Here we go...................again

[Kip Powick]

A few inches of skirt length have led to an airport security guard's suspension.

The skirt is too long – not too short – to please the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Halima Muse, a practising Muslim, has been laid off without pay until she agrees to wear a standard uniform that includes either slacks or a skirt falling at the knee.

Instead, she has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission saying she is the target of religious discrimination, as Islam instructs that she dress modestly in a way that covers the body and conceals its curves.

"My skirt is not that much different – it's a bit longer," she said yesterday from her home not far from Pearson airport, where she has worked for more than five years. "It's not about style, it's about my dignity."

Muse, 33, is the single mother of one teenage son. She came to Canada from Somalia in 1989 and says she enjoyed working at the airport and never had problems with her immediate employer, Garda of Canada.

"I love my job," said Muse, who scanned passengers and luggage in the security area. "I like the people working with me. All the managers are nice to me. Most of the travellers are nice. We meet lots of different kinds of people ...

"It's flexible," she also said. "I pray five times a day for five minutes."

Until February of this year, Muse wore slacks with her uniform but never liked them, her brief to the commission says. They showed the shape of her body.

She asked the Garda employee in charge of uniforms for a skirt longer than the standard one. No such skirt existed, she was told, but she negotiated a solution. Matching colour and material, she made her own skirt that reached the ankle.

For six months all went well, Muse said in the interview. Then a Garda manager said she must conform to regulations.

"The regulations are established by (the air transport security authority)," said Garda communications director Joe Gavaghan.

"We neither set those requirements nor can we interpret them ...

"We immediately went to (the federal authority) indicating what the situation was and asking them to please direct us as to what we could do. They came back and had made the decision that there are two alternatives: Women can wear a skirt that is knee length or they can wear pants."

No issues of safety or security have arisen, said Mihad Fahmy on behalf of the Ottawa-based Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, which co-represents Muse in the human rights case along with her union, Teamsters Local 847.

"This is the standard: `This is the uniform, end of story,' " Fahmy said, summing up the federal position as she understands it.

"This isn't even a case of hijab, of a headscarf not being allowed in the workplace, which is often what we come across," she said. "This is just the length of a skirt."

By law, an employer must show nothing can be reasonably done to accommodate religious belief, said Jo-anne Pickel, a Toronto lawyer acting for the union.

"We say that in this case it's very easy to accommodate her religious belief," Pickel said. "All she needs is a skirt that is slightly longer."

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority will take questions next week, a spokesperson said.

Muse's suspension from work happened in stages. On Aug. 11, Garda suspended her one day for wearing the ankle-length skirt.

On Aug. 15, she was suspended for three days. On Aug. 22, the penalty became five days. On Aug. 29, she was sent home indefinitely.

"I am talking for all women who would like to wear a long skirt – practising Christians, Jewish, Muslim, all of them," Muse said.

Taking a stand has already cost her, she said. Out of work nearly three months, she is running up debt on a credit card and borrowing money from her brother.

The federal employment insurance agency has refused to qualify her, she said, because she is not officially unemployed – she can go back to her job if she conforms to regulations she considers to violate her religious rights. The welfare department has similarly denied her application, she said.

[CanadaEH]

I can see the controversy in her not being allowed to wear a headscarf that conceals all but her eyes but come on.. we're talking about the length of a skirt. What a joke.

[exGXer]

Maybe they felt that Osama might be hiding under there.

[Guest rattler]

I guess the question that needs to be addressed is this, is an employer whose staff is dressed in a uniform, allowed to set the uniform standard?

Just imagine what our various "uniformed groups" could look like if the concept of a standard uniform was abandoned and instead individual preferences were allowed to deal with religious, comfort , cultural or 'self esteem" issues

-Males wearing uniform skirts in the tropics because they provide more ventilation than pants and therefore could be considered a "health issue"

- 1st officers wearing 4 stripes because the wearing of 3 leads to loss of "self esteem

I believe if you chose employment that requires the wearing of a specific uniform, then that is that. If you don't want to adapt to the uniform, then the exit door is always open.

