Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Its changes to the rules that govern everyone that concerns me. Example: Elections Canada stating that women covering their faces do not have to reveal their identity to vote. Nothing wrong with that I guess?? Next they will want drivers licences similar to the middle east, where its a picture of a covered face with no discernable features. How can you tell that person is who they say they are? I have a huge issue with the exception made for Hutterites, and their driver's licenses. They believe that photographs steal they're soul so they are exempt from having photo id. Why should I have it if they don't, if I drive drunk loose my licence. They will have my picture to identify me if I'm caught driving, how can you determine that someone who has no photo id is who they say they are??

I guess it doesnt exist now does it...

Are you serious? That is just crazy!

So how does someone prove they are a Hutterite, to be exempt? Can't anyone just say they are and drive around with a liecense?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Red

The point here is that she is using her religion to circumvent work policies. If we are to separate religion from the state and workforce then what should get the priority, work or religion?

I also wonder if she denied all the Christmas and Easter days off or extra OT pay she got because of them. Something tells me she kind of liked those crazy Christians then, just as do most of the atheists here

Well I would say for those 40 hours a week you are at work you should have to follow their rules and regulations within the law. For the other 128 hours in the week you can do whatever you want.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Are you serious? That is just crazy!

So how does someone prove they are a Hutterite, to be exempt? Can't anyone just say they are and drive around with a liecense?

It's true I saw an example of one on the news. It was identical to our regular drivers license, the picture was just blank. Usually I identify them by their bushy beards, black hats, and 15 passenger econoline van with farm tags But seriously how does a cop tell one from the other?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Thanks for proving my point. I guess its ok for a different set of rules to apply to some. When they use legal loopholes to circumvent the law no one suffers.. That head in the sand approach is dangerous and rather confusing. I used drunk driving as an example, I never condoned it, I just stated that how can we enforce a drunk driving ban on a person you can't identify. How do we prevent the same person from voting 5 times? That safety net of having an family member vouch for them is definately airtight

I don't know if it's dangerous, but it's definitely confusing when people bitch and moan about the downfall of society, political correctness and loss of culture and when pressed on it, can come up with nothing more than some obscure law that applies to a tiny fraction of the population to "prove their point".

I don't think anyone should have a different driver's license either, but just because they do doesn't mean the whole country is being taken over by special interest groups. Nor does it mean we are on the dreaded "slippery slope" to allowing everyone to do whatever they want. How long has that Hutterite law been on the books anyway? My guess is that it ain't exactly new. Not much of a slope I guess, and it doesn't appear to be too slippery.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How long has that Hutterite law been on the books anyway? My guess is that it ain't exactly new. Not much of a slope I guess, and it doesn't appear to be too slippery.

If memory serves, they were allowed to not have a picture when we had our old drivers' licenses here in Alberta. When we went to the high-tech one piece dealies, that exemption was eventually removed. Court challenges ensued and the Hutterite Brethren were eventually allowed to have licenses without pictures again. I believe it was last before the Alberta Court of Appeal. I don't know if it's been appealed further.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=42646

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by fredr123

If memory serves, they were allowed to not have a picture when we had our old drivers' licenses here in Alberta. When we went to the high-tech one piece dealies, that exemption was eventually removed. Court challenges ensued and the Hutterite Brethren were eventually allowed to have licenses without pictures again. I believe it was last before the Alberta Court of Appeal. I don't know if it's been appealed further.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=42646

I goggled it and judging by the cbc article it was reinstated May 2006. I wasnt aware how long this goes back, but it sounds like its just one colony that was fighting for this exemption. Most Hutterites believe driving is a priveledge and have no problem abiding by our laws.

Court challenges to attain these sorts of exemptions have become more common over the last 5 years or so.. Rogue, the slope starts somewhere doesnt it?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me where the seperation of church and state is with the RCMP having to make exceptions for muslim men and their turbans. That's imposing Muslim religion on a Canadian icon. But you're conveniently and repeatedly ignoring that point of mine as well in your attempt to cherry pick your way through the debate.

LOL
let your ignorance shine through!

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

LOL
let your ignorance shine through!

Oh no, I made an error. I guess it totally negates point I was making. I don't care if it was some Roman gladiator wanting an exception made so he can wear his horse-hair helmet; a Canadian symbol was changed.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Oh no, I made an error. I guess it totally negates point I was making. I don't care if it was some Roman gladiator wanting an exception made so he can wear his horse-hair helmet; a Canadian symbol was changed.

