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

[Mitch Cronin]

This woman's approach to the issue is what grates, I think. I hear you guys saying "ahh comon , we can't accomodate her for a few inches of skirt length?!" and you're right on... if that uniform accidentally excluded Muslim women from that job because of the skirt length, then she - or somebody - should have appealed to the company about the uniform rules to see that it got changed... and hopefully, sanity would prevail... but that's not what happened.

She took the job, wore the uniform, and then tried the foot-in-the-door method to get the uniform rule changed... ...and she pulled the "race card" (actually religion, not race, but that doesn't sound as dramatic as a "race card" does, and it's pretty much the same thing in this case.)

That seems to me like the wrong way to go about it. I don't want to live in a country that permits exclusion based on race or religion, but once again, this is a matter of choice! ...and this time, it's not even arguable that it isn't choice... She chose not to wear pants. Didn't she?... She says they didn't hide her curves?...what about baggy pants? (just how big are these "curves" we're hiding here anyway? - never mind, it doesn't matter, pants can hide them. They'd be ugly pants, but they'd conform to the uniform code... and would be her choice to wear them.)

BTW... So her god wants her to keep her curves hidden? OK, so umm... does that do anything to explain why some Muslim men seem to be in such a hurry to get to heaven to find their virgins?

...I don't know man... this religion business sounds so messed up at times.... I mean, what a cruel sounding religion that keeps the female form hidden(!!) ...and tells men "not til your dead".

[Guest rattler]

IFG : what I meant was that if a change is desired then that can be achieved through one's union (if at a business), one's association or in the case of the Law by one's member of legislature. In all cases an individual has the right to lobby for their change but such changes to be effective (rather than one of) should not be adhoc.

Again my point remains that she chose to work and wear her uniform for many years and only now wants to have it changed! and that is unacceptable.

[chockalicious]

Dagger and IFG you have both very eloquently and directly captured my thoughts on this issue after reading this thread.

The sky is not falling.

[dagger]

IFG : what I meant was that if a change is desired then that can be achieved through one's union (if at a business), one's association or in the case of the Law by one's member of legislature.  In all cases an individual has the right to lobby for their change but such changes  to be effective (rather than one of) should not be adhoc. 

Again my point remains that she chose to work and wear her uniform for many years and only now wants to have it changed! and that is unacceptable.

One can also take a stand using peaceful protest and moral suasion, which is what she's doing. It's not like she is being paid right now. She has backed up her stand by losing her pay cheque, which is a not insignificant contribution. A lot of people who criticize people who take principled stands would do anything, even what they disagree with, not to miss a single pay cheque. As for what she did in the past, sometimes the courage to follow one's beliefs doesn't come immediately, but builds up over time. She emigrated here in 1989, and perhaps it took a lot of years of internal conflict to reach this point. I do know that I don't have all the answers myself, and that none of you do either. People who purport to know "our way" are simplifying what Canada stands to begin with. Canada is rich with differences. The Calgary way is not quite the Toronto way. Attitudes vary, tolerances vary. Describing a unitary view of Canada is ridiculous. There isn't a single issue on which you will get 100% agreement in this country. Is the right to own a long gun part of "our way"? You'll get different answers in different places. Should gender equality take precedence over freedom of religion? That's the debate in Quebec, and it's a very divisive debate. In fact, each of us has a unitary view of Canada, and "our way" except that it's only one of 20-million-odd unitary views of Canada, each subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different.

There have always been non-comformists in Canada and people who flout convention.

We have speed limits: People break them every day and even believe they are doing nothing wrong, either from a legal or safety perspective. Some 777 Quebecers were killed in highway accidents last year, and yet if a politician proposes solutions like photo radar, a ban on cellphone use when driving, a tougher sobriety test, seizures of cars involved in road racing, etc, a vocal minority or majority objects, often vociferously. Is speeding really part of "our way", or is it simply an issue - like many other issues - where Canadian outlook and behavior varies by age group, gender, geography, etc.

One thing were Canadians usually find concensus is on stupid bureaucratic rules, applied inflexibly. This woman's situation, where she is hurting nobody, infringing on nobody, still capable of performing her job in every way, may be an example of that.

