Chapeau a Quebec!!!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Good on Quebec for sticking to its policy. It's not about racism. It's about security and safety.

Quebec right on Muslims

By JORDAN MICHAEL SMITH

While nobody was watching, Quebec quietly became the most self-confident province in the country. A series of events over the past few years have shown Quebec to be proud of its liberalism, proud of Western civilization and proud of itself.

The latest involves the Quebec government giving a Muslim woman who wants to be a prison guard a choice: She could either remove her hijab or she could train to be a prison guard. But she could not do both. The woman chose the hjiab.

Predictably, Muslim advocacy groups have been crying racism. “It is an ultimatum, remove the hijab or you’re out of here,” said the head of the Muslim Council of Britain. “That’s not a security issue, this is much more a bigoted issue.”

The government stuck to its guns.

Chapeau!!!

[BadCompany]

While this will, and is, being seeing through the window of racism, cultural identity, accommodation and all that, I really think it's more of a civil liberties issues, than anything else. More in line with the seat belt law, or the motorcycle helmet law, than with radical Islam, or what have you.

Think about it; who gets hurt if she wears a hijab and is attacked by an inmate? Nobody but her, right? Much like nobody else gets hurt if you crash your motorcycle into a telephone pole while you're not wearing a helmet. Or, to keep the theme of this board, play hockey while not wearing a visor.

The REAL question, to me, anyways, is at what point does the government have the right, or perhaps obligation, to regulate dangerous and reckless behavior that only hurts the person doing the behavior? Do they have any right at all? Should it be every man and woman for himself (properly educated to the consequences, of course), or should society protect it's members from themselves?

If she wants to wear a hijab to work, knowing full well that it increases the chances she could be killed, should anyone stop her?

[franko]

badcompany said:

While this will, and is, being seeing through the window of racism, cultural identity, accommodation and all that, I really think it's more of a civil liberties issues, than anything else. More in line with the seat belt law, or the motorcycle helmet law, than with radical Islam, or what have you.

Think about it; who gets hurt if she wears a hijab and is attacked by an inmate? Nobody but her, right? Much like nobody else gets hurt if you crash your motorcycle into a telephone pole while you're not wearing a helmet. Or, to keep the theme of this board, play hockey while not wearing a visor.

If she wants to wear a hijab to work, knowing full well that it increases the chances she could be killed, should anyone stop her?

And so continues the debate: personal freedom vrs. government intervention.

Seatbelts, helmet: I have no problem. I get hurt if someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and is in a serious accident -- I pay the hospital and rehab bills through my taxes (of course, banning cars would do away with auto accidents . . . ). But if the line stops at personal safety, we all take risks. Bungee jumping, sky diving, breathing . . .

One problem is precedent. Why shouldn't she be allowed? Sikhs are allowed turbans in the RCMP.

A second problem is foresight: if something happens to her you know someone -- her union, even -- will ask why she was allowed to do this when management knew there would be risks; further, that my acceptance of possible risk means absolutely nothing in a lawsuit. Case in point: we have parents sign a waiver when we provide off-site activities for our programs. Our lawyer has told us that the only thing a waiver does is make a parent think twice before suing.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

If she wants to wear a hijab to work, knowing full well that it increases the chances she could be killed, should anyone stop her?

IMHO, yes, someone should stop her. Here's what I think, BC.

It's not like the legion where all we're talking about is a tradition of "no hats in the mess" and pissing off some veterans (though being a vet I support my traditions). There are rules in place for guards, sorry ... corrections officers, that are there for their protection.

And if may not just be the protection of that particular individual we may be talking about. For instance, if that hijab is used to strangle a female, how many other corrections officers have to called in to subdue the situation? Now, there are more people involved.

It's like, should we allow ceremonial daggers in high schools? Well, we bent over on that one, the increased violence in our schools not withstanding. But, where does it end? Should we allow corrections officers to carry their ceremonial daggers as well?

