Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Manitoba  > when is it racism ?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 1
when is it racism ?Page 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Saw this article in a local paper & thought it may be an interesting thread topic.


My daughter recently pointed out that I wouldn't be able to take her younger brother to the moms and tots swim class because of my hijab.

Her comment instantly got my back up, not only because of the conclusion she had reached, but also due to the matter-of-fact manner in which she had stated it.

No doubt, it's not easy to remain an active swimmer once a woman wears the hijab, but my bottom line message to my daughter was that it's not impossible.

Good thing she doesn't read the newspaper yet. If she did, she would have come to me the very next morning and asked why the Muslim woman in France wasn't allowed to swim in a public pool.

Carole, a French Muslim woman, had used public pools in the past, wearing a swimsuit, known as the burquini, which reveals only her face, hands and feet. Recently, however, she was denied entry into a pool near Paris, being told that her swimwear did not meet the pool's regulations.

According to an official in charge of public pools in the region, Carole was turned away based on France's public health standards.

Daniel Guillaume has been quoted as saying, "These clothes are used in public, so they can contain molecules, viruses, etc., which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers ... We reminded this woman that one should not bathe all dressed, just as we would tell someone who is a nudist not to bathe all naked."

In fact, the burquini, just like all swimwear, is designed specifically for use in the pool.

Contrary to its name's suggestion, it is not a modified burqa or long gown. Originally conceived by an Australian-owned company that specializes in swim and sportswear for Muslim women, buquinis are sleek, modest, 100% polyester swimwear. They are chlorine resistant, UV protected, and water repellant.

In other words, you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim woman walking down the street, conducting her day-to-day business in a burquini, and then casually stopping for a dip in the local pool.

That said, anyone with a cursory understanding of France's feud with the hijab, will recognize that this is not a matter of public hygiene, but rather, a fear of normalizing the hijab and the possibility that it will be integrated in the day-to-day public activities of French society.

Carole has said she will fight the pool's rules based on human rights grounds. Critics have cited this as another example of minorities using the discrimination card unreasonably. A rule is a rule, goes the simplistic argument, and Carole needs to choose whether she will use the pool and abide by the rule or walk away with her hijab.

Just last week, Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, told the Canadian Bar Association that human rights commissions and tribunals in Canada are under an aggressive attack by conservative critics.

She appealed to the country's lawyers and legal academics to defend the role of such commissions and tribunals in upholding the rights of society's most vulnerable.

Part of defending such a role is shedding light on the discriminatory obstacles minority groups continue to face.

But here's the quandary.

On the one hand, the case for human rights commissions and tribunals is strengthened as the public becomes more aware of cases such as Carole's, but with this increased visibility, it becomes easier for opponents to suggest that minorities are playing victim and wasting society's resources.

Mihad Fahmy is a lawyer in London, Ont.



At what point does keeping Canada's non-Muslim traditions become racist?

Are we to bend over backwards & alter non-Muslim society to comply with Muslim beliefs & wishes?

The author of this article suggests the restrictions by the pool in France are based on racism not hygiene, but what if the situation were reversed? If a woman from France were to go to a public pool or beach in a predominantly Muslim country wearing a bikini, I wonder if she would be allowed in.

Or would that be OK because the Muslim country was protecting it's traditions & culture?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 2
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:31:07 AM

Who is protecting what from whom or whom from what?


I'm not sure anyone is protecting anyone from anything, seems to be a case of people in a country (in this case France) starting to tell immigrants that this is the way things are in our ( France) country, and we are not prepared to alter our lifestyle/culture/society to fit what you want our society to be. ( or in simpler terms they may be saying/implying "if you don't like it here, go back where you came from, why'd you leave your country if you want your adopted country to be the same as the one you left?").

Couple this with the way some people are so quick to use the race/culture card in any dispute and you get these situations.

Personally, I have no problem with anyone emigrating to Canada & wanting to preserve their culture ( with their $$, not with tax $$), but the key word in that statement is "THEIR" culture; it may not be the culture of Canada and they shouldn't expect have an expectation that society will cater to their wishes.
 Fort Garry Dark
Joined: 11/25/2005
Msg: 3
view profile
History
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:51:48 AM
Sue - I can't see how her wearing a birkini or me wearing a speedo - or Lord knows what you want to wear requires the response "we are not prepared to alter our lifestyle/culture/society to fit what you want our society to be. "

If I want to walk around in my speedo, justwant2no doesn't have to look. I like living in a place that has fewer restrictions rather than more.