When you think of it, how many times in the past 20 years has the fashion industry decreed that hemlines go up or go down. So how "uniform" can a hemline be if it rises and falls based on what some Italian fashion designers say it should. Why should we care, so long as the choice isn't a distraction.

I'd rather know if this woman was good at her job and if so, why they can't bend a silly rule in a way that is absolutely non-threatening to any employee or passenger.

If she were a white Christian female who had a particularly strong modest streak, I don't think this would have become an issue, and certainly not a subject of derision.

[Kip Powick]

. It's not like she is being paid right now. She has backed up her stand by losing her pay cheque, which is a not insignificant contribution. A lot of people who criticize people who take principled stands would do anything, even what they disagree with, not to miss a single pay cheque.

Wanna bet she gets every bit of her "back-pay" when an arbitrator/court rules in her favour ?

[dagger]

Wanna bet she gets every bit of her "back-pay" when an arbitrator/court rules in her favour ?

It's a risk she is taking and it's a risk few of us would take.

[UpperDeck]

And why is she taking that risk and to whose ultimate benefit? "We" wouldn't take the risk because the battle is not one we choose to fight.

Dagger----you didn't hesitate to suggest that those whose ideas are not in harmony with yours are "bigots" ---"narrow-mindedness" and "group think". You are doing that which you accuse others of doing.

My family lived in the Middle-East for a little over 7 years. I was not born in Canada. Having said that, I venture the guess that few posters share those characteristics and yet many express their belief that multi-culturalism is not working to the benefit of the majority of Canada's population. Many believe that assimilation is more appropriate. That does not render those people "rascist"; bigots or hate-mongers. Neither does it speak of a fear of change. As Rattler suggests (I think), the melting pot can effect radical changes in society not by reason of "accomodation" but rather by a gradual shift that reflects that amalgam of values that results from the blending process.

When in Libya, one is selective about the hand proferred not because either is in fact unclean.

By the way---you're right, of course; the Emirates was not the right choice. There were many better examples but I think my point was clear in any event.

[Guest rattler]

If she were a white Christian female who had a particularly strong modest streak, I don't think this would have become an issue, and certainly not a subject of derision.

Quite right Dagger. If she was indeed a White Christain female, the story would never had hit the news and she would never be allowed to alter the uniform to suit her idea of fashion.

[dagger]

If she was indeed a White Christain female, the story would never had hit the news and she would never be allowed to alter the uniform to suit her idea of fashion.

Of course you're right. "We" never do anything to challenge convention, or ever step out between the two white lines.

You're a hoot.

[UpperDeck]

"You're a hoot". How arrogantly derisive!

Shall we speak of homosexuals, Dagger? Is that permitted?

I don't have any statistics to support my opinion. I believe, however, that Canadians evidenced an increasing tolerance of alternate lifestyles. The fact of "same-sex" partners became de rigeur, in a sense, and certainly wasn't deemed offensive to most per se. PDA's however, we're offensive more because such displays were considered excessive for heterosexual couples; "Get a room!!"

That didn't stop anyone...it was a "badge of courage" --much as the bravery you now attribute to this Somalian woman, who by the way, is likely not standing alone and is funded.

It is never enough, is it Dagger? Canadians want to cede civil unions and protection of equality rights and are met by the unforgiving argument; "Marriage alone is equality".

When does any of it stop, Dagger?

Do you think there is some correlation between increasing "intolerance" (a refusal to keep giving) and the strident unsatisfied demands of the self-defined victim groups?

[chockalicious]

Hi Upper Deck

I am not sure where you are going with your last post but it seems from your general tenor that you are afraid of "traditional" values as you see them slipping away or being eroded.

Wanting something different does not always mean that the traditional way is under attack.

It is interesting to see that some see changing uniform standards as an attack on tradition. I don't know what the traditional CF uniform was that got changed due to ethnic pressure but in my opinion changing up the RCMP uniform to let turbans be worn is not a big deal. If anything I think it reflects well on Canada and makes us look pretty darn cosmopolitan.

I also can't buy into the "majority rules" as a default setting in every arguement. Sometimes the majority is wrong and the status quo has to be challenged/changed.

