Reasonable Accomadation, what does that mean?

jennie · October 12, 2007

Sorry Jennie but I have to agree with OBC on this one. I remember a case years ago where an immigrant father was found to have sodomized his young daughters. The judge in this case gave him a pass, as he stated it was acceptable in his culture to do so. The rational being that it did not "de-flower" them so they were still worthy of marriage.
Do you believe our flexibility should be such as to accommodate such practices? Freedom of religion is one thing. When such freedom impinges upon the laws of the land then it should not be tolerated. If they want these freedoms above the structures of our society then they should not be here at all.

I am not suggesting that it be a 'crime free for all', and of course raping a child is a horrific crime. I am saying that I think 'reasonable accommodation' means considering each case on its merits ... If we allow this rule to bend, what are the implications, who is affected and how, etc. If it does not infringe on other people, then I see no reason for sticking to a rigid and unworkable position.

As I said, accommodating new immigrants is what Canada has always been about. Why should that change now?

And if we are no longer going to accommodate anyone for anything, then get those darn rickety dangerous Mennonite buggies off the roads, or explain to me why not.

M.Dancer · October 12, 2007

And if we are no longer going to accommodate anyone for anything, then get those darn rickety dangerous Mennonite buggies off the roads, or explain to me why not.

Why not....

Because the Buggies are licenced. a licence that anyone can get. Your description of them as dangerous and rickety is just plain empty rhetoric.

While on the other hand, getting a leiniant sentance for raping and sodomizing your daughter only applies to some.....

Justice should be blind and culturally neutral,

ScottSA · October 12, 2007

As I said, accommodating new immigrants is what Canada has always been about. Why should that change now?

Tell me something Jennie...when all those "new" Canadians outnumber us old Canadians, how do you think they're gonna respond to "first" Canadian's demands for retribution and wergeld for something they didn't have anything to do with?

old_bold&cold · October 12, 2007

Does the religious act of female castration, an act decided by the parents before the child is of an age of majority, one of thise things that you feel does not harm anyone outside if the religious bief's of these people, one of the things you would allow? How about the seclusion of women and their not going to school to get an education? Are arranged marriages something that you would be interested in accomadating?

We have a charter of rights and freedoms, but many things in their religion go expressly against this view. So do we then accomadate?

Just how far do we go, to give these people their right to religion. If they are not ready to accomadate to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why are they coming here? There are many places they could go where their religion and its laws are accepted. When these people come here, it should be expressed upon them that we have a much different way of law, and that this law will be confict with their religious laws in many ways, and they should be prepared to adjust their actions to the lnads of the land and not religious law. If they can not do this, then they should search for a better fitting place to settle. We are not forcing people to come here.

We live in more lenient times then we did just a few decades ago, and for the most part that is a good thing. But when we change any of our core laws, to accomadate religious law, then we deminish ourselves. The kirpin accomadation is a fine example of going too far to accomadate. Since we have now allowed a child to come to school armed with a dagger, this then infringes on all the other childrens rights to do the same. The next thing you know we will be having knife fights in the hallways. It was wrong to have accomadated this, and I would not ever vote for anyone who did this. Accomadation of dress and harmless things of that sort are fine but when the line even starts to go past that then we must say no.

M.Dancer · October 12, 2007

Does the religious act of female castration, .......

female circumcision...or at its worse infibulation.

But not castration....

JB Globe · October 12, 2007

Sorry Jennie but I have to agree with OBC on this one. I remember a case years ago where an immigrant father was found to have sodomized his young daughters. The judge in this case gave him a pass, as he stated it was acceptable in his culture to do so. The rational being that it did not "de-flower" them so they were still worthy of marriage.

I'd bet good money that this never happened, and either you're lying or you read it on some amateur anti-imigration website and believed it. If you're going to insist that it did happen, you might want to actually find a respectable paper that covered the case and prove me wrong.

I think, that such a case would've created a huge firestorm politically, it would have been a landmark legal case and it would've been included for instruction in legal schools across Canada.

