Assimilation

[capricorn]

Interesting thread. This is how it boils down for me. I really don't give a rats ass what Canadian soldiers or mounties wear on their head or anywhere else on their body AS LONG AS THEY DON'T FORGET WHOSE SIDE THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR and give it their 100%. That's not too much to ask is it?

[g_bambino]

Only one sect of Sikhism views turbans as non-mandatory. For the vast majority of Sikhs, it is an essential and mandatory requirement of their faiths.

You are right in assuming that some Sikhs wear a smaller head covering (called a patka). This is worn by Sikh boys and young men. As Sikh males are required never to cut their hair, the patka will do as long as it is big enough to cover the whole hair; at one point they have to graduate to a full turban as the patka no longer suffices.

I am not sure about the RAF and Indian Air Forces (although I saw a picture of a WWII Sikh Air pilot cimbing on his plane wearing a turban and no helmet), but Sikh soliders served with distinction in both World Wars in land units wearing their helmets.

I was under the impression that the only requirement of Sikhism was to cover one's hair, regardless of how. In WWII the requirement for pilots to wear helmets probably wasn't as strict or as necessary; what I was thinking more of was modern jet pilots who cannot fly without a helmet.

Now, some Sikhs do decide, for whatever personal reasons (including desire to fit in or avoid discrimination) to forgo the turban. That personal choice should not be taken as justification for denying the freedom of religion of other Sikhs.

The question is, then: where does one draw the line between requirement and personal choice?

[CANADIEN]

The question is, then: where does one draw the line between requirement and personal choice?

Welcome to the slippery slope... Everyone is free to choose a religion and follow its requirements, therefore they can choose not to follow them, therefore these are not really requirements, therefore these are personal choices, therefore we don't have to respect them.

Which is missing the link between a religious faith and personal identity, especially in non-Christian religions. For many Sikhs (to take this example) their faith - and the requirements and symbols attached to it - is no just a part of who they are, it is the most fundamental componant of their identity.

The issue is not between what is a requirement and what is a choice. it is between what of essential and what is accessory in a person's identity.

[WIP]

Interesting thread. This is how it boils down for me. I really don't give a rats ass what Canadian soldiers or mounties wear on their head or anywhere else on their body AS LONG AS THEY DON'T FORGET WHOSE SIDE THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR and give it their 100%. That's not too much to ask is it?

Right! Why is this the issue that people are getting bent out of shape over? Maybe someone can explain to me how a Mountie wearing a turban will not be able to do the job! Of the five Sikh khalsa requirements, I would have figured that Sikh students carrying kirpans to school would be the issue that most would be concerned about:

Twelve-year-old Gurbaj Singh Multani had no idea that when he accidentally dropped his ceremonial dagger in his schoolyard in 2001 that the incident would touch off a dispute that would eventually wind up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The dagger was a kirpan and Gurbaj was wearing one because he is a baptized orthodox Sikh. Orthodox Sikhs say the kirpan is not a weapon but a religious symbol which must be worn at all times. But others said, symbol or not, any kind of knife has no place in a school environment. When the school board’s governing body ruled that a kirpan violated its ban on students bringing "dangerous and forbidden objects" onto school property, the dispute headed to the courts … and ultimately to the country’s top court. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kirpan/

A compromise was proposed that would allow this religious requirement as long as it could be guaranteed that it would not be used as a weapon:

Dec. 21, 2001:

Following several weeks of negotiations, the local school board says Gurbaj will be allowed to come back to school as long as certain conditions are met. The kirpan must be kept tightly sheathed with a flap sewn securely shut so the dagger could not be removed either accidentally or deliberately. Gurbaj and his parents agree to the conditions. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kirpan/

After more protests from parents, a Quebec Superior Court judge proposes that the belt holding the kirpan must also be sewn in to the student's clothing as an additional precaution, but the schoolboard, backed by the P.Q. government, wants to play hardball:

March 4, 2004:

The Quebec Court of Appeal overturns the judgment of the Quebec Superior Court and allows the appeal by the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school board and the Attorney General of Quebec. The Court of Appeal rules that security concerns are more important than the rights of Sikh students to wear kirpans to school. Take away the religious symbolism, the court says, and you have something with all the characteristics of a weapon. The Singh family’s lawyer, Julius Grey, asks for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kirpan/

The drama comes to an end in 2006 when the Supreme Court of Canada rules 8-0 that a total ban of the kirpan violates the Charter of Rights because it infringes on the guarantee of religious freedom. But it does allow school boards to impose restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety.