Canada is a great place and I have said in the past rather flippantly that people should assimilate or die. I think we can have assimilation while still having people hold cultural values that contribute some pretrty cool stuff to the country.

[Kip Powick]

For some of the posters who seem to lose their cool.....

[Kip Powick]

An Ottawa agency is to review its hemline policy and in the meantime will offer wages to a Pearson airport employee suspended for wearing a long skirt.

"We do not want her to be financially penalized," said Ana-Karina Tabunar, spokesperson for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Whether the agency might also offer three months of back pay has not been decided, she said.

The suspension is likely to last a while as the review involves complex issues, Tabunar said.

"The whole idea of uniformity is meant to establish a consistent, credible and professional corporate identity," she said, "and to change any aspect of the uniform or the uniform policy would have to take a lot of thought and consideration."

The agency is to make the wage offer today to Garda of Canada, the company that directly employs airport security screener Halima Muse, 33, a practising Muslim.

Muse was not available for comment yesterday. On Friday, she filed a brief with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the basis of religious discrimination.

In February, after five years as a screener, Muse asked superiors if she could wear a long skirt as part of her uniform. Regulations allowed her to wear the hijab, or Muslim scarf, but otherwise her choice had been between a knee-length skirt and slacks.

She had worn slacks but slacks show the curve of the body and don't conform to Islam's requirement for modest dress, she said last week. No matter how hot the weather, she always wore her uniform jacket to cover the hips.

Garda agreed to let her wear an ankle-length skirt that matched the uniform.

But in August, the federal authority insisted Muse conform to official regulations and had her suspended.

Roy Cullen, Liberal member of Parliament for Etobicoke North, where Muse lives, yesterday called the suspension "ridiculous ... absurd."

No issues of safety or security were raised, Mihad Fahmy, at the Ottawa-based Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, has said.

[Mitch Cronin]

......and I maintain that all this honky-tonk horse dung obscures the truth that this "religious" idea of hiding a female's curves is just nuts! Imagine where religious "law" like that comes from... it sure as heck ain't from the same "god" that created those curves!

Why are people so screwed up?

[dagger]

An Ottawa agency is to review its hemline policy and in the meantime will offer wages to a Pearson airport employee suspended for wearing a long skirt.

"We do not want her to be financially penalized," said Ana-Karina Tabunar, spokesperson for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Whether the agency might also offer three months of back pay has not been decided, she said.

The suspension is likely to last a while as the review involves complex issues, Tabunar said.

"The whole idea of uniformity is meant to establish a consistent, credible and professional corporate identity," she said, "and to change any aspect of the uniform or the uniform policy would have to take a lot of thought and consideration."

The agency is to make the wage offer today to Garda of Canada, the company that directly employs airport security screener Halima Muse, 33, a practising Muslim.

Muse was not available for comment yesterday. On Friday, she filed a brief with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the basis of religious discrimination.

In February, after five years as a screener, Muse asked superiors if she could wear a long skirt as part of her uniform. Regulations allowed her to wear the hijab, or Muslim scarf, but otherwise her choice had been between a knee-length skirt and slacks.

She had worn slacks but slacks show the curve of the body and don't conform to Islam's requirement for modest dress, she said last week. No matter how hot the weather, she always wore her uniform jacket to cover the hips.

Garda agreed to let her wear an ankle-length skirt that matched the uniform.

But in August, the federal authority insisted Muse conform to official regulations and had her suspended.

Roy Cullen, Liberal member of Parliament for Etobicoke North, where Muse lives, yesterday called the suspension "ridiculous ... absurd."

No issues of safety or security were raised, Mihad Fahmy, at the Ottawa-based Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, has said.

Good for you, Kip. You bolded and underlined the areas that concern you. Of course the fact that her employer authorized her to wear the longer skirt is not underlined.

By the way, I hope you are observing the speed limit rigorously today - not one mph/kph above the limit. Or do we only criticize others for trying to bend rules.

[Kip Powick]

Dagger...wow you can read minds too.....amazing.

The line emboldened points out what I said....she is going to get paid....whether she gets it all is in the article.

