Let's Talk about the Calgary Police Service

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don’t call opinions obnoxious. I call low-effort posts insulting other people obnoxious. Because they are. And a great many people don’t post in these threads anymore because the mods have allowed them to run unchecked.

As if. You're making up more stuff.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

What point is that, about drive-by postings? CliffFletcher might not like snarky posts but he's the king of drive-by posts. The majority off-topic threads have Cliff jumping in with some absurd take, being called out, then vanishing like a ghost. That's a drive-by post. It happens all the time. The fact he ignores the plethora of posts aimed at him civilly (including mine) speaks volumes.

Jesus H Christ... it speaks volumes that you think you're somehow entitled to a response when you reply to a post, like the fact that you've replied means they're obligated to engage with you in a dialogue? The scenario you've just described as happening "all the time" says something negative about you, not about the people you're apparently dying to receive attention from. No one owes you anything here. It's entirely up to any poster if they want to read a thread, chime in with their view about it, and not post again on the topic. Hell, I don't expect we'll hear from MBates again and his post was easily the clearest, most informative and most persuasive thing I've read about this entire topic.

As for "drive by posts", the difference between posting an opinion you consider absurd and this kind of junk is self-evident:

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

Hey guys, you're only supposed to lick the boot, not deep throat it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hell, I don't expect we'll hear from MBates again and his post was easily the clearest, most informative and most persuasive thing I've read about this entire topic.

Is it wrong that I get a kick out of the fact that a poster who has publicly complained about my posts and the fact that they’ve blocked me on numerous occasions still takes the time to log out of their account, read my posts and then passive aggressively criticize them?

Can someone PM corsi to let him know how impressed I am by their ability to take the high road?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Is it wrong that I get a kick out of the fact that a poster who has publicly complained about my posts and the fact that they’ve blocked me on numerous occasions still takes the time to log out of their account, read my posts and then passive aggressively criticize them?

Can someone PM corsi to let him know how impressed I am by their ability to take the high road?

That's not how putting a user on your 'Ignore list' works. It just 'minimizes' the post in the thread so as to hide it. You can see the person has posted and you can click 'View post' to view it. This whole logging out business isn't required.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Me nor anyone else is "entitled" to a reply, but it sure would be nice if when pressed on fly-by posts Cliff responded even half the time. The amount of topics he abandons when pushed is high. Was talking about all replies, not just mine CrosiHockey, learn to read friend.

Would also love to know who the "great many people" are. That's the sort of silly little point Cliff makes then never addresses again I bet.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

The boot licking post was pretty funny IMO.

[OptimalTates]

I know the turban argument was already made but I think it's actually a really good parallel actually.

First for background:

Baltej Dhillon wants to be a Mountie. However, due to the uniform policy he recognizes that he cannot abide to both it and his religion.

He petitions the RCMP. Commissioner Norm Inkster recognizes the dress-code as discrimination and requests the law be changed to allow Sikhs to wear turbans. Religious groups and anti-racism advocates agree with the commission.

Racist cops and their allies, pretending not to be racist, come up with a number of claims as to why the RCMP can not allow Mounties to wear turbans. Pride, heritage, tradition, the strangulation potential of the turban, whatever else they can throw and hope to stick. But totally they aren't racist. There's outrage, there's petitions, it's an attack on the RCMP itself! Racist pins are made and worn. Slogans are chanted.

The feds change the dress code so that it's no longer racist.

And then it's actually the racist RCMP members who challenge the new inclusive anti-racist dress code which eventually makes it way up to, and is shot down by, the Supreme Court.

So:
1) Commission becomes aware of oversight in dress code that allows for racism. ✓
2) Commission recommends fixing oversight and changing dress code. ✓
3) Anti-racist groups and the ilk support the anti-racism measure. ✓
4) Despite the clear racism the current code allows for, numerous officers defend it while totally not being racist at all. ✓
5) The dress code is changed. ✓
6) The officers supporting the past racist practice have a tantrum. ✓
7) The officers get struck down in court.
8) History remembers those for what they were.

[btimbit]

I think whenever the discussion becomes about the poster and not the topic it's time for some people to drop it

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I know the turban argument was already made but I think it's actually a really good parallel actually.

First for background:

Baltej Dhillon wants to be a Mountie. However, due to the uniform policy he recognizes that he cannot abide to both it and his religion.