To be honest, I'm not worried about either the boy in school or the corrections officer pulling out their knives. I'm worried about the bullies at school or the sociopath in prison that will use it on someone else. And if it is used on someone else, how many other people become involved? How many students will rush to the rescue of the victim. Corrections officers will because it's their job.

My question is, what happens then? Does the Canadian judicial process take its course or does Islamic justice dictate an "eye for an eye." Just on these premises I feel rules are in place for a reason. To protect the individual.

If they feel their rights have been violated then they should look elsewhere for work. If they truely want to work in the field then perhaps they should comply to the regulations. After all it's not only their security we're talking about. It could be someone else's.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

franko said:

A second problem is foresight: if something happens to her you know someone -- her union, even -- will ask why she was allowed to do this when management knew there would be risks; further, that my acceptance of possible risk means absolutely nothing in a lawsuit. Case in point: we have parents sign a waiver when we provide off-site activities for our programs. Our lawyer has told us that the only thing a waiver does is make a parent think twice before suing.

You hit the nail on the head there .... civil law dictates that one must do everything that a reasonably competant person would do in the same situation.

I recall I was on a bridge construction site one year. I was harping on my employees to wear their PPE (personal protection equipment) when they entered the job-site. The hard hats we had were, admittedly, bulky and clumsy. When you bent over they did tend to fall off. Well a few of my employees came to me after a few weeks of me constantly on them (and a few written reprimands), and gave me a piece of paper. It was signed by about 10 of the employees and basically said "We understand and accept the risks of not wearing hard hats, and waive (my name) of any liability". I looked up at them and asked them if they expected me to sign it ... they said yes ... I said well that isn't going to happen ... and they asked why, the liability was out of my hands ... I ripped it up and threw it in the garbage and told them "if I sign that, then all it will be used as, is proof I knew you were out there in potential danger and I'll be prosecuted"

The hijab can be ripped off her head and used against her, against another inmate, or against another officer. Who is at danger if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt? EVERYONE. It doesn't take much reasoning to come to the conclusion that a person not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown from the vehicle as a projectile into another vehicle or towards some poor soul walking along the road. If a reasonabe person can come to the conclusion, then it should not be allowed.

[BadCompany]

skilly said:

The hijab can be ripped off her head and used against her, against another inmate, or against another officer. Who is at danger if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt? EVERYONE. It doesn't take much reasoning to come to the conclusion that a person not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown from the vehicle as a projectile into another vehicle or towards some poor soul walking along the road. If a reasonabe person can come to the conclusion, then it should not be allowed.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. A hijab can no more be used against another inmate, or another guard, than a towel or bedsheet can be. The difference is nobody walks around with a towel or bedsheet around their neck. And in the history of cars, I don't think anybody has been hit and killed by a person flying out of their car and striking an innocent bystander.

As for the rest of what you are saying, and what franco and Dis are saying, essentially it boils down to our society being such a "not my fault" culture that we are actually afraid that people won't take accountability for the very actions they demand the freedom to perform. "I don't want to have to wear a helmet at work, but I retain the right to sue you if I get hurt on the job." Sadly, this is very true. We've become so fixated on assigning blame, that we've all but abjected personal responsibility from everything. "It's because I was discriminated against, or my parents were discriminated against, or the school didn't teach me properly, or the government didn't do enough to protect me. Give me money." These rules aren't in place to protect the individual from themselves, they are in place to protect the rest of society from the individual, but not for the obvious, safety reasons. Monetary reasons.

There is probably a much bigger issue at play here, with this hijab thing, but it's not racism.

[franko]

badcompany said:

As for the rest of what you are saying, and what franco and Dis are saying, essentially it boils down to our society being such a "not my fault" culture that we are actually afraid that people won't take accountability for the very actions they demand the freedom to perform. "I don't want to have to wear a helmet at work, but I retain the right to sue you if I get hurt on the job." Sadly, this is very true. We've become so fixated on assigning blame, that we've all but abjected personal responsibility from everything.