There is NO WAY, that someone can use the excuse of cultural-custom to do something like anally raping his under-age daughters, Especially since there isn't any such custom that exists in any society as a cultural norm. Criminal law trumps cultural-practicies that come into conflict with them, every time.

M.Dancer · October 12, 2007

I'd bet good money that this never happened, and either you're lying or you read it on some amateur anti-imigration website and believed it. If you're going to insist that it did happen, you might want to actually find a respectable paper that covered the case and prove me wrong.

You would lose your good money. I remeber it quite well.

M.Dancer · October 12, 2007

You would lose your good money. I remeber it quite well.

May be hard to rack though, I think it was about 10 years ago in quebec. The judge's decison was based on the fact that he considered his daughter's virginity before anally raping her, thereby mitigating his punishment.

I know it went to appeal but I can't remember what happened after that.

JB Globe · October 12, 2007

Tell me something Jennie...when all those "new" Canadians outnumber us old Canadians, how do you think they're gonna respond to "first" Canadian's demands for retribution and wergeld for something they didn't have anything to do with?

Hopefully they'd recognize that since we're all Canadians, we all participate and benefit from a system of government that has benefited from the exploitation and oppression of Canada's first peoples. Frankly, I think they would be more likely to finally push to resolve many of the outstanding issues since they wouldn't automatically link those issues to their cultural identity. ie - many white Canadians see the conflict as an "us vs them" conflict because they identify with the past actions of the white colonizers and politicians who did the deeds. Remove that emotional link and you can handle the issue in a stricly legal and political fashion.

I think this is a good thing to get those issues finally resolved, rather than taking the approach that most federal and provincial governments do - which is to use every means to stall land claims settlements for as long as possible - which is why you have cases that have been going on for decades.

old_bold&cold · October 12, 2007

Hopefully they'd recognize that since we're all Canadians, we all participate and benefit from a system of government that has benefited from the exploitation and oppression of Canada's first peoples. Frankly, I think they would be more likely to finally push to resolve many of the outstanding issues since they wouldn't automatically link those issues to their cultural identity. ie - many white Canadians see the conflict as an "us vs them" conflict because they identify with the past actions of the white colonizers and politicians who did the deeds. Remove that emotional link and you can handle the issue in a stricly legal and political fashion.
I think this is a good thing to get those issues finally resolved, rather than taking the approach that most federal and provincial governments do - which is to use every means to stall land claims settlements for as long as possible - which is why you have cases that have been going on for decades.

Please, not another pile of land settlement stuff. It will be settled but it will not be infavour of the natives, and then it will go on and on. there are threads already on this forum for that kind of thing. Lets not pollute all threads with this same issue.

jennie · October 12, 2007

Tell me something Jennie...when all those "new" Canadians outnumber us old Canadians, how do you think they're gonna respond to "first" Canadian's demands for retribution and wergeld for something they didn't have anything to do with?

When you choose the country, you take it warts and all. If you didn't do your research ... buyer beware!

It appears to me that what we are ALL saying in this thread is that "reasonable accommodation" can include such things as dress (including burkas and turbans,etc), religious holidays, etc. but NOT anything that infringes on the rights of other people. Thus, it does NOT include the right to rape, circumcize or commit ANY criminal offences.

Does that capture it?

Edited October 12, 2007 by jennie

old_bold&cold · October 12, 2007

I would say yes, but with the cavette that also says no harm to be preached or organized against others, as well. The trouble with a quick brush, that most of the Islamic and other religions have some pretty insidious things allowed in their teachings. Even though most of the followers are smart enough to tell the difference, along will come those who will not see the difference. I have no problem accomadating the moderate ones, it is the more hadcore that I say we need to be specific about, and I am sorry to say that we seem to find these ones well after they are here.

mikedavid00 · October 12, 2007

When you choose the country, you take it warts and all. If you didn't do your research ... buyer beware!
It appears to me that what we are ALL saying in this thread is that "reasonable accommodation" can include such things as dress (including burkas and turbans,etc), religious holidays, etc. but NOT anything that infringes on the rights of other people. Thus, it does NOT include the right to rape, circumcize or commit ANY criminal offences.

