Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[4X4]

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.

Just because it should be secular doesn't mean there can't be a longer skirt option. If you can get pants and shirts in all different sizes, why not skirts?

And as a side note, there are some women that should be wearing longer skirts anyway.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Is there a reason the standard uniform can't be compatible with this woman's beliefs?

No one is telling her she cannot believe in what she wishes. No one is preventing her from doing so. But if you wish you make a FREE choice to work at a specific job, then you are agreeing to abide by the policy. Like I said previously, I have nothing against her from trying to make changes to policy, but do it like everyone else not say....my human rights have been violated.

The entire human rights tribunal has been misused so much it is pathetic.

[Regorium]

Airport screeners need to be completely in uniform. I think I would be uncomfortable if I saw someone that was out of uniform screening people - like I don't even know if they work there, yet they're holding my valuables and such.

I'm surprised her supervisor allowed her to wear a skirt in the first place if the standard uniform is pants.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just because it should be secular doesn't mean there can't be a longer skirt option. If you can get pants and shirts in all different sizes, why not skirts?

And as a side note, there are some women that should be wearing longer skirts anyway.

See my comment above.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You hit the nail right on the head. Lets appease everyone until there is nothing left of Canada as we know it.

We're talking about a skirt here. A skirt that's a few inches longer than others and for all intents and purposes looks like a standard issue piece of a CATSA uniform. Rumours of the demise of Canadian society are greatly exaggerated.

[Pagal4321]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You hit the nail right on the head. Lets appease everyone until there is nothing left of Canada as we know it.

Appeasing people's wish to freely practice their religion.....I thought that was part of Canada?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

Appeasing people's wish to freely practice their religion.....I thought that was part of Canada?

Thats were you are wrong. Canada is about freedom of choice not freedom to push your beliefs on others and your employers. Freedom to choice what job you want to work and the freedom to quite if it violates your ideas.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

We're talking about a skirt here. A skirt that's a few inches longer than others and for all intents and purposes looks like a standard issue piece of a CATSA uniform. Rumours of the demise of Canadian society are greatly exaggerated.

Think again my friend. You might want to go take a trip to the UK and ask how their appeasement has worked for them. Next thing you know there might be an attempt to introduce religous law or allow veiled women to vote. And for the third time, it's more about the way she has gone about get what she wants. Using a human rights tribunal.

[fredr123]

From an info sheet on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/religious_rights

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 does not include personal moral, ethical or political views. Nor does it include religions that promote violence or hate towards others, or that violate criminal law.
Protection against discrimination applies in the following areas:

• Employment, including job applications, interviews, employment benefits, working conditions, and promotions;
• Housing, including rental housing, hotels, commercial properties, and buying or selling a house;
• Services, goods and facilities, including education, hospitals and health services, stores and restaurants, government programs, and public places and facilities;
• Contracts, such as for buying or selling goods or services;
• Unions, professional associations, and other vocational associations.

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;
• Refusing to allow individuals to observe periods of prayer at particular times during the day;
• Refusing to permit individuals to take time off to observe a religious holiday.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

Appeasing people's wish to freely practice their religion.....I thought that was part of Canada?

No sh1t. (sorry ken, had to do it)

JOlinar and the other guy who is claiming the demise of CAnada: you guys need to chill. Seriously, why can't they offer a different size of skirt? Whats the big deal? It's a size. They have 'em for pants. They have 'em for shirts. They probably have them for coveralls in the mechanic bays. The probably have them for turbans. Why not skirts? Why do you care? Have you been to pearson? 98% of the employees are from lower asia. Give them their skirts.

[llama64]

wdf... This has nothing to do with religion. Nice try Jolinar at trying to make it a Religious issue...

Crazy Flamer has the proper perspective on the issue.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

From an info sheet on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/religious_rights

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 does not include personal moral, ethical or political views. Nor does it include religions that promote violence or hate towards others, or that violate criminal law.
Protection against discrimination applies in the following areas:

• Employment, including job applications, interviews, employment benefits, working conditions, and promotions;
• Housing, including rental housing, hotels, commercial properties, and buying or selling a house;
• Services, goods and facilities, including education, hospitals and health services, stores and restaurants, government programs, and public places and facilities;
• Contracts, such as for buying or selling goods or services;
• Unions, professional associations, and other vocational associations.

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;
• Refusing to allow individuals to observe periods of prayer at particular times during the day;
• Refusing to permit individuals to take time off to observe a religious holiday.

So what??? My point for the fourth time is that this is NOT a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. Regardless of what these tribunals find. These tribunals have become a farce. These tribunals are nothing more than an attempt to force religion (no matter what religion) on others.

Duty to accomidate....BS. This is no different than the guy who was fired for drug use in Fort Mac. Took it to the human rights tribunal......"my human rights were violated. The company has a DUTY to help me with my drug addiction. They never should have fired me" BFS.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

And for the third time, it's more about the way she has gone about get what she wants. Using a human rights tribunal.