Exactly: I'm not responsible for my actions -- everything is someone else's fault.

Clipped this a few years back:

Kane Rundle, 22, filed a lawsuit for $1 million (Aus.) against the New South Wales State Rail company in Australia, based on his severe injuries from a 1994 incident. Rundle is brain-damaged because he hit his head while leaning out of a moving train, spraying graffiti. Rundle's lawyers believe the company knew that some passengers were spraying graffiti out of train windows and thus should have done more to prevent them from doing it. [The West Australian, 9-4-01]

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

badcompany said:

As for the rest of what you are saying, and what franco and Dis are saying, essentially it boils down to our society being such a "not my fault" culture that we are actually afraid that people won't take accountability for the very actions they demand the freedom to perform. "I don't want to have to wear a helmet at work, but I retain the right to sue you if I get hurt on the job." Sadly, this is very true. We've become so fixated on assigning blame, that we've all but abjected personal responsibility from everything.

Exactly: I'm not responsible for my actions -- everything is someone else's fault.

Clipped this a few years back:

Kane Rundle, 22, filed a lawsuit for $1 million (Aus.) against the New South Wales State Rail company in Australia, based on his severe injuries from a 1994 incident. Rundle is brain-damaged because he hit his head while leaning out of a moving train, spraying graffiti. Rundle's lawyers believe the company knew that some passengers were spraying graffiti out of train windows and thus should have done more to prevent them from doing it. [The West Australian, 9-4-01]

The one statement I removed from my reply to BC was, "... who else becomes accountable if someone else is injured trying to assist the officer wearing a hijab?"

Yes, accountability is a fleeting thing; the Prison for Women (P4W) incident taking the cake there.

As for the hijab ... let's get off the injury thing and think about what other responsibilities a correction officer may have. One of those responsibilities would be the use of CN or CS gas in crowd control. There's no way in hell this woman will be able to get that gas mask on properly with a jihab on her head. I used to run gas huts for about 14 years in the military (put thought soldiers and CSC officers at times). As a precaution we used to have bearded soldiers use vasaline to complete the seals on their gas masks. Wearing a hijab she would have leakage everywhere and would have to be removed from the fray. She'd not only have tears running down her face and her skin burning, but she'd be absolutely useless as part of an effective crowd control team. And, it's entirely possible she might need the assistance of another officer just to get her the hell out of there as the gas is released. That, or just stand behind the security of some walls while she watches her peers get their noses broken.

Man ... that would go over well ... no?

So, if she had to remove it so the gas mask would seal properly, then she can remove it the whole time she'd be a work. Plain and simple. Don't want to do? Guess she doesn't want a job all that badly. Next applicant please.

This should not be an issue whatsoever. Kudos for Quebec sticking to their policies on this one. They're not bending over to pick up the soap at the expense of the integrity of their policies.

And I note that no one is apologizing for a change. That's rather refreshing for me too. Read that the way you want guys. Could care less.

Cheers.

Late note: Forgive the directness guys. Not aimed at anyone here on the board. Just tired of our institutions accommodating all the time.

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

skilly said:

The hijab can be ripped off her head and used against her, against another inmate, or against another officer. Who is at danger if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt? EVERYONE. It doesn't take much reasoning to come to the conclusion that a person not wearing a seatbelt can be thrown from the vehicle as a projectile into another vehicle or towards some poor soul walking along the road. If a reasonabe person can come to the conclusion, then it should not be allowed.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. A hijab can no more be used against another inmate, or another guard, than a towel or bedsheet can be. The difference is nobody walks around with a towel or bedsheet around their neck. And in the history of cars, I don't think anybody has been hit and killed by a person flying out of their car and striking an innocent bystander.