It's a pretty big error, and shows you know nothing about the religions you're commenting on. Perhaps you should learn something about theses religious symbols, so you can make a more educated judgement about how they effect Canadian symbols.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Rogue, the slope starts somewhere doesnt it?

If you insist.

So is that it? The worst we can find is one Hutterite colony who don't want their picture on their driver's license? This is our culture and customs under attack by immigrants, special interest groups and political correctness?

I'd still love to hear a personal story of woe that can be attributed to all of this.

As for the Mountie hat, if tradition and the uniform were so important, Mounties would still be wearing the red serge.

Which immigrant group was it that got rid of that thing?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Which immigrant group was it that got rid of that thing?

Koreans, they couldn't keep up with the dry cleaning demands...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If you have an issue with something, do you wait for FIVE YEARS before telling someone about it? That seems a bit of an excessive wait if she had an issue with the dress code.

You are right. I ate meat for 20 years before becoming a vegetarian. Why I waited 20 years, I'll never know. But now that I have eaten meat for 20 years of my life, I should be forced to eat it? Oi.

-=-=-=-=-

As for Hooters, if you will remember, the man who applied there, was turned down and then sued on the basis of discrimination - Hooters was able to prove that being a skimpily dressed woman was part of their business and thus the man was unable to meet the requirements of the position. The same rule would be applied to a Muslim woman unwilling to wear the Hooters uniform. Nobody save the Devils former captain has stated in any way shape or form how wearing the longer skirt impedes her ability to do her job. And even that - wearing a longer skirt would mean she would have trouble running after a suspect - isn't legit. You couldn't run well in the shorter skirt either - we're not talking tennis skirt length. Plus, it's not the people at the scanners that run down suspects anyhow - most of them are not even armed or trained on how to repress a suspect.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If you insist.

So is that it? The worst we can find is one Hutterite colony who don't want their picture on their driver's license? This is our culture and customs under attack by immigrants, special interest groups and political correctness?

I'd still love to hear a personal story of woe that can be attributed to all of this.

As for the Mountie hat, if tradition and the uniform were so important, Mounties would still be wearing the red serge.

Which immigrant group was it that got rid of that thing?

It was never about maintaining our customs and culture, its about having laws apply to everyone, not just the majority. I have no personal story of woe or distress, but that doesnt mean I should be all for granting special priveledges to certain groups based on how they interpret a religious text.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's a pretty big error, and shows you know nothing about the religions you're commenting on. Perhaps you should learn something about theses religious symbols, so you can make a more educated judgement about how they effect Canadian symbols.

I know covering their hair is required by their religion. I don't need to know why it's required to comment on it. How would knowing that make any difference of the fact that a Canadian symbol of over a hundred years was compromised to appease a single individual from a foreign country because he decided to move here and wanted a job where part of it was in conflict with his beliefs?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

I didn't say on me, I said on her company. Expecting exceptions to be made because of her and her religion. I think you're choosing to ignore the correlation here to try and prove your point is right. Imposing religion does not have to mean attempting to convert people. It means making other people act according to your beliefs which she is clearly doing by expecting her employer to make special rules just to accommodate her and her beliefs that 2" of fabric is the difference between eternal bliss or eternal damnation.

No it isn't imposing religion on the employer either. Your definition of imposing is very loose and broad. In Canada citizens have the right to not be discriminated against because of their religion. There is no other way to up hold this without talking about your religion.

From fredr123's post on the second page.

Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, discrimination because of religion (creed) is against the law. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities and benefits, and be treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of their religion.
Religion includes the practices, beliefs and observances that are part of a faith or religion.

It doesn't matter whether or not discrimination is intentional: it is the effect of the behaviour that is important.
Where a rule conflicts with religious requirements, there is a duty to ensure that individuals are able to observe their religion, unless this would cause undue hardship because of cost, or health and safety reasons. Unlawful discrimination because of religion can include:Refusing to make an exception to dress codes to recognize religious dress requirements

Sorry, I've got no memos or any secret documents. I could say that my sister worked at American Eagle and was told not to say Merry Christmas, or that my wife works at Canada Post and was told not to as well. But you'll probably brush it off as hearsay or go back to the seperation of church and state thing since Canada Post is a government business.