The articles stated that she was never comfortable with the uniform. She came up with a viable solution sought the permission of the mysterious Uniform Guy. Her compromise cost the employer nothing, did not detract from her job performance and did not affect her coworkers in any notable way. After 6 or 7 months with this compromise solution in place, her employment seems to have been terminated.

The issue, framed this way, is discrimination in employment based on religious grounds. I would suggest that using the Human Rights process in Ontario is probably the appropriate forum to hear the issue. It's designed to handle matters under the Ontario Human Rights Code, matters can be dealt with more quickly than the usual court process and it's probably cheaper than regular court too.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

Are you serious? So you should pick a job based on religious beleifs now?

ummm yes, people do it every day, vegans probably dont work in butcher shops, religious women dont work as hookers, you pick a job that agrees with your own morals, just wouldnt make sence to do otherwise.

Its not just about this one skirt, it is standard policy to have a uniform. If they make this one little change then the next woman will have a problem with the color, then some guy wants long shorts instead of pants, then down the road whats the point of having a uniform? Theses people need to be in uniform so they are all identifiable as airport personel, has a lot more to do with security of the airport than oppression of religious beliefs.

as said above by others, if she went and changed the policy to include this new uniform fine. But to claim human rights violation is just wrong.

[redforever]

I have no problem with this whatsoever. Everything is up to code with the uniform except the skirt is 2" longer. I am sure she wears the proper identification badge as issued by her employer so why would people be in fear of her screening anyone? Be honest, have you ever gone through the screening process and even looked at the length of the skirt on any female screener?

The company issues 2 uniforms, one has slacks, the other has a skirt that is knee length. 2" extra in length for the skirt makes this a big deal? I don't think so.

She went through the proper procedure. She asked her supervisor if a slightly longer skirt was ok, he approved it. Why should she have to go directly to the head of her company? That is what the supervisor is for.

As far as I am concerned, I see no difference here compared to say a man being asked to wear his slacks exactly at waist length instead of letting them relax somewhat below the waist.

Who makes issues out of things that are so trite in the first place.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by llama64

She wants to wear a skirt 2 inches longer then the standard issue. Is it such a hard leap to allow women that freedom?

From there it's just a matter of time before they want to get out of the kitchen and into the workplace, and from there it's just a short hop to wanting to vote or join the army or play professional sports.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by llama64

wdf... This has nothing to do with religion. Nice try Jolinar at trying to make it a Religious issue...

Crazy Flamer has the proper perspective on the issue.

Nothing to do with religion you say?

The complaint states the woman had been discriminated against on the basis of her religion by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) and the security company that employed her, Garda of Canada

She said she was told her choices were either pants or a knee-length skirt, which goes against the Islamic dress code.

The rights body was presented with a similar case in 2003. A 16 year-old Muslim girl was expelled from a private school in Montreal for wearing a head scarf even though it was the same color as her school uniform. The complaint was later dropped by her family and the girl enrolled at a public school.

Last week, an 11 year-old Muslim girl was ousted from a judo tournament in Manitoba because she refused to remove her head scarf.

Nope......nothing about religion......OK

[HOOT]

If this lady wasn't of a certain race or color this wouldn't even be a story, but it would be some lady who just can't complain enough.

I understand where both sides of the argument are coming from. But if you make a dress code change for this lady, what is next? Where do we draw the line?

I love how these people come to Canada to "live the Canadian dream" but as soon as they get here they want to change every rule or law so it fits into their life style. I am the futherest thing from a racist but if you don't like it you can leave the same way you came.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by redforever

I have no problem with this whatsoever. Everything is up to code with the uniform except the skirt is 2" longer. I am sure she wears the proper identification badge as issued by her employer so why would people be in fear of her screening anyone? Be honest, have you ever gone through the screening process and even looked at the length of the skirt on any female screener?

The company issues 2 uniforms, one has slacks, the other has a skirt that is knee length. 2" extra in length for the skirt makes this a big deal? I don't think so.

She went through the proper procedure. She asked her supervisor if a slightly longer skirt was ok, he approved it. Why should she have to go directly to the head of her company? That is what the supervisor is for.

As far as I am concerned, I see no difference here compared to say a man being asked to wear his slacks exactly at waist length instead of letting them relax somewhat below the waist.

Who makes issues out of things that are so trite in the first place.

Again, its the issue of taking this to the Human Rights tribunal that is my biggest peave.

[Pagal4321]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thats were you are wrong. Canada is about freedom of choice not freedom to push your beliefs on others and your employers. Freedom to choice what job you want to work and the freedom to quite if it violates your ideas.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where she was PUSHING her beliefs on others or her employees? Is she preaching Islam to them? Is she tryingt o recruit more women to wear longer skirts?
No, she's trying to find a suitable option for her to do her job properly while still adhering to her beleifs as a Muslim.

ummm yes, people do it every day, vegans probably dont work in butcher shops, religious women dont work as hookers, you pick a job that agrees with your own morals, just wouldnt make sence to do otherwise.

I'm sorry, so because I don't eat bacon, I SHOULDN'T work in a kitchen, even though I want to cook? Your examples are priceless...

Like fotze said, let's piss off the immigrant workers who TAKE these jobs....that'll keep the airports running smoothly.