Well we can agree (I hope) that people who don't wear their seat belts can get thrown from their cars. Someone here about 2 years ago was thrown 30 feet I believe. Now if we can agree to that, then how much a leap of faith is it that someone could be thrown into the opposing car in a head on collision, or thrown into a pedestrian zone (all depends on the crash). I am sure there has been incidents where someone has been killed because something was thrown from a car (in a crash) ...... it is the reason that police tell you shouldn't have any loose things in your car, they should be in the trunk. No one obeys it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was against the law. (of topic a bit, but it is clearly written here that cell phone use is against the law - so how much a leap of faith is it that applying make-up and eating should also be against the law?)

Without a seat belt you could also be thrown into other people in your own car. So you wouldnt be able to have passengers, or you would be putting them at risk ....

[Doc Holliday]

Prison guards wear a uniform. They don’t wear a turban, they don’t wear monk cloak, they don’t wear a racoon hat and a tutu, they wear a uniform that is approved, stamped and sealed. That’s it. As intolerable as it may sound, that’s that and I agree that yes, if you can’t comply go to work elsewhere.
Accommodations have become a plague in Quebec.

…A YWCA forced to tint its windows because a community was insulted when they caught glimpses of women doing work outs.
…a kid going to school with a religious dagger.
…women wanting to go vote with their face hidden.
…female police officers asked not to intervene in certain districts because it is wildly populated by a certain community that don’t recognize authority coming from women…
…renaming the traditional giant Christmas Tree in downtown Montreal, tree of what-have-you in order to avoid shocking certain communities…
…A no-pork allowed, sugar shack…
…having to fight off the Charia in our own land…

…and the list can go on indefinitely.

A personal anecdote: I was a boss working in a production environment and one of my employee had a certain religious occurrence (can’t remember the name of it), when he couldn’t not eat until the sun sets. He was starving during the day which hindered his concentration greatly and the minute the sun would go down he’d run to the cafeteria to eat figues and weeds and what have you (outside of the company’s given lunch or break time of course) I met him, told him that this behaviour was not acceptable, that his production was suffering because of his starving state and that lunch time and breaks were not for employees to take at their own will. I got called racist, intolerant, etc... the whole nine yard.

I’m all for immigration but at some point and time you need to ask yourself do these people chose to come here because they like our community and want to be part of it or do they want to replicate their own community in a foreign land? I’m personally dead set against the latter and I firmly believe that this attitude nourishes racism and intolerance.

As a nation we have struggled and fought to get religion out of our schools, politic and economic system to push it back in Churches. It’s not about personal liberties and what have you, it’s about being in a society that has rules, guidelines, traditions, etc… You want to be part of it: welcome aboard. You don’t want it? The World is yours to find a place more suitable to you. My stance on accommodation is none of them. Zero, zilch.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

docholliday said:

I’m all for immigration but at some point and time you need to ask yourself do these people chose to come here because they like our community and want to be part of it or do they want to replicate their own community in a foreign land? I’m personally dead set against the latter and I firmly believe that this attitude nourishes racism and intolerance.

Racism and intolerance on who's part?

As a nation we have struggled and fought to get religion out of our schools, politic and economic system to push it back in Churches. It’s not about personal liberties and what have you, it’s about being in a society that has rules, guidelines, traditions, etc… You want to be part of it: welcome aboard. You don’t want it? The World is yours to find a place more suitable to you. My stance on accommodation is none of them. Zero, zilch.

Bye-bye and good luck.

The time is coming to learn Mandarin and practice Islam (even if only nominally). Time and changes. History indicates that these "accommodations" will likely occur. Oh well. It isn't easy being a human bean.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

Late note: Forgive the directness guys. Not aimed at anyone here on the board. Just tired of our institutions accommodating all the time.

It started by letting woman vote and it hasn't stopped since.....

Dis, I agree with you. I am getting tired of people demanding rights based on religion. I would like to see religion banned from schools and even better yet, no finiancing of ANY religion based schools INCLUDING Roman Catholic.