Are the restrictions on carrying the kirpan enough to maintain public safety? I don't know! As far as I know, nobody did a demonstration to see if it was possible to still use it as a weapon! If it is no longer a danger, then Sikh students should be free to wear it; if it is possible to use it as a weapon, then religious freedom is overruled by public safety! Now, could someone show me how the turban is a threat to anyone?

[Leafless]

Now, could someone show me how the turban is a threat to anyone?

I think a Mountie wearing a turban is an assault on RCMP tradition and demonstrates lack of respect for other members of the force who MUST wear regulation uniforms to properly represent the force.

As far as a direct threat, one could wonder how this Sikh is going to react in making an arrest or simply react in everyday duties.

Logic dictates if this man is so determined to wear the headgear of his religion, how determined is he in other areas to apply some type of unknown type force which could be common to the type of force used in his homeland to apprehend someone, but could be an illegal way in Canada.

For instance I had observed a Chinese restaurant owner who (more than once) when confronted with a minor disturbance, approached the table with a meat cleaver and threatened those involved.

He said this is the way we do things back home.

So go figure.

[CANADIEN]

Right! Why is this the issue that people are getting bent out of shape over? Maybe someone can explain to me how a Mountie wearing a turban will not be able to do the job! Of the five Sikh khalsa requirements, I would have figured that Sikh students carrying kirpans to school would be the issue that most would be concerned about:

A compromise was proposed that would allow this religious requirement as long as it could be guaranteed that it would not be used as a weapon:

After more protests from parents, a Quebec Superior Court judge proposes that the belt holding the kirpan must also be sewn in to the student's clothing as an additional precaution, but the schoolboard, backed by the P.Q. government, wants to play hardball:

March 4, 2004:

The drama comes to an end in 2006 when the Supreme Court of Canada rules 8-0 that a total ban of the kirpan violates the Charter of Rights because it infringes on the guarantee of religious freedom. But it does allow school boards to impose restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety.

Are the restrictions on carrying the kirpan enough to maintain public safety? I don't know! As far as I know, nobody did a demonstration to see if it was possible to still use it as a weapon! If it is no longer a danger, then Sikh students should be free to wear it; if it is possible to use it as a weapon, then religious freedom is overruled by public safety! Now, could someone show me how the turban is a threat to anyone?

I used to have srious probleems with the idea of a kirpan in a school, for safety reason. Until the Supreme court mentioned that there has NEVER been a single case of a schoolkid attacked or injured, even accidentally, with a kirpan anywhere in Canada or the US. Unlike pencils, to take an example.

Some might try to argue that the wearing of a turban as opposed to a helmet is a safety threat to the wearer... would be very hard to prove, considering that Sikh soldiers have always worn turban on the battlefield and there does not seem to be evidence tha their rates of casualties were higher as a result. But sure would beat the heck out of "it's contrary to tradition" as a justification to try limiting freedom of religion.

Edited June 27, 2008 by CANADIEN

[WIP]

I think a Mountie wearing a turban is an assault on RCMP tradition and demonstrates lack of respect for other members of the force who MUST wear regulation uniforms to properly represent the force.

As far as a direct threat, one could wonder how this Sikh is going to react in making an arrest or simply react in everyday duties.

Logic dictates if this man is so determined to wear the headgear of his religion, how determined is he in other areas to apply some type of unknown type force which could be common to the type of force used in his homeland to apprehend someone, but could be an illegal way in Canada.

For instance I had observed a Chinese restaurant owner who (more than once) when confronted with a minor disturbance, approached the table with a meat cleaver and threatened those involved.

He said this is the way we do things back home.

So go figure.

Oh come on now! I've eaten in lots of Chinese and Japanese restaurants over the years, and I never seen anyone come out of the kitchen brandishing a knife or a meat cleaver!

[CANADIEN]

Oh come on now! I've eaten in lots of Chinese and Japanese restaurants over the years, and I never seen anyone come out of the kitchen brandishing a knife or a meat cleaver!

AS he would say... woe to you TRAITOR who favors Quebec's language laws.

But I've seen one Japanese chef brandishing a knife menacingly, and more than once... in ads for Halls cough lozanges

Edited June 27, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Logic dictates if this man is so determined to wear the headgear of his religion, how determined is he in other areas to apply some type of unknown type force which could be common to the type of force used in his homeland to apprehend someone, but could be an illegal way in Canada.