[Kip Powick]

believe if you chose employment that requires the wearing of a specific uniform, then that is that. If you don't want to adapt to the uniform, then the exit door is always open

Tell that to the RCMP and the CF ..however I am in total agreement with you...but it doesn't happen in Canada...because ...well you know

[AAS]

Tell that to the RCMP

Don't get me started.

[deicer]

This is a case of tolerance.

And in my opinion, it is a lack of tolerance on the part of certain muslims.

We are engaged in a combat mission, where they tell us that they want to kill us because they see our Western lifestyle as being decadent and inferior.

As a Catholic, our main church in the Vatican invites ANYONE to come to visit and enjoy the glory of what is there.

In my experiences, I have enjoyed visiting Anglican Cathedrals, Jewish Temples, and Buddhist Monastaries, and I have always been made to feel welcome.

Why am I not allowed to even enter the city of Mecca???????

When it becomes a religion that encompasses peace, and invites the whole world to, if not join, then at least see and understand what it preaches, then it will demonstrate tolerance in my opinion.

In this case, if it was a case where the complaint about the uniform came at the beginning of employment, then she would have a case. After five years, it only indicates an agenda of intolerance to me.

We should stop tolerating this abuse of our ideals in this country. We have allowed immigrants to come here and avoid the injustices in the countries they are from, and they are using our charter of rights and freedoms to castrate us.

It must end.

Iceman

[Guest rattler]

This is a case of tolerance. 

And in my opinion, it is a lack of tolerance on the part of certain muslims.

We are engaged in a combat mission, where they tell us that they want to kill us because they see our Western lifestyle as being decadent and inferior.

As a Catholic, our main church in the Vatican invites ANYONE to come to visit and enjoy the glory of what is there.

In my experiences, I have enjoyed visiting Anglican Cathedrals, Jewish Temples, and Buddhist Monastaries, and I have always been made to feel welcome.

Why am I not allowed to even enter the city of Mecca???????

When it becomes a religion that encompasses peace, and invites the whole world to, if not join, then at least see and understand what it preaches, then it will demonstrate tolerance in my opinion.

In this case, if it was a case where the complaint about the uniform came at the beginning of employment, then she would have a case.  After five years, it only indicates an agenda of intolerance to me.

We should stop tolerating this abuse of our ideals in this country.  We have allowed immigrants to come here and avoid the injustices in the countries they are from, and they are using our charter of rights and freedoms to castrate us.

It must end.

Iceman

I agree in general with you Deicer but we must also remember that those who attempt to take advantage are the "FEW" or as you said "CERTAIN MUSLIMS" and not the many. In that light, it is even more imperative that we don't give way BUT ALSO VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T CONFUSE "SOME" WITH "ALL".

[deicer]

Rattler

I agree with you whole heartedly.

But as in the past with the Nazis, the 'few' are the ones that caused the most problems.

Again, I will repeat my statement that we are now in World War Three. Just like the Japanese in WW2, there will be honest, peaceful Muslims caught up in the anti-religious sentiment. However, we must step up the fight and close the loopholes that they are using against us.

Have you kept track of the rise in religious based cases and news stories since 9/11? This case, Hajib's at voting booths, religious based schools, Sharia Law.....

Unlike the Western mind that wants revenge right away, the middle eastern mind will wait many years, even generations to strike.

What is happening now is a probing operation. Western society is being gently tested to see what the weaknesses are, and how they can be overcome.

We must be vigilant, and stop this.

We offer them freedom and a better life away from the conflicts that are in that part of the world, and they only wish to overcome us.

Iceman

[CD]

Judo Manitoba refused to allow Muslim girl to compete for wearing hijab

18 Nov, 12:01 AM

WINNIPEG - A Judo Manitoba official reduced an 11-year-old girl to tears Saturday when he refused to allow her to compete in a tournament wearing a hijab, or Muslim head scarf.

While other children squared off in the match at a Winnipeg gym, Hagar Outbih could only watch from the sidelines and wonder why she was singled out.