I am waiting for the first vote sucking, butt licking politicians to bend over on Shaira Law.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

docholliday said:

Prison guards wear a uniform. They don’t wear a turban, they don’t wear monk cloak, they don’t wear a racoon hat and a tutu, they wear a uniform that is approved, stamped and sealed. That’s it. As intolerable as it may sound, that’s that and I agree that yes, if you can’t comply go to work elsewhere.

I used to think this way also. However, one of the worst decisions ever made by the Canadian Forces was to accommodate a recruit who cited religious reasons for wearing a turban as part of his uniform.

The Forces spent $30,000 trying to come up with a bulletproof turban. When they did, the young recruit, having proved his point, promptly got out of the service.

BTW, the RCMP have authorized turbans as part of their dress as well.

Accommodations have become a plague in Quebec.

It's become the Canadian way.

…women wanting to go vote with their face hidden.

One of Europe's most liberal societies, Holland, has banned the wearing of burkas in public places. To them it's a security issue. To the Muslims it's a violation.

A personal anecdote: I was a boss working in a production environment and one of my employee had a certain religious occurrence (can’t remember the name of it), when he couldn’t not eat until the sun sets. He was starving during the day which hindered his concentration greatly and the minute the sun would go down he’d run to the cafeteria to eat figues and weeds and what have you (outside of the company’s given lunch or break time of course) I met him, told him that this behaviour was not acceptable, that his production was suffering because of his starving state and that lunch time and breaks were not for employees to take at their own will. I got called racist, intolerant, etc... the whole nine yard.

I have friends who honour Ramadan, Doc. I remember an old friend who played on the same basketball team as me. He'd work up a major sweat like the rest of us but couldn't even take a drink. He couldn't focus all that well in class because he was dehydrated.

I don't know the solution to this one. However, if concessions are made, say the employee would only work day shifts until Ramadan was over, then that would distance the rest of the staff from you and the lad in question. Everyone has to be treated equally, granted. But, not everyone practices the same religion.

I’m all for immigration but at some point and time you need to ask yourself do these people chose to come here because they like our community and want to be part of it or do they want to replicate their own community in a foreign land? I’m personally dead set against the latter and I firmly believe that this attitude nourishes racism and intolerance.

There's a difference between immigrating and integrating. What is most disturbing to me is the reluctance of some immigrants to integrate into Canadian culture. However, why should they? The Liberals started multiculturalism decades ago and slowly but surely, we've been slowly losing our identity over time.

What's worse is that we're made to apologize time and time again for speaking our minds. Imagine if I were to complain about immigrants not integrating to the Canadian way of life. I'd be singled out and ostracized. Meanwhile, I'd be forced to issue a public apology.

As a nation we have struggled and fought to get religion out of our schools, politic and economic system to push it back in Churches. It’s not about personal liberties and what have you, it’s about being in a society that has rules, guidelines, traditions, etc… You want to be part of it: welcome aboard. You don’t want it? The World is yours to find a place more suitable to you. My stance on accommodation is none of them. Zero, zilch.

I have no problem accommodating providing it's a two-way street. Right now it's a definite one-way street especially if you're an indigenous person.

Now don't get me wrong, Doc. I have friends of different ethnic origins. I have no problem with their customs or their 'ways,' so to speak. But, they also have no problem with mine either.

It's the extremists, the ones doing things simply to prove a point, that have miffed me.

If this person wants to join CSC, then she will simply have to abide by the rules. And as soon as she started crying racism, I'd call her to the carpet. Prove it or suffer the consequences of being wrong.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

It's like, should we allow ceremonial daggers in high schools? Well, we bent over on that one, the increased violence in our schools not withstanding. But, where does it end? Should we allow corrections officers to carry their ceremonial daggers as well?

FWIW, I went to a high school where there was a substantial number of students who carried ceremonial daggers, and everyone just accepted it. There was never an incident involving a dagger.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

BTW, the RCMP have authorized turbans as part of their dress as well.