Does that capture it?

Sorry Jennie.

Women wearing headscarfs is human slavory and evidence of abuse against women which Canada should not endorce or support.

If you are a true NDP/Liberal, you would never support what they do to women.

guyser · October 12, 2007

Women wearing headscarfs is human slavory and evidence of abuse against women which Canada should not endorce or support.

Please cite the relevant Legal Statute that shows it is slavery and abuse.

Your mother , as mine , wore/wears a headscarf at one time or another. I dont recall my moms inmate number or if she had one....what was your moms?

M.Dancer · October 12, 2007

Please cite the relevant Legal Statute that shows it is slavery and abuse.
Your mother , as mine , wore/wears a headscarf at one time or another. I dont recall my moms inmate number or if she had one....what was your moms?

Plese note, he didn't say slavery, he said slavory, and I agree......

guyser · October 12, 2007

Plese note, he didn't say slavery, he said slavory, and I agree......

Slavory, slabery savoury...who knows.

I gots ta reed better, dam privy school educassun

ScottSA · October 12, 2007

Hopefully they'd recognize that since we're all Canadians, we all participate and benefit from a system of government that has benefited from the exploitation and oppression of Canada's first peoples.

I reject out of hand your premise of "exploitation," natch, but even pretending for a moment that it has merit beyond a simple propagandistic proclamation, the first part of the sentence above is the crux. "Hope" is the basis for the entire multi-racial immigration plan, and the hopes are not panning out particularly well, since we're well on our way to Balkanizing our country. There are strong parallels between our multicultural experiment and a similar experiment by the Romans in Gaul, when they willingly let several tribes in on the proviso that they pay homage to Rome. It worked well enough until the Roman economic and political system began to constrict, and then Rome lost control. In the words of Walter Goffart, "When set in a fourth century perspective, what we call the fall of the Western Roman Empire was an imaginative experiment that got a little out of hand."

And so, I believe, is what will happen here, and the Indians will be among the losers as well. There is no more Rome, and all its obligations went with it.

M.Dancer · October 12, 2007

There are strong parallels between our multicultural experiment and a similar experiment by the Romans in Gaul, when they willingly let several tribes in on the proviso that they pay homage to Rome.

Gaul? Gaul was probably one of the most successful provinces in the Empire...right beside Spain and Egypt.....

...Sure you are not thinking about the Peloponnese?

ScottSA · October 12, 2007

Gaul? Gaul was probably one of the most successful provinces in the Empire...right beside Spain and Egypt.....
...Sure you are not thinking about the Peloponnese?

Sure you're not thinking of the principate? I'd check my dates if I were you...this ain't the siege of Bombay or whatever that Peloponny thing yer talking about is, y'know...

AngusThermopyle · October 12, 2007

I'd bet good money that this never happened, and either you're lying or you read it on some amateur anti-imigration website and believed it. If you're going to insist that it did happen, you might want to actually find a respectable paper that covered the case and prove me wrong.

Whether or not you believe I'm lying is rather irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. As I said this happen quite a while ago, at least 15 years or so if I recall correctly. Anti-immigration websites, well, I don't think I know of any. I really don't concern myself with such things. I'm a geek (hobbyist, not professional), the websites I frequent are usually tech oriented. I don't waste my time becoming enraged at the opinions of some plug I don't even know.

I'll tell you what though, just to accomodate you, when I get the time (don't have a huge amount of that) I'll see if I can dig something up about it. It has been many years though so I'm not too hopefull. The only reason I still remember it was because we were at sea and it was included in the regular news release we used to get. The entire crew was enraged by the story and as such it tends to stand out in ones memory.

Sorry if the concept of stupidly lenient judges offends your sense of credulity but we do have stupidly lenient judges in this country, or did you miss that part of our justice system?

old_bold&cold · October 13, 2007

I also can remember this happening and yes I thought even then that it was very sick thinking on the judges part. So do not go making any bets on this, as you would be wrong. I do not think it was that sodomy was allowed from where they came from, but rather children are property and the parents can do what they will with them . The sodomy was not something done due to religion but then again it was not against its teachings either. Whenthe judge did state that the parent had shown regard to these girls virginity, that was what sickened me. It was a sad day for our justice system that day.

jefferiah · October 13, 2007

Sorry Jennie.
Women wearing headscarfs is human slavory and evidence of abuse against women which Canada should not endorce or support.