I don't see how some people wearing birkinis can threaten French lifestyle or culture.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 4
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 1:02:02 PM
I don't see how some people wearing birkinis can threaten French lifestyle or culture.


Me either, but it's the quick automatic response of some people to use the racism card when they don't get their way, and the often quick change in policies to accomodate those that cry racism that causes much of the problem. And the expectation to have others adjust to your culture is also an issue. .

I'd still like to know if a woman from France could use a public pool in a bikini if she were in a predominantly Muslim country. Or if she would be expected to conform to their wishes. if so then France is just saying "tit for tat".

It's similar to an issue raised here in Canada ( Toronto I believe) a few years ago, when some male Sikh teens were filing charges of racism when they were told they couldn't wear the ceremonial dagger ( part of their cultural heritage) when on school grounds, as there is a zero tolerance policy regarding weapons on the property. I don't know how this issue was resolved ( or if it has been resolved yet).

Their argument was that they don't see the dagger as a weapon, and wouldn't use it as one ( small consolation to a student stabbed by the dagger if it was grabbed by a non Sikh student and used... and of course the school would no doubt get sued by the parents of the injured teen for allowing the dagger on the grounds).
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 5
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 1:43:24 PM
My only concern would depend on how loose the top part of the burquini is. Loose fitting tops are absolutely a risk for drowning- they get near your face, people panic, and can drown. Sounds ridiculous, but water makes many people panic.

They'd let someone in with a wet suit I'm sure, a real burquini, so long as it's not capable of floating near your face should be fine.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 6
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 4:14:00 PM

The argument of would a French woman be allowed to wear a bikini in a Muslim country falls flat for one good reason. Public decency. In a Muslim country it would be considered obscene for a woman to show her body in that manner (actually in any manner).


So Muslim rules of decency would be forced onto the French woman; yet the Muslim woman in France wants them to change their rules to accomodate her. Sounds a bit one sided.

And wearing a burkha isn't compulsory in all of Muslim; it's considered optional (and the woman's choice) in the moderate groups but compulsory in the more militant & fundamentalist factions.

In any event, the rules are in place & the French authorities chose to enforce them, hardly racist ( unless the rules were created just a short while ago to bar women from wearing the apparel).
 CuriousDav56
Joined: 3/16/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 4:27:35 PM
<<< makes note of wearing bikinis in Muslim countries....

Dubai is off my bucket list.

Thanks ppl.

Checking the brochures for the French Riviera...

I'm told the women there can only afford 1/2 a bikini
 haywiresue
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 8
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 5:50:33 PM
Every country has its own customs and traditions and I believe that these should be respected and followed. Examples of this have been cited by others in this tread, about what we could not do in other countries, i.e. burkas, etc. Its funny that we as Canadians have no trouble respecting the cultures and traditions of other countries and just oblige and honor those customs when travelling, etc. I believe that when a person decides to live in another country, accepting the traditions and cultures of that country should be considered prior to relocating, regardless of the reason why they relocated.

I believe that the Canada Government have made grave cultural errors by changing longstanding traditions to apease immigrants and new Canadians. Immigrants come here to become Canadians, live the lifestyle, and they should respect and conform to the traditions and cultures here. If they dont like it, they don't have to stay. There is a big difference between allowing human rights, so people of other faiths, cultures, and languages can do so in their own home/cultural environment. The immigrants who came here from Europe, conformed while still being true to their heritage. These Europeans and others, came here as immigrants and became part of the working class, unlike refugees who come here and get social benefits without working for them.

Rules for safety such as swimming pool wear, is for the patrons safety, it is not racist in my mind. There should be no exceptions. I was a lifeguard and would not be too comfortable trying to watch a crowed public swim time with pepole covered up with a burka and turned away so I could not see their eyes (as you would not be able to see facial expressions). It would be a distraction and take attention away from others. It would be very difficult to tell if someone was in trouble in a pool when their head was completely covered up, and turned away.

I don't see the need to change Canada's customs and traditions on items such as clothing when there are Canadian standards in place. We have 2 official languages and I will live with that, as I am not impressed with my ancestors (the British) who first allowed the French speaking people to speak their language. I prefer the citizenship of the United States - you are an American first - not like here - many people never regard themselves as Canadian. I am not impressed when others expect everyone to have an interest in their particular language, culture or religion. It goes back to my other statement, if these refugees, imigrants, or new Canadians dont like it here, or want to be where everyone does their thing, they can go back to where they came from and bask in their own customs/traditions/languages.