What's your objection to this?

[PTH]

I agree with the sentiment Doc, but I think people are making too much out of very little....

docholliday said:

…A YWCA forced to tint its windows because a community was insulted when they caught
glimpses of women doing work outs.

The community asked, the Y said yes - they weren't threatened in any way.

…a kid going to school with a religious dagger.

No more dangerous than what tons of kids have in their schoolbags, and this dagger was sealed.... and in this case, the kids parents had to go to court, if the school had been more open to discussion, something in-between might have been found.

…women wanting to go vote with their face hidden.

That's the DGE's stance, no women actually asked for that.

…female police officers asked not to intervene in certain districts because it is wildly populated by a certain community that don’t recognize authority coming from women…

That was never even official policy, internal discussions got leaked.

…renaming the traditional giant Christmas Tree in downtown Montreal, tree of what-have-you in order to avoid shocking certain communities…

Silly, yeah.

…A no-pork allowed, sugar shack…

Well, it's private enterprise, it's no worse than a Jewish hospital serving Kosher food.

…having to fight off the Charia in our own land…

Agreed that we have to be careful not to let things get out of hand, but I think people are vastly over-reacting.... especially outside of Montreal - the farther we are from immigrant centers, the more we seem not to realise to what extent they do in fact integrate supprisingly quickly.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

BTW, the RCMP have authorized turbans as part of their dress as well.

What's your objection to this?

Was pointing out to Doc that other concessions have been made other departments. Just about any uniform can be altered nowadays.

However, crowd control is also part of a mounties responsibility. If they end up using riot control agents then the turban comes off and the gas mask goes on. No compromises.

If I were a supervisor in charge of crowd control, this would also apply to a hijab in CSC.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

docholliday said:

…renaming the traditional giant Christmas Tree in downtown Montreal, tree of what-have-you in order to avoid shocking certain communities…

The city of Halifax gives a Christmas tree to the city of Boston every year. Last Xmas the city of Boston was going to call it the "Boston Holiday Tree". The city of Halifax told them they weren't going to give it to them if they didnt call it a Christmas tree ... I know they gave Boston the tree, but I am not sure if Boston kept the Christmas label or not.

A personal anecdote: I was a boss working in a production environment and one of my employee had a certain religious occurrence (can’t remember the name of it), when he couldn’t not eat until the sun sets. He was starving during the day which hindered his concentration greatly and the minute the sun would go down he’d run to the cafeteria to eat figues and weeds and what have you (outside of the company’s given lunch or break time of course) I met him, told him that this behaviour was not acceptable, that his production was suffering because of his starving state and that lunch time and breaks were not for employees to take at their own will. I got called racist, intolerant, etc... the whole nine yard.

Hummpfff ... you had it easy ... I got called a racist because I wouldn't give a Metis his "berry picking day". He tried, and you could say succeeded, to convince me that the three "native" groups in Labrador have indian rights which includes days where they are allowed to go pick berries, employers have to accomodate them. I called the head office to see if I had to give this guy the day off with pay ..... they said he could go, but he'd be docked pay. Well, that started my problems in Labrador. Insensitive to their issues I was labelled.

[CentreHice]

skilly said:

docholliday said:

…renaming the traditional giant Christmas Tree in downtown Montreal, tree of what-have-you in order to avoid shocking certain communities…

The city of Halifax gives a Christmas tree to the city of Boston every year. Last Xmas the city of Boston was going to call it the "Boston Holiday Tree". The city of Halifax told them they weren't going to give it to them if they didnt call it a Christmas tree ... I know they gave Boston the tree, but I am not sure if Boston kept the Christmas label or not.