He petitions the RCMP. Commissioner Norm Inkster recognizes the dress-code as discrimination and requests the law be changed to allow Sikhs to wear turbans. Religious groups and anti-racism advocates agree with the commission.

Racist cops and their allies, pretending not to be racist, come up with a number of claims as to why the RCMP can not allow Mounties to wear turbans. Pride, heritage, tradition, the strangulation potential of the turban, whatever else they can throw and hope to stick. But totally they aren't racist. There's outrage, there's petitions, it's an attack on the RCMP itself! Racist pins are made and worn. Slogans are chanted.

The feds change the dress code so that it's no longer racist.

And then it's actually the racist RCMP members who challenge the new inclusive anti-racist dress code which eventually makes it way up to, and is shot down by, the Supreme Court.

So:
1) Commission becomes aware of oversight in dress code that allows for racism. ✓
2) Commission recommends fixing oversight and changing dress code. ✓
3) Anti-racist groups and the ilk support the anti-racism measure. ✓
4) Despite the clear racism the current code allows for, numerous officers defend it while totally not being racist at all. ✓
5) The dress code is changed. ✓
6) The officers supporting the past racist practice have a tantrum. ✓
7) The officers get struck down in court.
8) History remembers those for what they were.

I like your post, but wearing a turban isn't about race. It is about freedom of religion.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

I like your post, but wearing a turban isn't about race. It is about freedom of religion.

Fighting against other people wearing turbans is pretty much just racism unless we want to be really, really pedantic.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Fighting against other people wearing turbans is pretty much just racism unless we want to be really, really pedantic accurate.

Fixed. Otherwise, that's like saying 'we shouldn't allow Christianity to influence government policy' is racist against white people. Race is immutable, religion is not, and they are not the same thing.

That isn't to say people can't motivated by both racism and religious prejudices simultaneously, but to say that every instance of one is entirely reducible to the other just doesn't make any sense.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Fixed. Otherwise, that's like saying 'we shouldn't allow Christianity to influence government policy' is racist against white people. Race is immutable, religion is not, and they are not the same thing.

That isn't to say people can't motivated by both racism and religious prejudices simultaneously, but to say that every instance of one is entirely reducible to the other just doesn't make any sense.

I agree with your post in general, but the specific example you're arguing is probably suspect. While race and religion aren't the same thing, the vast, vast majority of Sikhs belong to the same race. From the perspective of a bigoted RCMP officer I doubt there is much of a distinction.

Also, the Sikh community petitioned to be added as an ethnicity to the US census, which was granted 2 years ago. So at least some of that group identify that way.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/sikh...e-7907961.html

Basically, while you are 100% right that not EVERY instance of one can be reduced to to the other, this specific instance we are discussing probably can.

[TorqueDog]

Just a guess mixed with my own personal experience, but if surveyed you'd likely find that most of the people against it are also of the more 'enthusiastic' type of Christian who generally recoil against any faith which is not the One True Religion™ (ie: theirs). So I don't think Eric Vail is at all being pedantic to point that out.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Fixed. Otherwise, that's like saying 'we shouldn't allow Christianity to influence government policy' is racist against white people. Race is immutable, religion is not, and they are not the same thing.

That isn't to say people can't motivated by both racism and religious prejudices simultaneously, but to say that every instance of one is entirely reducible to the other just doesn't make any sense.

You're being pretty pedantic...could we agree on a charge of xenophobia?

I'm a pretty staunch athiest and I'd even say I'm fairly intolerant of religion - specifically to religious practices that infringe on the rights/freedoms of others. I can't say I'm a scholar on Sikhism or turbans, but I don't see any good-faith argument here (and neither did the SCC).

[TorqueDog]

If it was xenophobia, then Sikhs born in Canada wouldn't need to worry about it, nor does it explain why the turban itself is the issue, as they suggest removing the turban would satisfy their grievances. Words have meanings. Racism refers to race, xenophobia refers to the discrimination against people from other countries. This issue is squarely focused on a religious symbol, and there are most certainly people of other races and from other countries in the RCMP. I don't support the argument that they should have to remove their turbans to be uniformed RCMP officers, but let's call it what it is.