Our country allows people to speak their languages, practice their religions, and customs in their homes and within their groups. When it comes to doing Canadian things, they should do as the traditions here dictate. They do not have the right to impose their traditions here to the rest of us. Canadian tradition is wishing each other a Merry Christmas, I have never heard any of my friends who celebrate and practice different religions, make a big deal about it or dictate that Seasons Greetings is appropriate while Merry Christmas is not. Turbans should not be allowed in the RCMP, ceremonial knives/swords that exceed the legal size of knives/swords here should be illegal, and the current debate going on about turbans being allowed in Legions should not be allowed, period. Everyone who enters a Legion removes their hat to respect those who have given their lives in times of war and peace who served in the Canadian Forces. This is something that should not be debated, if you don't like the rules, don't participate.

To me, being a Canadian does not mean, being a door mat for the rest of the world's cultures/traditions and religions, or having to press #2 to hear English being spoken on the phone.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 9
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 6:10:12 PM

If the person does not feel comfortable baring her midriff is it a crime if she does not?


Nope. And no one is telling her she has to expose her midriff; they're just telling her that the attire she wishes to wear in THEIR establishment isn't allowed ( much like the "No shirt,No shoes, No service" signs that are up in some businesses) and until she is willing to comply with their rules, her patronage isn't wanted. ( Many businesses also have signs up saying they reserve the right to refuse service to any customer ). Their business, their rules.


The rules are in place for the French authorities to enforce them. They do not allow people to enter a pool unless attired in a bathing suit. The woman was wearing a swimsuit designed for Muslim women that go in for that sort of thing.


And the design does not fit the criteria that pool has, so they refused her entry. I could design a swimsuit made of completely transparent material, and while it may be sanitary I'm sure it would not be allowed in any public pool.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 10
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 6:13:16 PM

Canadian tradition is wishing each other a Merry Christmas, I have never heard any of my friends who celebrate and practice different religions, make a big deal about it or dictate that Seasons Greetings is appropriate while Merry Christmas is not.


I'm not sure I'd call it a "Canadian tradition" but I know what you meant by the post. I'm a staunch atheist, but I am in no way offended by anyone wishing me Merry Christmas.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 11
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/1/2009 9:12:39 PM

Unfortunately, I do not believe that the argument that they won't let women wear bikinis so the French are justified in dis-allowing the swim Burka (asuming the safety and health concerns are unjustified) is a valid one.


That wasn't meant as an argument for why the Muslim woman should have been turned away, it was just an example of how things are viewed in different countries, with the western countries ( Canada especially) are quick to change their standards & traditions here to accede to the wishes of people immigrating here.

So because we try to hard to be accomadating, our exisitng traditions are fair game for elimination. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, we have the tradition of removing your headgear when entering a Legion ( as a symbol of respect). This tradition is ignored by Sikhs wearing their turbans. No one is saying Sikhs should not be allowed to wear their turbans, but when their wishes go against established traditions here, then sorry but they should be out of luck. Wear their turbans all they want, but be aware that some places here will not allow them entry.

Just as if I were to enter a Sikh temple, I would remove my footwear before entering as their beliefs/traditions require. If I wasn't prepared to remove my footwear, then I would either choose to not enter or would probably be barred from entering. But I wouldn't cry "racism" after I was barred entry.

It is a public pool run in France, and the French authorities can set whatever standards they want for the facility.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 12
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/2/2009 7:59:55 AM

What is this mythical Canadianism of which you speak. Why does a Mountie in a turban offend you so?


I didn't post anything in this thread about Mounties ( in turbans or otherwise). My point is that no one is telling them the ycannot wear turbans, but some establishments have rules/traditions in place, and wearing a turban is not appropriate there. so wear a turban all you like, but be aware that you may be denied access to some places ( like some stores refuse toserve you if you have no shoes or shirt on). As I said, I'd be perfectly willing to remove my shoes before entering a Sikh temple ( their tradition) or conversely woul not enter the temple.

The appearance here is that the Sikh ( or Muslim, getting back to the original post) traditions trump other exiting traditions; that's what's wrong.


Is the Canadian who is an adherent of the Seikh religion any less of a Canadian than an Anglican, a Catholic, a Jew or a Zen Buddist.


Nope, and as I stated,their traditions ( especially in their temples) would be honoured. But why do their traditions take precedence when they come up against existing traditions?


Certain religions require that the hed be covered. Seikhs wear turbans and orthodox Jews wear a yalmuka (sp?). Are we so fragile as a country that we cannot acomodate these religious traditions?