So go figure.

The first Sikh RCMP officer to wear a turban was raised iin Malaysia, attended high school in BC, and was trained as a police officer at the RCMP. Logic dictates that the police tactics he learned and had applied are those he got druing his RCMP training and career. Most importantly, logic dictates that someone so determined not to sacrifice his religious duties whill uphold his religious duty to act with honour, including honouring his oath and responsibilities as a RCMP officer.

Edited June 27, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Welcome to the slippery slope... Everyone is free to choose a religion and follow its requirements, therefore they can choose not to follow them, therefore these are not really requirements, therefore these are personal choices, therefore we don't have to respect them.

Which is missing the link between a religious faith and personal identity, especially in non-Christian religions. For many Sikhs (to take this example) their faith - and the requirements and symbols attached to it - is no just a part of who they are, it is the most fundamental componant of their identity.

The issue is not between what is a requirement and what is a choice. it is between what of essential and what is accessory in a person's identity.

Interesting. I wonder, then, what would happen if it was an essential part of someone's identity to eschew clothing. Would that individual, if he or she so chose to join the Mounties, be allowed to wear no uniform at all? What about a transvestite; would he be allowed to wear the female uniform? Slippery slope, indeed.

[AngusThermopyle]

Interesting. I wonder, then, what would happen if it was an essential part of someone's identity to eschew clothing. Would that individual, if he or she so chose to join the Mounties, be allowed to wear no uniform at all? What about a transvestite; would he be allowed to wear the female uniform? Slippery slope, indeed.

Wearing no clothes at all as an esential part of ones identity is stretching it quite a bit and is so improbable as to never arise.

Being a Transvestite is a lifestyle choice, I don't know of any religion that dictates transvestism (?) as a requirement of the religion so no, they would have to wear the male uniform. For now, until someone challenges it in court, then that would probably change.

As for the point that no statistics exist from WWII showing turbans to less safe than helmets. Give me a break man! Do you honestly think that statisticians were running around in the heat of battle recording head wounds that could have been avoided by wearing a helmet? Obviously a helmet is far safer and offers far more protection than a turban. To suggest otherwise is merely announcing to the world that one has achieved the pinnacle of daft thought processes.

Having said that, I disagree with changing the uniforms worn by members of our National organizations and institutions. If they don't like the uniforms worn then don't join, and honestly, I don't give a rats ass about anyones religious beliefs. Yes, I'm callous, but I won't lie about it either.

[M.Dancer]

Logic dictates if this man is so determined to wear the headgear of his religion, how determined is he in other areas to apply some type of unknown type force ......

Meanwhile, George Lucas sit with his crack team of screenplay writers hammering away at the dialogue of Star Wars episode IV.

Paul Naggot xplains the story board frame which has Luke flying his X-Wing over the surface of the Death Star..

....And then Luke hears the ghostly voice of Obiwan Kenobi who tells him...

"Luke, use the some type of unknown type force...."

Gerge Lucas clears his throat and says....I know we want to convey that the Force is mysterious and the Jedi are mystics but saying everytime that the Force is "Some Type of Unknown Type Force" really belabours the script. It's as if Obiwan has an arthritic grasp of English....maybe another character could speak like that....he could say of Luke

Strong with him, the some type of unknown type force is. Herh herh herh.

[Leafless]

The first Sikh RCMP officer to wear a turban was raised iin Malaysia, attended high school in BC, and was trained as a police officer at the RCMP. Logic dictates that the police tactics he learned and had applied are those he got druing his RCMP training and career. Most importantly, logic dictates that someone so determined not to sacrifice his religious duties whill uphold his religious duty to act with honour, including honouring his oath and responsibilities as a RCMP officer.

We already know you are an extremist and is no surprise that you would support other extremist.

[Rue]

Your right Rue, this conversation is getting way to serious, and i'm sure i will not lose sleep over the changes to what is Canadian icons or Canadian culture, it just concerns me alittle...

Hey lets not forget real pizza, Montreal has the best pizza...

Within the military world, culture and tradition I appreciate have a far different context, meaning and purpose and play a very crucial pscyhological role not just in assuring professionality but in enforcing a protocol that is intended at is most basic purpose to save lives by nurturing cohesion in how soldiers interact with one another.