If you are a true NDP/Liberal, you would never support what they do to women.

I have to disagree with this. As far as women wearing these scarves and the accusation of abuse, I think this argument needs to be discarded once and for all. Not that there are not some cases where it certainly does have merit, but there are also cases where it has absolutely no merit. I've seen single women on tv, with moderate muslim parents, who have decided on their own terms to wear the traditional dress. And I am sure there are more. You cannot liberate someone from a law they wish to follow themselves. What you would in fact be doing is taking away their liberty to adhere to a law they agree with.

So as far as Muslim women's wear goes, you have to prove in an individual case that the woman is being forced to wear the clothes. If she choses to wear them, it is not abuse, Mike. We all have a right to choose our own limitations, within legal limits.

As for a woman arguing her right to wear one of those very concealing burqas in a bank.....she gets no support from me. I don't think it is out of line to expect that in certain situations these burqas should be restricted.

Edited October 13, 2007 by jefferiah

ScottSA · October 13, 2007

I have to disagree with this. As far as women wearing these scarves and the accusation of abuse, I think this argument needs to be discarded once and for all. Not that there are not some cases where it certainly does have merit, but there are also cases where it has absolutely no merit. I've seen single women on tv, with moderate muslim parents, who have decided on their own terms to wear the traditional dress. And I am sure there are more. You cannot liberate someone from a law they wish to follow themselves. What you would in fact be doing is taking away their liberty to adhere to a law they agree with.

They are not slaves by virtue of what they wear, but what they wear is symbolic of the intensely patriarchal lifepath they belong to. Under Sharia they are slaves, or worse; property, and Islam is unique in that it is both a religion and a lifepath.

jefferiah · October 13, 2007

They are not slaves by virtue of what they wear, but what they wear is symbolic of the intensely patriarchal lifepath they belong to.

If you want to use women's issues as an argument against Islamic culture in general or Sharia law, I can understand that. But I still don't think you can choose for a muslim woman what clothes are symbolic of her own oppression, particularly if she chooses to wear them. Is she oppressing herself?

If a single, independent muslim woman decided to wear the traditional wear, and you told her she must take it off because you don't want her to be oppressed, that would be kind of strange wouldn't it?

Don't you see the irony in that?

It is like you are getting offended on her behalf over something which does not offend her.

A burqa itself is just a burqa. It has no meaning on its own. If someone were being forced to wear a burqa against their will, then it would be abuse. If a woman chooses to wear it, it isn't.

For instance I don't think anyone in our society has a problem with a woman wearing blue jeans and having hair that is not short. And if someone were to say women should wear dresses he probably would not be a very popular fellow. But if an AnaBaptist sort of girl were to choose to wear dresses and keep her long hair in a bun, I wouldn't say she is oppressing herself. And then in turn if you banned the practice because it is symbolic of some kind of oppression, then in cases where a woman wants to wear a dress or have long hair the law would be restricting her freedom to do so. A long haired girl at the prom would be breaking the law.

But as I said before, there are certain situations where it is reasonable to expect that people not be completely covered, maybe in most or all public situations. So in this regard I don't think we should accomodate at all. This is the appropriate angle from which to make the argument against burqas, particularly the ones which are basically ninja suits. It's only a woman's issue if it is an issue for the women wearing it.

Edited October 13, 2007 by jefferiah

AngusThermopyle · October 13, 2007

Whenthe judge did state that the parent had shown regard to these girls virginity, that was what sickened me.

BINGO!

Now you mention it thats what blew me away. Like I said, it was quite some time ago and my memory on the specifics is a little hazy but that was what stood out above all. The fact that the Judge seemed sympathetic and accommodating to this sick bastards perversions. He actually tried to put the whole thing in a positive light. Talk about accommodating different cultures!