Agaian, their temple (or in the case of bed,their residence) their rules/trtaditions. But their traditions shouldn't supercede other traditions.



I prefer to think of it not so much as other religions imposing their traditions upon us -- although I am not sure whom this "us" is; as living in a secular society that is tolerant of other religions and provides for religious freedom.


And yet I bet we'd get no tolerance if we refused to remove our shioes when entering their temple... could be an issue with contracters (who are required by there job to wear safety footwear) working there.

[quote[Because someone does not doff their hat out of religious reasons does not mean they are any less respectful for the sacrafice made by others.

So if I were to attempt to enter a Sikh temple and refused to remove my shoes saying "It's not an issue, I'm an atheist" should I expect the same tolerance from them?

[quote[I send Season's Greetings cards - to the extent I send holiday cards at all -- because so many of my friends are adherents of other religions. I honestly do not believe they would be upset if I sent them a Christmas card. If you want to send Christmas cards, by all means send them. I would not be offended if I received a Happy Hannakuh Card or a Happy Ramadan Card (I don't know if there is such a thing I merely made it up to make a point). I would hope that your friends -- or whomever it is that you send cards to -- would respect your choice to keep the holidays a religious holiday. Others prefer something more secular. Why does it bother you so?

Once again you seek to put words in my mouth. See message #14 of this thread where I mention this issue.



The world, in my opinion, is still very much short on tolerance, kindness, and understanding. Why do we harp on these petty differences and allow them to divide us?


For 1 thing, to try to get a stimulating thread going here. for another, to some these differences are not petty.


Sometimes, things have to change a little bit to make allowance for other religious customs. Is that really so bad?


Didn't you just say a secular state would be best? In that case how would the state review & rule on matters of religion ( such as the wearing of turbans or the Sikh ceremonial daggers)? No one has said they cannot wear their turbans or their daggers; simply that in some places these are not allowed.



Finally, and it means nothing, I am something like an 8th generation Canadian. I obstensively belong to the United Church of Canada and I am a white male. That being said, I honestly do not know what these "Canadian traditions" of which you speak are exactly.


The only tradition I mentioned here was the doffing of headwear on entering a Legion, this was bought up by another poster.


I prefer a state that does not impose the tryannical rule of the majority or the elite upon the rest of the populace.


No, you apparently prefer the state that imposes the tyrannical rule of the vocal minority.


It would make as litle sense for me to say to you "If you do not like it, go back to the country of your anscestors Alterantively, I suppose you could move to the United States of which you speak so highly although you might wish to avoid portions of California or Flordia which are rapidly becoming very Spanish.


ITry to go more than 2 paragraphs without putting words in my mouth please. Firstly, your "go back to etc etc" comment; my posts haven't said that ( except one here as an example of some people' thoughts). I have no problem with Sikhs in turbans, Muslims in burkhas. My point is that society shouldn't be forced to comply with their wishes/desires/traditions. If some businesses and establishments have rules or traditions in place that are in conflict with the Sikh ( or Muslim ) traditions, then the establishment should be allowed to uphold it's wishes. The key words here are " shouldn't be forced"... if they choose to alter their rules then great.

As to speaking so highly of the US,where did you pull that from?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 13
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/3/2009 8:52:01 AM

susy is french toast


Hey,I'm only part French, there's Danish Scottish & Native in there too!!!

As my last name is a French name, I generally refer tomyself as French.

But I'm a Canadian who is French, not French-Canadian... I have the right priorities!
 haywiresue
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 14
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/3/2009 5:29:02 PM
Pegmale - the "mythical Canadianism" you ask about, are the customs/traditions/etc. of things done here in Canada that our government seems to think are quite ok to change to appease other cultures/religions, while traditions/customs/etc. would not be changed for Canadians in other countries. My point is about drawing a line in the sand, and not loosing our Canadian customs/traditions/ect. The reason turbans being allowed into the RCMP as a modified uniform, really does bother me, and I will explain. The RCMP have a very nice uniform that comes with a hat. This uniform reflects the history and tradition of our Mounties, and I'm sorry if people have a problem with it, but in the early development of the RCMP the uniforms were worn with pride and turbans were not anywhere in the development. It's funny that none of the aboriginal people who went through the program never had an issue with cutting their ponytails or changing any of the uniform, because these men and women were proud to be part of what the RCMP stands for, and wanted to bring a new perspective to policing that benefits all of us.