"He said that I can't fight. If I want to fight I have to take it off or I have to leave," Outbih said as tears rolled down her face.

Hagar's mother, Khadaja, tried to console her daughter.

"As a mom I feel so bad that my daughter would go through this." she said.

Judo Manitoba president Dave Minuk made the ruling.

He said it was based on International Judo Federation guidelines.

"It has nothing to do with religion, it is a safety issue," Minuk said. "It (the hijab) could be used to strangle somebody. It could fall over her face."

The Judo Manitoba ruling is the latest controversy in Canada over the wearing of hijabs by Muslim girls in sports.

In April an international referee said a Tae Kwon Do team of mainly Muslim girls was kicked out of a tournament near Montreal because the sport's rules don't allow hijabs.

The team, made up of girls between eight and 12 years old, is affiliated with a Muslim community centre in Montreal and five of its six girls wear the head scarf.

Last February an 11-year-old Ottawa girl was thrown out of an indoor soccer tournament for refusing to remove her hijab.

A federal Conservative MP as well as the Liberals and the NDP have defended the right of girl's to wear religious head-scarfs.

Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, who is Muslim, has said that kicking kids out of sporting events is not the way to help communities live together in harmony.

Hagar Outbih agrees.

"I think they should change the rules because there are lots of people in the world," she said as she hugged her mom.

"There is not just Christians, there are other religions. They should be fair to everybody."

Outbih plans to write a letter of complaint to Sport Manitoba, an amateur sports organization whose chairman is appointed by the Manitoba government.

In a bid to mollify the girl organizers of the Judo match offered Outbih a participation medal, which she politely refused.

"Because I didn't deserve it. If I keep it it would just be bad memories."

[Guest rattler]

And then there are those who believe that in order to franchise some, others must be disenfranchised. This reverse discrimination is of course considered to be OK.

B.C. NDP aims to boost female, minority candidate numbers

IAN BAILEY

Globe and Mail Update

November 17, 2007 at 10:02 PM EST

VANCOUVER — B.C.'s New Democratic Party have endorsed a policy to set aside some riding nominations for female and minority NDP candidates as part of a plan to boost the presence of these groups in the legislature.

Although endorsed by many MLAs and the party's leader, Carole James, the resolution passed only after a feisty debate on the floor of the New Democrat's last major convention before the system is to be tested in the May, 2009 provincial election.

After it was endorsed, to cheers and applause from about 600 delegates, Ms. James suggested the plan might give her party a partial edge over the governing Liberals in the fight for voter support.

“I think voters are looking for political parties that say, `We know we need to represent the communities,' and the legislature doesn't do that right now,” said Ms. James, who touted the resolution on the convention floor as in sync with NDP commitments to social justice and equality..

“For us to be able to say clearly to people, ‘We want you to be party and we have made room for you to be part of our party' is, I think, a very strong message,” she said in an interview.

“ I don't think voters will be making a decisions based on that. I think voters want to see strong values and they want to see a strong platform, but for many people, it will say to them our doors are open.”

The plan, drafted by a party committee over two years, says:

-Thirty per cent of constituencies not held by New Democrats will be designated for female candidates.

-Ten per cent of such constituencies will be designated for candidates from “under-represented groups,” notably youth, persons of colour, the disabled, aboriginal people and those who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

-When an incumbent New Democrat does not seek re-election, the constituency will be designated automatically for women candidates to ensure woman are running in seats where New Democrats have been previously elected.

Seven of the NDP's 33 MLAs are female, but many supporters of the plan said that was not enough. Ten of 46 Liberal MLAs are female.

Critics of the plan said on the convention floor that it might wrest autonomy from riding associations, that it was anti-democratic, and, in the words of one delegate, “social engineering.”

Stephen Phillips, an alternate delegate from Vancouver-Fairview, spoke against the resolution during the debate and said, after the vote, that he was disappointed at the outcome.

“It's a mistake,” he said, suggesting it might become an issue used against the party by NDP critics.

