seem rather reluctant to answer that question, I'll give you an example.

Hockey.

That's a pretty Canadian thing, a big part of our culture and all the rest of it.

How has hockey been compromised by all this diversity?

If hockey doesn't do it for you, feel free to offer something else that has been compromised or stolen from you.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Sowa

What in the existence of Canada would have been a Canadian cultural symbol that has been destroyed? People have asked for examples like 6 times and none of the "it's destroying our cultural" people have given an example.

Aside from Medicine Hat, AB you'll be hard-pressed to find a teepee. There's one Canadian cultural symbol that was destroyed by immigrants for sure.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Aside from Medicine Hat, AB you'll be hard-pressed to find a teepee. There's one Canadian cultural symbol that was destroyed by immigrants for sure.

You have to be kidding. That example shows the progress in housing over the years.

Like I grew up in a farm house in Saskatchewan without insulation too. You would be hard pressed today to find houses without insulation.

At one time, everyone walked or travelled by horse, donkey, mule, etc. Today we have cars, planes, u name it and there is some sort of device to transport you. At one time, not so long ago, vehiles never had emission standards too. Do all the technical improvements show a loss of your culture? I don't think so.

Your example merely shows progress over time.