I am all for, any/all ethnic groups/religions being allowed to work in any job as long as they can meet the criteria. I always thought being a firefighter would be great, however at 5'2" I could not see myself carrying a co-worker out of a burning building if they were injured, so I never pursued that career option. Could I have cried "sexism" as other did, you bet, and I could have been put through the special classes created to have women firefighters, but in the end, not many women who went through the special training, were able to fullfill the requirements. Now, others could and have called "racism" based on their size, demeanour and lack of understanding of the language. These people could be pushed through the program, but I would really be afraid of the firefighters who had to rely on someone in a burning building who could not do the job.

I'm glad you send Seasons Greetings cards out, that is your right and priviledge and no one including me has the right to tell you to change your greeting. I also have this same priviledge when I send out Christmas cards and talk about my Christmas Tree. There is no way that anyone should have a problem with how I celebrate the holidays. In fact, it should be considered a compliment that a person is being thought about when people are celebrating a holiday. I have friends who celebrate Hannakuh, send me Hannakuha cards and decorate what they call their "Hannakuh Bush".

My point for my post was that there are times when criticizim and so called racisim goes way over the top on issues that are really non-issues. I believe that toleration should work both ways, however too often I see reverse-discrimination and reverse-racism. Unfortunately, if you wish to participate in this and you believe this is what makes "your Canada" great and wonderful, then you have my sympathy as no one race/religious group should be above any other.

You referenced my note about citizenship in the US. I know I could live there if that was my wish. What I was commenting on, was how people who immigrate to the US are expected to be Americans first, and I don't see a damn thing wrong with that, as these people were welcomed into the country to live a better lifestyle or to have opportunities afforded them, that they could not have, from where they came. Here in Canada, if you ask someone what they are...........many consider themselves Greek, Ukrainian, etc., when they should be damn proud to be a Canadian Citizen. It's the fault of our absolutely no backbone government that allows this to happen. Our country is having a lot of problems with some new Canadians, who came here and continued started gangs causing problems for everyone else. Too bad our dumb a$$ government does not de-port criminals that come from other countries. Our jails are full with the criminals who were born here, we don't need an increase in that portion of the population.


Peek-A-Boo00, thanks for the kind words. For a moment there I thought some people had trouble understanding what I had written, but then I noticed from what empty barrel all the noise was coming from.

Have a great Long Weekend everyone.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 15
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/3/2009 7:34:39 PM

Too bad our dumb a$$ government does not de-port criminals that come from other countries. Our jails are full with the criminals who were born here, we don't need an increase in that portion of the population


If they've become Canadian citizens, deportation isn't an option. But if they're just landed immigarnats, my understanding is that if they're sentenced to 2 or more years in a federal prison then they are deported after serving their sentence..... unless they say they face the possibility of being killed if deported to their country of origign, then THEIR safety & well-being trumps the safety & well-being of Canadian citizens. ( see my thread "foreign child molesters more important than Canadian citizens? )
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 16
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/4/2009 11:19:41 AM

I have the same constitutional freedom to be secure from someone enforcing their beliefs onto my person, this includes the changing of the uniform and dress codes of our national institutions.
Are you a mountie? By not permitting a sikh to wear a turbin with his uniform you either a) refuse to let him be a mountie because of his religious beliefs (beliefs that have NO bearing upon how he does his job) or b) make him disobey his religion to pursue a career. Either is rephrensible, and both would be forcing secularism upon an individual of a religious group. Anyone who would see a sikh mountie in uniform with turbin instead of hat would have to be a complete and total moron to think he wasn't a mountie.

Jobs have uniforms so members can be identified by the clothes they wear. Permitting a sikh to wear a turbin doesn't interfere with the identification of him at all.

Why am I not surprised, that no one here seems to know about the test for making accomodations in the workplace? People always want to **** and whine instead of actually getting facts. Of course, I suppose facts are hard to get when your head is stuck up your a$$.
 haywiresue
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 17
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/4/2009 3:44:06 PM
Seddie - my comment about the immigrants who came here from Europe, was in reference to the wide spread immigration to Canada and the United States after the first and second world wars.

I do not know enough about the details land treaties between the British Crown and First Nations people, to relate this topic to that issue.