A personal anecdote: I was a boss working in a production environment and one of my employee had a certain religious occurrence (can’t remember the name of it), when he couldn’t not eat until the sun sets. He was starving during the day which hindered his concentration greatly and the minute the sun would go down he’d run to the cafeteria to eat figues and weeds and what have you (outside of the company’s given lunch or break time of course) I met him, told him that this behaviour was not acceptable, that his production was suffering because of his starving state and that lunch time and breaks were not for employees to take at their own will. I got called racist, intolerant, etc... the whole nine yard.

Hummpfff ... you had it easy ... I got called a racist because I wouldn't give a Metis his "berry picking day". He tried, and you could say succeeded, to convince me that the three "native" groups in Labrador have indian rights which includes days where they are allowed to go pick berries, employers have to accomodate them. I called the head office to see if I had to give this guy the day off with pay ..... they said he could go, but he'd be docked pay. Well, that started my problems in Labrador. Insensitive to their issues I was labelled.

I'm guessing he didn't bring you any berries..........

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

machabby said:

What's your objection to this?

Was pointing out to Doc that other concessions have been made other departments. Just about any uniform can be altered nowadays.

However, crowd control is also part of a mounties responsibility. If they end up using riot control agents then the turban comes off and the gas mask goes on. No compromises.

If I were a supervisor in charge of crowd control, this would also apply to a hijab in CSC.

Cheers.

I don't know anything about gas masks but I don't see why the turban would necessarily interfere. Do the horses wear gas masks too?

Cheers.

[Skilly]

centrehice said:

I'm guessing he didn't bring you any berries..........

He didn't give me any berries, but oddly enough he did give me some (looks around to make sure no environmentalists around ) bottled-nosed dolphin, and Arctic Char. My future wife to be and I went berry picking on our own one Sunday. Her father loves bakeapples, so we thought we'd pick a few bottles for him .... well anyone who has ever picked bakeapples know they grow in and around bogs .... lets just say I was lucky that my wife found a nice tree branch to help me out ... ... damn berries!

[franko]

habsaddict said:

I am waiting for the first vote sucking, butt licking politicians to bend over on Shaira Law.

Hey, McGuinty said it won't happen, and we can believe him, can't we? After all, he kept his promises . . . no new taxes in Ontario in the last four years, a better health care system, . . .

[franko]

On the one hand, she is sticking up for what she beliees -- something that we "Canadians" don't do very well/often.

On the other hand, many times it seems to be "believe of convenience" [Skilly's berry-picking buddy]: at one time I worked in an abattoir and the three weeks before Christmas we'd work Satrudays so we'd have the week between Christmas and New Year's off. One old guy refused to work: he said he was Seventh Day Adventist. Didn't affect the way he lived and he in fact mocked those who even thought about attending a church service, but he was "a committed Adventist".

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Was pointing out to Doc that other concessions have been made other departments. Just about any uniform can be altered nowadays.

However, crowd control is also part of a mounties responsibility. If they end up using riot control agents then the turban comes off and the gas mask goes on. No compromises.

If I were a supervisor in charge of crowd control, this would also apply to a hijab in CSC.

Cheers.

I don't know anything about gas masks but I don't see why the turban would necessarily interfere. Do the horses wear gas masks too?

Cheers.

Well, wearing a turban with a gas mask presents one major problem. I don't know how you can adjust the straps tightly enough around a turban to complete the seal you're going to need. As I was saying above, it's bad enough fitting gas masks on lads with beards. We have to provide them with vasaline so the mask can complete the seal through the beard itself.

But, even then the vasaline won't last forever. It eventually wears off, the seal is broken and there is leakage. Not so bad with riot control agent, but enough to take the officer out of the action long enough to repaire the leakage.

It's the same situation with the female CSC applicant was well. There's no way she'll be able to wear her religious headware and be able to effectively wear a gas mask.

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

On the one hand, she is sticking up for what she beliees -- something that we "Canadians" don't do very well/often.

I've tried speaking my mind publicly quite often, Franko. I've been lucky enough to have had several letters to the editor published over the years.