“There is a possible potential for some disputes to arise where you have a candidate or a person who wishes to seek a nomination in a designated constituency and is not permitted to do so.”

Chad Pederson, director of communications for the B.C. Liberal Party, said the party has never seen a need for a fixed program like that adopted by the NDP.

“We have always taken the stance that we want to run the best candidate possible. Affirmative action has never been an issue for us because the Premier has always reached out to attract women and minority candidates,” Mr. Pederson said in an interview.

He also noted that the Liberals have a women's commission to encourage female candidates, and a fund to assist with the expenses of female candidates.

Earlier Saturday, Ms. James made the most of recent controversies in the legislature over such issues as Liberals handing out free, new baby booster seats to members of the public while denying them to New Democrats, controversial renovations of offices of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and cost-overruns on Vancouver's new convention centre.

She said her team of 33 NDP MLAs elected in 2005 – up from three before the vote – came into the legislature like a new NHL franchise.

“We had a few veterans, some grinders, a rookie captain and a host of fresh faces from across the province, but we're sure on a scoring streak now,” she told delegates during a keynote speech.

During her remarks, Ms. James sidestepped any reference to controversies over the twinning of the Port Mann bridge in Surrey, which she opposed to the surprise of some of her MLAs, and the Tsawwassen treaty that divided her caucus.

“You can't mention everything in a speech,” she said. “People have seen us be very vocal in the legislature on those issues.”

Ms. James argued the 2009 election campaign is under way now.

Early NDP commitments include an affordable and accessible childcare system, a climate-change plan with immediate caps on emissions, an independent seniors' representative, and $10 minimum wage.

“This convention is the launch of our campaign,” she told a news conference, noting voting day is 18 months away.

“We're going to be competitive in this next election. This is the kickoff.”

[GDR]

In my view there is no excuse for this sort of thing. Sure we are at war with militant Islam, but the vast majority of Muslims are not militant. This isn't all that much different than what we did with Japanese Canadians during WWII.

AS I've said before, isloating the moderate Muslims is exactly what the militants want. It is handing them a victory on a platter. They want all Muslims to feel isolated from mainstream societies in countries like Canada and with actions like this we are handing them an easy victory.

Another black day for Canada. Racism is never the right policy.

[Guest rattler]

Rattler

I agree with you whole heartedly.

But as in the past with the Nazis, the 'few' are the ones that caused the most problems.

Again, I will repeat my statement that we are now in World War Three. Just like the Japanese in WW2, there will be honest, peaceful Muslims caught up in the anti-religious sentiment. However, we must step up the fight and close the loopholes that they are using against us.

Have you kept track of the rise in religious based cases and news stories since 9/11? This case, Hajib's at voting booths, religious based schools, Sharia Law.....

Unlike the Western mind that wants revenge right away, the middle eastern mind will wait many years, even generations to strike.

What is happening now is a probing operation. Western society is being gently tested to see what the weaknesses are, and how they can be overcome.

We must be vigilant, and stop this.

We offer them freedom and a better life away from the conflicts that are in that part of the world, and they only wish to overcome us.

Iceman

To equate those who want us to change to suit their religious convictions to the Nazi's is just plain wrong.

Rather we should be viewing them in the same light as others viewed the Christian Missionaries who set out to convert the world to Christianity no matter the cost to other cultures. Talking about Christians please take into consideration the folks who weekly knock on your door in an attempt to convert you to their particular brand of religion. The only defence to any conversion attempt is to resist it and to insist on your rights. The right to say no is the strongest one we can use.

Ad hoc attempts to change our ways can not be tolerated but we must be prepared for change brought about through our democratic process. We should not be surprised if we see special interest groups (as has been done in the past) electing their own candidates and using our democratic process to effect change. Although I continue to resist ad hoc changes brought about outside our democratic process, I would not resist change that is achieved through our process (subject to the usual rules of representation of course ).

[CanadaEH]

B.C. NDP aims to boost female, minority candidate numbers

Carole James is a moron. I can't stand watching that woman talk.

[dagger]

To equate those who want us to change to suit their religious convictions to the Nazi's is just plain wrong. 

