UpperDeck Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Rattler; You posted from the website (I believe) of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and suggested that on the basis of the "guidelines" enunciated, it was probable that the Garda employee wishing to discard her slacks for a long non-prescribed dress would likely succeed. I think you're right but the legitimate question remains; should she win? I believe that a reasonable and honest exchange of opinions was stifled by the characterization of some posts as "narrow-minded", ethno-centric, and. basically, rascist. I believe those broad-brushed characterizations to be very unfair and much akin to saying; "I believe in free speech---so long as your opinions don't offend other principles I hold dear." So---I'm suggesting a further examination of the "issue" of "reasonable accomodation". First.....Let's look at your quote from the Human Rights Commission website: QUOTE]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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Damn, here we are in agreement...... No she should not win but.... she will. If she was however, a white/anglo saxon/christian/modest female her case would never had made the press and would definitely not have a hope in hell of being ruled in her favor. There was another recent case where a girl "Muslim" was not allowed to compete in a Judo competition because she insisted in wearing her full Head Dress (lack of a better term). Now when you think about reasonable accommodation, I would first ask.... would this "head covering" give her an unjust advantage? After all Judo consists, at least in part, of throwing your opponent, grasping the head/neck area is part of that, so would not her "head gear" give an advantage in that it would slip and not give a firm grip to her opponent. On that alone, she should be denied the "right" to change the clothing / uniform rules. Then there is "Greco Roman Wrestling", the uniform is very revealing, I wonder how long it will be for an oppressed Muslim, to insist that she should be able to compete wearing her more modest costume. Then there is Woman"s Speed Skating, Woman's swim competions etc etc But then let us consider the whole area of "accomodation". Recent rulings have allowed girls to join the boy scouts, belong to formerly "all male" clubs, female reporters are now allowed enter male locker (changing) rooms etc. However men / boys are not allowed to joing the girl guides, enter female locker rooms etc. etc. Seems that discrimination & accomodation is only one way..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 I only hope and pray that Dagger reads this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 It is educational to work in a Muslim country and talk to people about their attitudes to the Hijab and other accoutrements. When working there one young lady wore a full Hijab most days except on 'Casual Thursday' when she would come to work wearing a tight white T-Shirt and Tight jeans. To her the Hijab was just another form of dress. When asking some of the ladies why they would sometimes wear a garb that covered their hair and everything the response was 'On those days I do not worry about my hair and make-up'. The attitude was not universal, but they lived with it. Maybe we should too. A couple of weeks ago I was at a stop sign in Edmonton waiting for traffic to clear when around the corner came a women driving a mini-van loaded with kids and she was wearing a Hijab and Nicab. I was a block away before I did a 'What_the_HLL_was_that'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 wearing a Hijab and Nicab. Around my "hood" a Nicab would be a Nissan King Cab, what is it in your "hood"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Around my "hood" a Nicab would be a Nissan King Cab, what is it in your "hood"? Two spellings for the same thing. Niqab or Nicab http://www.islamicboutique.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.