Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

I think you may have missed my point. What I'm suggesting is that if a person moves to a foreign country and will be working with the general public in that country, it would be wise of them to know the foreign tongue.

And I think you might have missed mine.

The people that immigrate to Canada to "work with the general public" (at McDonald's) aren't going to be fluent in English, regardless of how wise it might be.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Isn't it? Is she not trying to impose her religion on the company she works for by expecting that exceptions be made to company policies to comply with her religous beliefs? That sounds like imposing religion to me. Far more so than any mall Christmas tree I've ever seen.

Her wearing a longer skirt is imposing religion on you? You can't be serious. Her wearing a longer skirt does not push religion on anyone. You don't think everyone in a long skirt is a Muslim do you? Didn't think so. But I guess a Christmas tree has far less religious over tones than a skirt. Anyways I have had enough of this Christmas tree v. skirt argument, it's a very silly one that doesn't apply to this situation at all.

What do you want? A scan of some company memo? Talk to any number of people who work in a retail environment and I promise you you'll find some who are told to say only Happy Holidays and not Merry Christmas.

Well I would much prefer real evidence over you telling me "it's happening". I have a couple years of retail experience and never once was told what to say and what not to say. The "Merry Christmas" v. "happy holidays" is completely over blown. It's almost a myth the way it's described most of the time.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Why should she? Its the employer who should suck it up.

This depends on whether or not you think this is a religious freedom issue (I don't), and, if you do think so, whether or not religious requirements should trump civil requirements (again, I don't).

Pants are sufficiently modest that they conform to the requirement in the Koran: "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty". There are differing interpretations of what exactly this (and similar injunctions) mean, but the main driver behind these interpretations is CULTURAL and not religious; there is a significant minority of Islamic scholarship which argues that many of the passages of the hadith which refer to restricting the dress of the Prophet's wives were never meant to apply to ALL women, along with the (rather obvious) observation that what is modest in one culture can be immodest in another.

In other words, she is not directly restricted by her religion from wearing the uniform, she is restricted by HER interpretation of what is "modest", which is NOT the same as the common accepted Canadian interpretation of the same thing. My argument is, since she is in Canada, it is not our duty to bend to her opinion, but rather her duty to accept ours, at least in any sphere of public interaction (she can do as she pleases in private or on her own time).

I have no problem with making reasonable accommodation for religious belief. There is a distinct difference, however, between freedom of worship and conscience and the ability to defy rules that apply to everyone else due to one's "beliefs", that latter which I definitely do not support, and which is what this woman is trying to do.

[FanIn80]

My religion strongly dictates that I should consume no less than 26 ounces of whiskey at exactly 1:00pm every 2nd weekday.

Also, I am only willing to work 9-5 jobs that put me in direct contact with paying customers. I also want my job to include the occasional afternoon delivery, since I really love a nice mid-afternoon drive.

By the way, any company that refuses to allow me to freely practice my religious beliefs will feel the full wrath of my lawyers.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And I think you might have missed mine.

The people that immigrate to Canada to "work with the general public" (at McDonald's) aren't going to be fluent in English, regardless of how wise it might be.

Really? Everytime I go to McDonald's and there is a foreign worker, they know enough english to take my order. And this doesn't just apply to fast food workers. And if there is a case where a person doesn't speak English well enough to perform his/her job they should be let go.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Really? Everytime I go to McDonald's and there is a foreign worker, they know enough english to take my order. And this doesn't just apply to fast food workers. And if there is a case where a person doesn't speak English well enough to perform his/her job they should be let go.

This reminds me of when I lived back in Calgary and went to the McDonalds on 17th and kept asking the girl for Rootbeer and she kept saying "Ok so Coke". I almost pulled out my hair, instead I just enjoyed a coke

[STeeLy]

I think this is one of the best debates I've seen in CP in a good chunk of time...

Certainly, the government cannot expect to be able to accomodate every religious belief.

Now the issue here, from what I gather, is that she is taking this to the human rights organization because CATSA/Garda would not let her wear a skirt that is 2 inches longer than the uniform, because her religion does not want her to be able to show her figure.

I do believe that employees should adhere to the dress code, and in her case she didn't and right now, it would seem like it is going to cost her her job. However, her request to wear a skirt that is 2 inches longer than policy is not an outrageous request. Certainly, we all have our level of what is outrageous and what isn't, I certainly don't think wearing a skirt 2 inches longer is an outrageous request at all. The 2 inches certainly does not interfere with the work that she does, I don't see why this is such a big issue with CATSA/Garda.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

And if there is a case where a person doesn't speak English well enough to perform his/her job they should be let go.

I think if there is any case where a person can't perform his/her job they should probably be let go, or, even better, they shouldn't be hired in the first place. That decision is up to the employer though.

Or, if you don't think the English skills of the staff are up to your standards you can go somewhere else.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think if there is any case where a person can't perform his/her job they should probably be let go, or, even better, they shouldn't be hired in the first place. That decision is up to the employer though.

Or, if you don't think the English skills of the staff are up to your standards you can go somewhere else.