Rather we should be viewing them in the same light as others viewed the Christian Missionaries who set out to convert the world to Christianity no matter the cost to other cultures.  Talking about Christians please take into consideration the folks who weekly knock on your door in an attempt to convert you to their particular brand of religion.  The only defence to any conversion attempt is to resist it and to insist on your rights.  The right to say no is the strongest one we can use. 

Ad hoc attempts to change our ways can not be tolerated but we must be prepared for change brought about through our democratic process.  We should not be surprised if we see special interest groups (as has been done in the past) electing their own candidates and using our democratic process to effect change.  Although I continue to resist ad hoc changes brought about outside our democratic process, I would not resist change that is achieved through our process (subject to the usual rules of representation of course      ).

Ad hoc attempts to change our ways can not be tolerated but we must be prepared for change brought about through our democratic process. We should not be surprised if we see special interest groups (as has been done in the past) electing their own candidates and using our democratic process to effect change. Although I continue to resist ad hoc changes brought about outside our democratic process, I would not resist change that is achieved through our process (subject to the usual rules of representation of course ).

What has all of this got to do with the length of her skirt? Since when is modesty a crime? Sometimes rules ARE stupid and should be challenged. So she wore a skirt a few inches below the knee. What am I missing here? Some stupid bureaucrat with a tape measure and a bureaucratic sense of conformity making arbitrary decisions and wasting our tax money. Was the length of her skirt a safety or security risk? Did it impede her in the performance of her functions? Did it obscure her identity? Did it cause undue concern for passengers? Did it distract passengers as it might have if her skirt had been too short?

Surely you're all missing the point.

And Rattler, what is exactly "our ways". Do we only have one way for measuring the acceptability of skirts?

How does this morph from being an issue of an overly rigidly and perhaps arbitrarily applied dress code into a broad commentary on them or us.

I know white Christian women who would feel more comfortable doing a job like this in a skirt that is longer, and because they no longer have a 20 year old body they don't feel particularly comfortable in pants.

This whole thread looks like people going out of their way to pick a fight.

And for heaven's sake, this is not something Parliament has to rule on. It's not about voting. It's not about citizenship, it's a simple workplace issue for which a simple solution could have easily been found. The fate of western civilization does not hinge on the length of this woman's skirt, and for some of you to make it so is, frankly, embarassing.

[Kip Powick]

This whole thread looks like people going out of their way to pick a fight.

And for heaven's sake, this is not something Parliament has to rule on. It's not about voting. It's not about citizenship, it's a simple workplace issue for which a simple solution could have easily been found. The fate of western civilization does not hinge on the length of this woman's skirt, and for some of you to make it so is, frankly, embarassing.

You seem to have missed the point Dagger………..No one gives a rats butt about the skirt length. The thrust of the issue is that it “appears” that once again, the rules an organization has can be bent to accommodate those that feel they do not have to abide by them.

We saw it in RCMP, we saw it in the CF and so it goes. 99.9% of the people that join an organization abide by the rules and regulations of the organization…if they want to stay in the organization but here in Canada it appears that every time an organization has a new member who feels the rules are not fair, they start screaming “human rights, freedom of religion rights, discrimination, etc” and frankly that really annoys me.

If you wanted to join the French Police Force do you really think they would let you wear a Stetson??? No… but in Canada our society has become so tolerant and willing to blend and blur, for the minority, that we are slowly losing our identity as to what the hell is a actually Canadiana or what is a tradional Canadian organization.

Back to the case in point….who cares if her skirt is too long , (she was given the option of trousers), and if this goes to court she will win her case and once again, the rules set down by an organization mean nothing to those that want to push a point. Wear the tou-tou or get out of the ballet….seems simple to me.

[dagger]

You seem to have missed the point Dagger………..No one gives a rats butt about the skirt length. The thrust of the issue is that it “appears” that once again, the rules an organization has can be bent to accommodate those that feel they do not have to abide by them.