Serious question, why is it so hard for you to take it at face value that this is religious discrimination? What is the advantage in painting this as racism over religious discrimination when -- in the context of employment -- both are illegal to begin with?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If it was xenophobia, then Sikhs born in Canada wouldn't need to worry about it, nor does it explain why the turban itself is the issue, as they suggest removing the turban would satisfy their grievances. Words have meanings. Racism refers to race, xenophobia refers to the discrimination against people from other countries. This issue is squarely focused on a religious symbol, and there are most certainly people of other races and from other countries in the RCMP. I don't support the argument that they should have to remove their turbans to be uniformed RCMP officers, but let's call it what it is.

Serious question, why is it so hard for you to take it at face value that this is religious discrimination? What is the advantage in painting this as racism over religious discrimination when -- in the context of employment -- both are illegal to begin with?

xe·​no·​pho·​bia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

If we're projecting a degree of 'guessing' onto these peoples motivations, do you really think there is much distinction between racism/xenophobia/religious discrimination? I'd also guess that most opponents don't distinguish turbans as a religious symbol vs. a cultural symbol.

I'd also guess that these are the folks who might ask a brown guy
"where are you from?"
Answer: Brampton.
"no, I mean where are you from?"


I'll re-state it to Intolerant ####heads if it makes you happy?

100% of opponents to turbans are intolerant ####heads.
Probably 99% of them are also xenophobic.
Probably 99% of them are also racist.


Serious question, why does the specificity of the label matter to you? Do you see a good-faith argument here?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If we're projecting a degree of 'guessing' onto these peoples motivations, do you really think there is much distinction between racism/xenophobia/religious discrimination? I'd also guess that most opponents don't distinguish turbans as a religious symbol vs. a cultural symbol.

Racism is not religious discrimination, religious discrimination is not racism. As someone of middle eastern background, I am quite comfortable in saying there is absolutely a distinction and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'll re-state it to Intolerant ####heads if it makes you happy?

Go right ahead, although I don't think 'intolerant ####heads' are specifically mentioned in any human rights or labour code I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Serious question, why does the specificity of the label matter to you? Do you see a good-faith argument here?

Why does using the correct word bother you so much? Again, is there some inherent advantage in claiming race-based discrimination over faith-based discrimination I'm not seeing?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Racism is not religious discrimination, religious discrimination is not racism. As someone of middle eastern background, I am quite comfortable in saying there is absolutely a distinction and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Of course there is a distinction. And also a lot of overlap.

Do you really see a distinction in the case of intolerant ####head mounties vs. turbans?

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Serious question, why is it so hard for you to take it at face value that this is religious discrimination? What is the advantage in painting this as racism over religious discrimination when -- in the context of employment -- both are illegal to begin with?

"Keep the RCMP Canadian" was the slogan, pins were made with racist caricatures, the underbelly was still rooted in traditional racism even if you think the policy was simply religious discrimination.

But antisemitism in the 20th century, Islamophobia after 9/11, the residential school system, all based in theory against religion and not race but all have been called racism. It's really just a difference of lexicon, arguing semantics. And part of that is because race is a social construct, there is no scientific basis, there's no clear definition, there's no consistency. It's really even a relatively recent concept with people differentiating themselves by religion or citizenship long before. Were Irish immigrants in the 19th century white? Italians? Are white people Caucasian, wtf is a Caucasian? Is is racist if you were discriminating against Hispanics? Can someone claim Jewish ancestry if they aren't practicing the religion?

Race as a concept is a pseudoscience based on a long debunk idea of the fives races. If race doesn't exist, how can racism? It's now simply how we want to define the word, again semantics. You have a narrower view than I, fair enough (but so did Whoopi that got her in some trouble), we can agree then to call it simply discrimination.

But strip away all of the fluff and you have a dominating majority of 'white' Juedo-Christians, something that was intertwined and defining of the culture that resulted in white supremacy. Outsiders (either religious or 'racial' difference) were discriminated against. When those outsiders were both different in religion and appearance, such as Sikhs, the vitriol was amplified.


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ch-theresa-may

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...m-muslims-hate

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...-21st-century/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...science-africa

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ted-ncna896806

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Of course there is a distinction. And also a lot of overlap.

Do you really see a distinction in the case of intolerant ####head mounties vs. turbans?

Nope, the Mounties were being racist and religiously discriminatory dbags.

I still think Eric Vail pointing out the distinction and it being dismissed as it "pretty much just racism" is incorrect, but I digress and concede as the thread is sliding into the ditch.