Regarding the turban issue in the NWMP/RCMP - you may be right that there might not have been any men who wore turbans who may have been eligible to join - or the Military for that matter. However the main issue remains, a working uniform or a school uniform, was created to show that there is uniformity within the organization. Anyone who does not wear any/all of the uniform, is no longer providing uniformity to that organization. I don't think it can be explained any more simple than that. Turbans should not have been allowed based on those reasons.
 flyin-high
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/4/2009 11:05:54 PM


Either is rephrensible, and both would be forcing secularism upon an individual of a religious group.
Why is it reprehensible and what’s wrong with forcing secularism on positions of public authority? We expect Christian cops to disobey one of the top 10 rules namley “thou shall not kill”. Ok, so it’s not an exact parallel, but none the less, the expectation to bend the religious rules is there for everyone, not just the Sikhs.

Canada must be great country, because our court system has nothing better to do than dictate what kind of laundry were’re allowed to wear.

Somewhere along the way, wearing the wrong laundry became racism.


 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 19
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/5/2009 12:24:16 AM

Jobs have uniforms so members can be identified by the clothes they wear. Permitting a sikh to wear a turbin doesn't interfere with the identification of him at all.


Your statement is flawed. In this instance, you're referring to the RCMP when you say "Jobs".

OK, the RCMP have a uniform. This uniform ( "uni" meaning one and "form" being self explanatory) did not include a turban. By permitting a Sikh to wear a turban instead of the existing standard uniform, you eliminate the right to call it a UNIFORM since now it has been modified. Any Sikh wishing to join the RCMP should have been made aware of the uniform being use & required by the force, and told that this is the dress of members of the RCMP; take it or leave it.


People always want to **** and whine instead of actually getting facts.


The facts sem to be that existing cultural traditions ( particularly caucasian ones)are not important or sacred and can be altered as wanted by those wishing to change those traditions because the government is willing to bend ov backwards to show how "multicultural" we are ( long as you don't want to promote Anglo-European culture).


Of course, I suppose facts are hard to get when your head is stuck up your a$$.


So that's why you weren't able to present these "facts".
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 20
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/5/2009 12:26:02 AM

Religion and state are separate and must stay that way.


Seems the seperation only applies to the state & Christianity; Sikh and Muslim religions will be accomadated.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 21
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/5/2009 12:35:14 AM

Back in the 80s, there was a kerfluffle over Sikhs wearing their kirpans into courtrooms. The belief being that the thing was a knife and therefor a weapon. They got to wear them.


This is from the Sikhism Home page:


The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or it's tenants. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways it’s religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan.



Evenif it isn't viewed as a weapon by Sikhs but merely a ceremonial symbol it is still a sword ( or dagger, the length can vary) and as such can be used as an edged weapon. If a Sikh wears a kirpan to court or a school and it is grabbed by a non Sikh and used to attack someone then whether it's considered a weapon by Sikhs is meaningless ( at least to the injured person). Guess the feds are prepared to pay out any hefty lawsuits that will arise should such an incident occur, for allowing a "weapon" into a place where weapons are banned.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 22
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/5/2009 12:38:20 AM

We expect Christian cops to disobey one of the top 10 rules namley “thou shall not kill”.


Why should cops be expected to obey a mistranslation? The original Hebrew is "Thou shall not murder". There's a difference between killing someone & murdering someone. You could kill someone in self defence for example; you can't murder someone in self defence
 haywiresue
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 23
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/5/2009 8:00:57 AM
I believe the issue was best noted by other posters who mentioned people confusing chruch and state, or believing they are interchangeable. That is really the main issue and what sparks so much trouble between different religious groups.

In this country we all have the freedom to practice any religion we choose and speak in different languages in our homes and within our groups and community. When it comes to dealings with government/state/legal issues, those rules take precident over individual cultural/race practices as the laws were created to be the same for all. We all know that the laws are continually challenged and some people fare better than others when dealing with government and the law, but we are dealing on basic premise here.

The comment about Christian cops disobeying the commandment "thou shall not kill" is a prime example of trying to mix church and state. Police, the military, RCMP are required to protect those who live here, and in a perfect world these jobs would not be necessary.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 24
when is it racism ?
Posted: 9/7/2009 11:24:04 AM
Just occured to me. Does anyone know if Sikhs are allowed to wear their kirpans onto commercial airline flights?


disobeying the commandment "thou shall not kill"


Supposed to be "thou shall not murder"
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 25
when is it racism ?
Posted: 1/5/2010 2:43:04 PM

If you really wanna get nasty go ahead i have no restrictions on my mail.


Hmmm maybe I should send ya a couple of myfantasies... but the one about the ******* *** is pretty nasty
Show ALL Forums  > Manitoba  > when is it racism ?