We saw it in RCMP, we saw it in the CF and so it goes. 99.9% of the people that join an organization abide by the rules and regulations of the organization…if they want to stay in the organization but here in Canada it appears that every time an organization has a new member who feels the rules are not fair, they start screaming “human rights, freedom of religion rights, discrimination, etc” and frankly that really annoys me.

If you wanted to join the French Police Force do you really think they would let you wear a Stetson??? No… but in Canada our society has become so tolerant and willing to blend and blur, for the minority, that we are slowly losing our identity as to what the hell is a actually Canadiana  or what is a tradional  Canadian organization.

Back to the case in point….who cares if her skirt is too long , (she was given the option of trousers), and if this goes to court she will win her case and once again, the rules set down by an organization mean nothing to those that want to push a point. Wear  the tou-tou or get out of the ballet….seems simple to me.

I got the point alright, but sometimes a stupid or inflexible policy has to be challenged. In fact, such policies are challenged every day. But it's only when certain people object does it become a matter of "them" trying to get "us" to bend. Sometimes "they" actually have a good idea or at least once that doesn't actually infringe on how "we" do our job or what holidays "we" celebrate. This isn't a case, like some I have seen, where the individual wants everybody to do like her or dress like her. It isn't like the case of the cafeteria at the U of T which began serving halel meat so its Muslim students could partake. Nobody else had to buy that meat or even eat at that particular cafeteria (there are many on campus), but the issue did become one of unreasonable demands when the Muslim Students Association wouldn't endorse the management decision because alcohol was still served in that cafeteria. Then it became a question of whether the rights of others would be infringed upon. In this case, however, this is not about destroying the rights or traditions of anyone else. It's about one individual wanting to dress in a way where nobody's rights are infringed, the decorum and efficiency of the workplace aren't disturbed, and where she gets no advantage over any other employees in terms of schedules, wages, benefits, holidays, etc.

But some of you want to equate this with the abuse by a minority of the majority - although the majority is in fact comprised of people with widely varying views and clothing preferences. This is not the RCMP, this is not the French police, this is not, headgear of any kind. A longer skirt does not make a political statement.

I also think it is bullcrap about losing our identity. Identities evolve. There once was the Northwest Mounted Police who became the RCMP, who wore a particular uniform that has been modified many times, including the addition of daily attire that does not include the traditional wide brim hat or red serge coat. Most of them don't ever ride a horse. I once briefly dated a female RCMP agent who had last worn red serge at her graduation and was spending most of her time, in civvies, as part of a narcotics detail.

As a student of history, I know, and can cite you chapter and verse, about how other immigrant groups were singled out for their origins or their distinctiveness. It was commonly said by "the majority" that the Irish, the Jews and the Italians would never fit, would smoother us with vile filthy habits, would impose their religious views on "us", would not make good Canadians, etc. etc. Of course, we have been enriched by immigration in more ways that we can imagine, and the "majority" has evolved a great deal. By the second or third generation, they had largely blended in, but they had also changed the "majority" culture and started new traditions in doing so.

It's almost always said by the current "majority" that current immigrants don't seem to fit in like earlier waves of immigrants. That observation inevitably proves to be false.

But I suppose stories like these are good theatre to distract us from the really important issues, like how we are being governed by twits.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/09...4531640-cp.html

[Specs]

As an Aside to this thread -

Then, in a mocking reference to a popular French movie where some malicious friends entertain themselves by bringing dim-witted guests to dinner parties, Duceppe joked that perhaps he'd invite Bernier for supper.

He's referring to one of the funniest movies I've ever seen - Le Dîner de cons. The Idiot's dinner or (subtitled release) The dinner game.

PG and absolutely hilarious.

I'm gonna hate if they try to make an english version of this fabulous French movie.

[dagger]

As an Aside to this thread -

He's referring to one of the funniest movies I've ever seen - Le Dîner de cons. The Idiot's dinner or (subtitled release) The dinner game.

PG and absolutely hilarious.

I'm gonna hate if they try to make an english version of this fabulous French movie.