The underlined part is my way of wondering why she was happy about her job for 5 years before she raised the issue. Did she suddenly gain a heap of weight...or did one of her friends advise her that she could scream discrimination, probably get her way, get paid if she made a big public issue about it, and the company would have to change the rules to suit her religion.

Your attempt at wit sucks...stick to what you know best and leave the sarcasm to those that know how to foist it.

[Mitch Cronin]

...I do hope you'll both forgive me for this, but I've just gotta say....

"Your attempt at wit sucks...stick to what you know best and leave the sarcasm to those that know how to foist it." Fabulous line Kip. ...

[Guest rattler]

Seems from the latest news story that she is using the system (as we all can) , in this case her union, so if the result is a change to the uniform code for her group , I will have no further problem with the issue as long as the new uniform can be worn by all who wish to do so. ....... Of course on the other hand if the ruling goes against her, then the issue must be considered closed. ** Note Bolding & underlinging ...... Dagger

Airport security to redress uniform

By CP

OTTAWA -- The country's airport security agency is reviewing its dress code after a Muslim screener complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that she had to wear a uniform she deemed immodest.

The Teamsters union and the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations announced yesterday that they filed a religious discrimination complaint on behalf of Halima Muse.

Muse worked for five years as a screener at Toronto airport for a security company called Garda.

Until last February, she wore trousers on the job, although she wasn't happy with them.

"She never felt comfortable wearing the pants as she felt that they were not modest enough and showed the shape of her body," the discrimination complaint stated.

"As a result, Ms. Muse always kept her jacket on throughout her shift."

She rejected a below-the-knee uniform skirt and wanted a longer garment to conform with Islamic dress code, which calls for women to wear loose-fitting clothes that cover the entire body except the face, hands and feet.

She sewed herself an ankle-length skirt in the uniform fabric and colour and wore it for about six months until the company, citing uniform regulations set by the Canadian Air Transport Security Agency, refused to allow the change and suspended her in August.

The agency contracts Garda, which in turn employs the screeners.

Anna-Karina Tabunar, a spokeswoman for the security agency, said this is the first complaint about uniforms.

"We were just made aware of this complaint today," she said.

"We're not treating it as simply a question of a new skirt ... we're looking at this as a policy issue."

She said the agency will ask Garda "to make an arrangement where she won't be financially penalized while CATSA makes its decision."

The rights commission does not comment on complaints. It normally investigates complaints while trying to broker a mediated solution.

If it cannot produce a settlement and its investigators find the complaint warranted, they can forward it to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which has to power to hold hearings and impose penalties for discrimination.

[dagger]

Dagger...wow you can read minds too.....amazing.

The line emboldened points out what I said....she is going to get paid....whether she gets it all is in the article.

The underlined part is my way of wondering why she was happy about her job for 5 years before she raised the issue. Did she suddenly gain a heap of weight...or did one of her friends advise her that she could scream discrimination, probably get her way, get paid if she made a big public issue about it,  and the company would have to change the rules to suit her religion.

Your attempt at wit sucks...stick to what you know best and leave the sarcasm to those that know how to foist it.

You have obviously never been in a situation where you were young, junior, and felt the pressure to conform in situations where you felt the conventional was outdated or even discriminatory. I'm sure she was "thrilled" being a security guard for five years, but when you are an immigrant, and, it appears, a single mother, it might be a tad hard to give up the bread on your child's table for a principle. Of course the child is probably old enough now to work after school, and may be in the work force full time for all I know, so possibly the situation has evolved. If I were an immigrant with no prior knowledge of the language and no previous experience with democratic freedoms, I wouldn't make waves. But now she presumably speaks the language well, has learned about how things work in Canada, and is expressing her preference.

We talk so much about rules in this thread. And imply that she should rally support and get the legislature or Parliament to pass a law. That's ridiculous. Much of what passes for change in our society is dictated by changing convention, not laws. How did the dress codes in schools change? In my day, boys wore white shirts, flannel pants, and the girls wore tunics. At one point, the length of the tunics was enforced, but the girls - by the tens of thousands - pushed back. They raised the hemlines. Tunics got so short that there seemed no point, so in the public system here in Ontario, the rules changed to allow individuality within certain acceptable parametres. Like it or not, this came about because the rules were bent, with the acquiescence of parents and educators. But nobody compels a teenage girl to wear a short skirt or jeans. You can wear a long, modest skirt, as do lots of kids from religious minorities who attend public schools or just girls who are a bit embarassed by their bodies and want to reveal less.