I could easily brush it off as hearsay, seeing as I asked for evidence, and hearsay is anything but. Either way it doesn't matter because this doesn't relate to this thread anyways. Saying Merry Christmas to someone has religious implications, a longer skirt does not. Besides I was originally talking about your personal life, not your on the job life, you're the one that brought workplace up.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me where the seperation of church and state is with the RCMP having to make exceptions for muslim men and their turbans. That's imposing Muslim religion on a Canadian icon. But you're conveniently and repeatedly ignoring that point of mine as well in your attempt to cherry pick your way through the debate.

I didn't respond to one point and now I am cherry picking? Settle down champ. Who said I agreed with the RCMP and their turban decision? Who said I agreed with every decision made by the courts and our government? I certainly didn't say those things. But I'll give you my thoughts on it before you accuse me of cherry picking again.

I don't like the decision, and heres why. The "tradition" of the uniform doesn't mean anything for me in this situation. That's not a reason to not allow a man to wear a turban. The problem I have with it is it's a safety issue. As I understand it RCMP officers are required to keep short hair so people can't grab it. It's a rule for their personal safety. And as I understand it men typically have long hair underneath their turbans. That's why I don't like the decisions. BUT it doesn't relate to this issue at all. Because her wearing a longer skirt doesn't imped her ability to do her job. It's not a safety issue, it's a silly dress code rule. And if you think that dress code rules are more important that religious freedoms, I'd say your priorities need readjusting.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Celebrate it at church, celebrate it at home, school isn't the only option. Public school is secular and shouldn't be putting on religious celebrations.

Christmas is still regarded as being religious?

I am an atheist, have no belief in any religion or god including religion and yet still celebrate Christmas as much if not more than most people who consider themselves Christians.

I realise it is based on Christianity historically but with the way Western society is (particularly NA) I would say that today Christmas has a lot more to do with Western Culture than it does with Christianity.

I don't see the harm that Muslims, Jews, atheists etc. get from singing about Santa, receiving silly gifts and gasp, putting ornaments on a Christmas tree.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

This woman obviously wishes to do the job she is trained for and is in no way impeded from doing her job by wearing a long skirt. That people would actually make any kind of deal out of this makes me want to puke.

The fact that people think that she should not have to conform to the rules and requirements of the job and are using this religious concerns BS make me want to puke.

I can't believe that not only are people supporting her but doing so and thinking that they are actually right.

I just don't get what the big deal in an employer saying this is part of the job if you don't like it don't work here. They aren't saying being white is part of the job or being Christian is part of the job (although I personally think they should be allowed if thats how they want to run their business) they are saying you have to wear a uniform. Seems like a very reasonable request from me and an easy decision for whatever board/court/agency she whines to.

[HOOT]

Christmas is basically set aside as that one time of year you have to visit with your family. Also a time where people spend a lot of money and go further into debt because they feel the need to buy everyone something.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by moon

Christmas is still regarded as being religious?

I am an atheist, have no belief in any religion or god including religion and yet still celebrate Christmas as much if not more than most people who consider themselves Christians.

I realise it is based on Christianity historically but with the way Western society is (particularly NA) I would say that today Christmas has a lot more to do with Western Culture than it does with Christianity.

Well it's religious depending on who you talk to. Trust me I agree with you in that Christmas is less and less religious every year. I am atheist and I celebrate Christmas as well. But my family just par takes in the secular aspects. Either way at it's core, it is religious, and many people still celebrate it as such, not the majority, but the minority.

I don't see the harm that Muslims, Jews, atheists etc. get from singing about Santa, receiving silly gifts and gasp, putting ornaments on a Christmas tree.

That's simplifying it a bit too much and they have a right to feel offended if they feel it is being pushed on them.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Burninator

BUT it doesn't relate to this issue at all. Because her wearing a longer skirt doesn't imped her ability to do her job. It's not a safety issue, it's a silly dress code rule. And if you think that dress code rules are more important that religious freedoms, I'd say your priorities need readjusting.

I agree that it's ridiculous that her employer wouldn't allow her to wear a longer skit. I'm just tired of special expections having to be made for people who choose a particular set of beliefs while these people make no exceptions of their own to get along in society. If your beliefs are the most important thing to you, conform your life according to those beliefs. Don't expect life to conform to you.