Saw the CD of that movie last night. You're right, it's fabulous. I doubled over when the tax collector hears that the guy he's auditing - with great and almost malicious gusto - is screwing his wife in revenge.

[UpperDeck]

Dagger..

Your post has the air of "eau de poop".

I have but one question....you go to the Emirates because.......perhaps your cousins all chose to live there? ---Good for you!! Family values.

You have a work ethic---Good for you!! You apply for a job.

You are required to wear a VERY, VERY long skirt (okay---assume you're female). You choose to wear pants-----for 5 years---5 LONGGGGGG years. Now you'd like to wear a short skirt. Not a long skirt---a short skirt. Is that a problem? Inconsistent with the cultural values of the Emirates you say? What kind of country can this be?

What can "we" do to insist upon the homogenity of society if "we" belive that the cultural mosaic is fracturing society? How do "we" welcome immigrants who want to become part of "our" society yet protect ourselves from those who seek to serve as the vanguard of an invading cultural army?

I don't accept your hypothesis that the Irish or Polish or Italian waves were similar to the onslaught we now experience. I propose that in those waves, the immigrants shared one common desire---to "fit in". Those who failed to "acclimatize" were ridiculed. May I also suggest that the European value systems were similar to "ours" because, of course, our value systems had the same derivatives.

Travel to Miami, Florida. Can you imagine a city in Europe or, for that matter, anywhere in South America, where in order to conduct business you MUST speak a language other than the "official" language? In Miami, you will NOT be able to communicate with most tradespeople in Winn-Dixie or Home Depot (for eg) unless you can speak Spanish. That's the realiy in America today. It's a reality that other countries recognize and to which they are responding.

What would you suggest, Dagger? Become trilingual?

[dagger]

Dagger..

Your post has the air of "eau de poop".

I have but one question....you go to the Emirates because.......perhaps your cousins all chose to live there? ---Good for you!! Family values.

You have a work ethic---Good for you!! You apply for a job.

You are required to wear a VERY, VERY long skirt (okay---assume you're female). You choose to wear pants-----for 5 years---5 LONGGGGGG years. Now you'd like to wear a short skirt. Not a long skirt---a short skirt. Is that a problem? Inconsistent with the cultural values of the Emirates you say? What kind of country can this be?

What can "we" do to insist upon the homogenity of society if "we" belive that the cultural mosaic is fracturing society? How do "we" welcome immigrants who want to become part of "our" society yet protect ourselves from those who seek to serve as the vanguard of an invading cultural army?

I don't accept your hypothesis that the Irish or Polish or Italian waves were similar to the onslaught we now experience. I propose that in those waves, the immigrants shared one common desire---to "fit in". Those who failed to "acclimatize" were ridiculed. May I also suggest that the European value systems were similar to "ours" because, of course, our value systems had the same derivatives.

Travel to Miami, Florida. Can you imagine a city in Europe or, for that matter, anywhere in South America, where in order to conduct business you MUST speak a language other than the "official" language? In Miami, you will NOT be able to communicate with most tradespeople in Winn-Dixie or Home Depot (for eg) unless you can speak Spanish. That's the realiy in America today. It's a reality that other countries recognize and to which they are responding.

What would you suggest, Dagger? Become trilingual?

You pick a bad example because you don't have to adapt to Arab values or culture in the Emirates which is why Dubai is such a tourist attraction.

As for your knowledge of the Canadian immigrant experience, some have wanted to fit in as quickly as possible, others wanted to keep as much as they could while sampling the benefits. Generally speaking, because of considerable prejudice against immigrant groups, with derogatory names and outright discrimination, older members of these immigrant communities often tried to push assimilation on newcomers. Northern Italians pressured southern Italians to assimilate because of the often hateful response to the looks, dress and habits of the southerners from members of the anglo-saxon (or in Quebec, French Catholic) majority. You appear to have no idea whatsoever of the rampant prejudice that was expressed towards some groups of European immigrants because of the view that they couldn't assimilate and adopt the values of the majority. How, reasoned people of Anglo-Saxon (British or Scottish) stock, could these Catholic spaghetti eaters or drunkards be loyal subjects of the Queen of England? If the Irish were so troublesome in Ireland, how could they be loyal subjects here?