And I believe the only reason they can be let go because of language deficiencies is if safety is a factor.

Example: There were a couple of major accidents up north, I believe by the oil sands somewhere, I believe they were constructing oil field equipment, perhaps processing plants, anyhow they were building something.

There were 12 foreign Chinese workers that had been brought in to work on that projeft. It was questioned if the construction accidents were a result of these workers not having a fluent enough command of English on the job site to understand what they were doing. I think it is still under investigation, have not heard anything further.

I do not think it is as easy as just saying, your English sucks, find another job.

[Save Us Sutter]

I'm very surprised, in 11 pages, that no one has asked this question...

What do the other Muslim women in her position wear?

Something tells me it's the pants. And that also tells me this isn't as much of a religious issue as she is perhaps making it out to be. If it was, other Muslim women would have the same complaint no?

[corporatejay]

While I can respect many of the opinions given here, I find the blatant intolerent and nationalistic attitudes displayed by my fellow CPers to be deplorable.

"If you don't like...go home"

what the hell kind of attitude is that? are you people serious? This is a "cultural mosaic" people have different beliefs, attitudes and cultures and they should be respected.

The Canadian Culture is eroding? My idea of Canadian Culture is a free country where individual rights are protected. Where people aren't discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

"protecting culture" is pure fear mongering at the expense of those who are different. I find it hilarious that the same people who are saying "we are a secular state" are the ones who think it's "ridiculous that we say happy holidays".

The way I see it is people are happy protecting White Christian Culture....someone earlier asked if a christian person said "I don't work sundays because i'm christian" if they'd have a human rights complaint. If they were fired/suspended because of it...they would.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Also, I am only willing to work 9-5 jobs that put me in direct contact with paying customers. I also want my job to include the occasional afternoon delivery, since I really love a nice mid-afternoon drive.

Well since none of those are religious requirements than you are screwed I want my job to pay me a million dollars a year it ain't going to happen though. Plus drinking whiskey interferes with your job wearing a skirt that is 2 inches longer does not.

[4X4]

Sowa, why even waste your time explaining why that was a completely ######ed comment?

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Her wearing a longer skirt is imposing religion on you? You can't be serious. Her wearing a longer skirt does not push religion on anyone. You don't think everyone in a long skirt is a Muslim do you? Didn't think so.

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.

Well I would much prefer real evidence over you telling me "it's happening". I have a couple years of retail experience and never once was told what to say and what not to say. The "Merry Christmas" v. "happy holidays" is completely over blown. It's almost a myth the way it's described most of the time.

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'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.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by jammies

This depends on whether or not you think this is a religious freedom issue (I don't), and, if you do think so, whether or not religious requirements should trump civil requirements (again, I don't).

Pants are sufficiently modest that they conform to the requirement in the Koran: "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty". There are differing interpretations of what exactly this (and similar injunctions) mean, but the main driver behind these interpretations is CULTURAL and not religious; there is a significant minority of Islamic scholarship which argues that many of the passages of the hadith which refer to restricting the dress of the Prophet's wives were never meant to apply to ALL women, along with the (rather obvious) observation that what is modest in one culture can be immodest in another.

In other words, she is not directly restricted by her religion from wearing the uniform, she is restricted by HER interpretation of what is "modest", which is NOT the same as the common accepted Canadian interpretation of the same thing. My argument is, since she is in Canada, it is not our duty to bend to her opinion, but rather her duty to accept ours, at least in any sphere of public interaction (she can do as she pleases in private or on her own time).

I have no problem with making reasonable accommodation for religious belief. There is a distinct difference, however, between freedom of worship and conscience and the ability to defy rules that apply to everyone else due to one's "beliefs", that latter which I definitely do not support, and which is what this woman is trying to do.

I agree with your statement.

People who question the existence of the slippery slope.. I was merely trying to ask where we draw the line and say enough is enough? Someone's interpretation of a thousand year old book does not justify lodging a human rights complaint. Personally I believe no religion should have preference over another. They are all equally nuts..

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I agree with your statement.

People who question the existence of the slippery slope.. I was merely trying to ask where we draw the line and say enough is enough? Someone's interpretation of a thousand year old book does not justify lodging a human rights complaint. Personally I believe no religion should have preference over another. They are all equally nuts..

What has happened to you personally on this slippery slope? What have you been denied or had to change?

I question the existence of the slippery slope because nothing in my life has changed to accommodate anyone or anything. You clearly believe it exists so please tell us what has changed for you and why you believe we are on a slippery slope.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What has happened to you personally on this slippery slope? What have you been denied or had to change?

I question the existence of the slippery slope because nothing in my life has changed to accommodate anyone or anything. You clearly believe it exists so please tell us what has changed for you and why you believe we are on a slippery slope.

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...

[RougeUnderoos]

Okay, the question was "what have you been denied or had to change" and your answer is "I can't lie when I'm caught driving drunk, while these other people can".

Oh the humanity.

[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

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, the question was "what have you been denied or had to change" and your answer is "I can't lie when I'm caught driving drunk, while these other people can".

Oh the humanity.

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