In fact, I'll say from my recollection that the super short tunics revealed a heck of a lot more than most girls reveal in even tight jeans today.

Some people lament the loss of religion in the public schools. I don't. When I went to school, Christmas carols were forced down the throats of children of all religions and even those whose parents were atheists. I remember having to sing peons to Christ. And if you were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, you had no choice. Why did things change? Not because change was dictated by the powers that be, but because parents applied pressure at the school level - not even the board level - to exempt their children from religious observances that were particular to one religion. Now, as I understand it, various religions are discussed and their holidays noted.

Much is changed in our society by those who challenge the rules, explicit or implicit, that govern us. And I think we're better for it because revisiting the rules and conventions that govern our lives is a healthy process.

[Guest rance]

Dagger,

You're opening another can of worms going into the Christmas debate.Whether your muslim,Jewish, or Christian I never understood what was so offensive about the message of peace on earth goodwill to man.

[dagger]

Dagger,

You're opening another can of worms going into the Christmas debate.Whether your muslim,Jewish, or Christian I never understood what was so offensive about the message of peace on earth goodwill to man.

There is nothing offensive about it, but it was offensive to require non-Christian kids to sing Christmas Carols in school.

[Mitch Cronin]

... it was offensive to require non-Christian kids to sing Christmas Carols in school.

That is offensive, and pretty stupid really. I remember that too... they also made us all say The Lords Prayer and sing God Save the Queen every morning.

[Guest rance]

I would bet that if you moved your family to Israel or Saudi Arabia and you were offended by their customs and traditions they would say too bad.It is now politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas...where does it end?

Don't get me wrong, I love other cultures and people immigrating to Canada is a great thing, but isn't there a point that there should be some assimilation rather than us having to give up traditional uniforms (mounties) and our "holiday" traditions in an effort not to offend?

[Guest rattler]

Re the uniform issue. The following is an exerpt from "The Canadian Human Rights Commission" regarding the duty to accomodate. The complete article can be found at : http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/dta_faq_en.pdf

Based on this I think she will win her case.

Although I continue to disagree regarding the Uniform, it appears our system supports her issue and I guess if we feel strongly about that, then it is up to us to change our system to support our beliefs but I suspect we will not

1. What is the duty to accommodate?

The duty to accommodate is the obligation to meaningfully incorporate diversity

into the workplace. The duty to accommodate involves eliminating or changing

rules, policies, practices and behaviours that discriminate against persons based

on a group characteristic, such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,

age, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, marital status, family status

and disability.

Sometimes, workplaces have rules, policies, practices and behaviours that apply

equally to everyone, but which can create barriers based on an irrelevant group

characteristic. For example, if you require that employees wear a certain uniform,

you may create a barrier to someone whose religious practice requires a certain

manner of dress.The duty to accommodate requires employers to identify and eliminate rules that

have a discriminatory impact. Accommodation means changing the rule or

practice to incorporate alternative arrangements that eliminate the discriminatory

barriers.

[dagger]

I would bet that if you moved your family to Israel or Saudi Arabia and you were offended by their customs and traditions they would say too bad.It is now politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas...where does it end?

Don't get me wrong, I love other cultures and people immigrating to Canada is a great thing, but isn't there a point that there should be some assimilation rather than us having to give up traditional uniforms (mounties) and our "holiday" traditions in an effort not to offend?

Actually, if you moved to Israel, you could go to a church, mosque or synagogue, and you can even buy pork. The lack of Saturday openings and services might be a bummer, but you can drive your car, and you'll find plenty to do on a Saturday. You can even fly out of the country on a Saturday - on any airline except El Al. As for Saudi Arabia, you do your argument a disservice comparing a pluralistic society like Canada, which has been settled by successive waves of immigrants since Cartier showed up, and also include an Aboriginal population with its own languages, and cultures, with a society like Saudi Arabia which is officially a unitary state where any foreigner - even liberal Muslims - are only tolerated to the extent the government needs them to keep the joint running.