However, I have several friends who are reluctant to speak their beliefs publicly because they're afraid of being singled out. And it happens quite regularly. Here in Kingston we had the marriage of two gay Royal Military College students plastered all over the front page of the local newspaper. It was a big deal.

My opinion here at work was, I thought it was inappropriate to be putting that on the front page. I basically said it was just another wedding and should be buried in the same section as the rest of the weddings.

But, be that as it may, I was labelled a bigot, Archie Bunker, what have you. To some of the others it was all about my bias against the gay issue. In fact, it had nothing to do with it. But, I ended up defending my opinion to a group of co-workers who simply couldn't see where I was coming from.

So, as a parting comment I just left them with, "... well, I want the same consideration for Dis Jr when he gets married. I want it on the front page. " That actually put it into perspective for some of them, while the others simply didn't get it.

While we're on the topic of gay marriages, I've seen people centred out in the media for trying to speak their minds in opposition to them. After getting that sort of expsoure, who wants the aggrivation of saying "the wrong thing?" And here I am thinking the media should be neutral.

Gag me with a forklift.

[franko]

Dis:

Speak negatively regarding gay relationships/marriages and you are homophobic.
Speak negatively regarding radical Muslims and your are Islamaphobic.
Speak negatively against what is/was traditional belief in Canada (Christmas, marriage between one man/one woman (we now have 3-parent families) and you are progressive and openminded.

At one time we could discuss differences of opinion and walk away as friends even if we disagreed. Now people take offence at the slightest idea of difference. So much for an open society. The pendulum is swinging, too far.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

Dis:

Speak negatively regarding gay relationships/marriages and you are homophobic.
Speak negatively regarding radical Muslims and your are Islamaphobic.

Speak negatively regarding Israeli attacks on civilians and you are anti-semitic.

Speak negatively against what is/was traditional belief in Canada (Christmas, marriage between one man/one woman (we now have 3-parent families) and you are progressive and openminded.

I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with that one.

[franko]

machabby said:

franko said:

Dis:

Speak negatively regarding gay relationships/marriages and you are homophobic.
Speak negatively regarding radical Muslims and your are Islamaphobic.

Speak negatively regarding Israeli attacks on civilians and you are anti-semitic.

That too is true. But speak negatively of Hezbollah hiding amongst the civilians and you are pro-Israeli.

machabby said:

Speak negatively against what is/was traditional belief in Canada (Christmas, marriage between one man/one woman (we now have 3-parent families) and you are progressive and openminded.

I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with that one.

Maybe . . . maybe a bit . . . but not much.

Turn it around, then. Speak positively for what was once known as the traditional family unit means that you are not progressive and openminded; speak on behalf of the GLBT community and you are.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

machabby said:

Speak negatively regarding Israeli attacks on civilians and you are anti-semitic.

That too is true. But speak negatively of Hezbollah hiding amongst the civilians and you are pro-Israeli.

machabby said:

I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with that one.

Maybe . . . maybe a bit . . . but not much.

Turn it around, then. Speak positively for what was once known as the traditional family unit means that you are not progressive and openminded; speak on behalf of the GLBT community and you are.

I still think you're exaggerating.... It's a little like the Christian right that basically controls the US clamouring about a "war on Christmas" and pretending that they are some oppressed minority.

It comes down to people believing that every issue is black and white, that there are no nuances. When people demonize anyone who disagrees with them it makes it pretty tough to find common ground, and for some reason most political leaders seem to think that demonizing is the primary function of their office (cf. the Cold War).

[CentreHice]

machabby said:

franko said:

Dis:

Speak negatively regarding gay relationships/marriages and you are homophobic.
Speak negatively regarding radical Muslims and your are Islamaphobic.

Speak negatively regarding Israeli attacks on civilians and you are anti-semitic.

I've even heard of people who speak out against Israel's decisions being called "Holocaust deniers". Now that's a stretch.