I'm not even going to get into what Jews or Chinese people went through, but if you're from the BC, you certainly know about Chinese Exclusion and the head tax. And if you're from Central Canada, how about Christie Pits riot or the quota for Jews at McGill or the signs in French at resorts in the Laurentians, pas de chiens ou juifs?[/]

What you don't realize is the depth of prejudice that existed in this country against immigrants from different parts of Europe. It's not like today, where any white Christian European immigrants deemed by some to be preferable to an Arab or an African. Europe was always a divided continent, rife with BITTER racial, national, religious and class prejudices and barriers. Shared goals. Most Europeans saw nothing in common with each other. A Brit or a German would have considered a Russian or a Pole to be ignorant, backward, barbaric, incapable of rising to the noble standard of the Victorian British subject.

And I don't really know why it matters what they do in Miami. The Americans have invited the Cubans in particular to come any way they can because of hatred of Castro. Muslims in Canada don't even constitute 3% of the population. We're a long way from having to learn Urdu to buy a pair of garden shears in Markham or Mississauga. As a matter of fact, I know quite a few Muslims whose their children are all native English speakers with good jobs or prospects and who tend to dress Western. But some people react as if every Muslim is a fundamentalist, and that Muslims are going to overwhelm us.

What I read in this thread is a lot of narrow mindedness grounded in group think rather than personal experience.

[FA@AC]

But I suppose stories like these are good theatre to distract us from the really important issues, like how we are being governed by twits.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/09...4531640-cp.html

Canada is to be represented at the Commonwealth meeting on Pakistan by Helena Guergis. Lord help us.

[Guest rattler]

Dagger, I identified that these changes were requested by the "few" so get off of your high horse about attacking or lumping all Muslims together. I continue to believe in rule by the majority. Either the "few" adapt or use our democratic ways to achieve the change they desire. If this fails then TOUGH!

Regarding the skirt length...... a uniform is a uniform is a uniform is a uniform..... thus the term "UNIFORM".

[newgirl]

If you won't wear the uniform provided for whatever reason then do not apply for the job.

Most uniforms are unflattering especially when you age and gain those few extra pounds!

[IFG]

.... What I read in this thread is a lot of narrow mindedness grounded in group think rather than personal experience.

dagger & GDR - I was mulling over a response to this thread, but yours have hit some of the nails I was aiming for. Thanks for saving me some typing, and saying it in fewer, better words.

It sometimes seems that threads like this one, sprouting lately with ever more frequency, just draw a dark side out of folks who really sound like good people. As for the point of it, I'd say the point is whatever folks want to make of it, isn't it? Whether they harp about skirt-length or organizational rules or "our ways" or .... How about, instead of the usual boring, spoiled bleating about some imaginary Canadian weakness or decadence, we see in action some the very processes that make us, and keep us as free as we are - as we ALL are, not just "us", or "them" - and this country about the best in the world to live in. An unavoidable byproduct of any such effort will be reconciling conflicting goods - in this case the woman's alleged religious imperatives vs. the organizational requirements for a uniform dress code. This woman has stopped working (as many here suggest) and taken her complaint thru' the proper channels, whatever its merits; there hasn't even been any decision on it yet. C'mon, folks, why all the spleen?

But I suppose stories like these are good theatre to distract us from the really important issues, like how we are being governed by twits.

Certainly government by hot button - and to great approval in this little precinct

Either the "few" adapt or use our democratic ways to achieve the change they desire. If this fails then TOUGH!

How is this woman's action un-"democratic", rattler? As for "rule by the majority", one of the foundations of constitutional democratic government is a notion that rule does not extend to tyranny. Minorities, even individuals have some recourse. i.e., (A uniform is ...)³··· does not preclude the possibility of that UNIFORM being changed by any legitimate means. Let's avoid, however, any veiled suggestion that there is something particularly nefarious about "their" use (exploitation?) of due process ....

Cheers, IFG