My exasperation is only with civilians in the civilian world who get hung up on symbols that they think define culture but actually do not at all in fact often this icons enable us civilians to avoid having to define our culture they become simplistic markers to refer to so we can avoid hving to define our culture on a more meaningful level.

On the one hand I find cultural debates often absurd and petty, but I also appreciate the fact that if we cultivate and preserve a healthy cultural identity it promotes stability through continuity.

When I was a kid I used to thing the monarchy was an antiquated idea. As I get older, I now can understand it was created to serve as a consistent beacon that would remain constant even though everything else around it might continue to change.

Now yes I know some people question the actual monarchy itself, but I wonder, is it possible there could be such thing as a sovereign nation without some sort of figure head and traditions to serve as a consistent reference point to preserve unity?

For me I think in Canada we get too hung up on the form culture takes and that is precisely because in anthropoligical terms as a nation we are still young.

You look to much older cultures say like the aboriginal ones, they know what their traditions are. In Canada we still are trying to define them. We have this preoccupation with arguing over the length of our facial hair and the accent on our words.

Just seems to be we have an excellent reference point in the holistic approach of the aboriginal cultures to take the original Euorpean cultural influences of Britain and France, mix them with the aboriginal ones to keep a stable cultural base to keep adding the other ones without having the whole thing turn into a bloody mess.

Last time I looked legally the bi-legal mix of Napoleonic and Common Law traditions have complemented one another not blown each other up and for that matter, collective concepts from the aboriginal culture has aided in developing some unique Canadian laws other Western nations do not have.

Don't kid yourself. The common desire in Canada for medicare which the Americans describe as us being socialist is a collective or holistic concept of sharing that comes from realizing as a people we are just too small to take on Canada alone and needed to pool our resources and we realized we are all dependent on one another in that respect. Aboriginals were at that collective level long before us.

If anything the Western material values that now shape our cultural identity and promote individualism and self-interest have become pervasive but by no means have they snuffed out or cultural tendencies inherited from the aboriginals which we pretend we invented ourselves.

These latest carbon tax craze. Just a reinvention and half assed way of imitating aboriginal concepts.

By the way I find it absurd the monarchy in England is basically Greek blood at this point and yet we pretend Philip is a paragon of English virtue. Give me a break. He aint no different then any Canadian on the Danforth in Toronto.

[Leafless]

Oh come on now! I've eaten in lots of Chinese and Japanese restaurants over the years, and I never seen anyone come out of the kitchen brandishing a knife or a meat cleaver!

I should hope this would be the case with the majority of ethnic restaurants.

But then again you only quote the experience of a single person, yourself, which no where near qualifies the fact these incidents or similar incidents could be a lot more common than you imagine.

Extremist as we know do no baulk, relating to violence and is more in common with uncivilized cultures.

[M.Dancer]

For instance I had observed a Chinese restaurant owner who (more than once) when confronted with a minor disturbance, approached the table with a meat cleaver and threatened those involved.

He said this is the way we do things back home.

So go figure.

AHEM.....

But then again you only quote the experience of a single person , yourself (one with a tenous, arthritic grasp on reality), which no where near qualifies the fact these incidents or similar incidents are probably fictional and are something you would like to imagine happens more than they do.

[g_bambino]

Wearing no clothes at all as an esential part of ones identity is stretching it quite a bit and is so improbable as to never arise.

Being a Transvestite is a lifestyle choice, I don't know of any religion that dictates transvestism (?) as a requirement of the religion so no, they would have to wear the male uniform. For now, until someone challenges it in court, then that would probably change.

Er, well the Doukhobors regard nudity as an essential part of their religion and identity. In fact, they were sometimes charged for public nudity, and at the trials of those accused, their supporters would strip in the courtroom in protest.

But, anyway, my point was more about something being, as Canadien put it, fundamental to one's identity. Nobody is forced to follow any religion, so practicing one, and following all its tenets, could be regarded as a lifestyle choice. Yet, obviously it's considered central enough to the individual's character so as to trump certain rules and restrictions. On the other hand, though, I recall a case where a republican (who worked at the Royal Military College, of all places) was denied by a court his "right" to refuse to stand to attention during the Royal Anthem. So, this brings me back to the question I originally asked: where is the line drawn between freedom and restriction, and what's enough to justify the pushing of it in any one direction? The answer to that would seem rather central to a discussion on assimilation.

[guyser]

I think a Mountie wearing a turban is an assault on RCMP tradition and demonstrates lack of respect for other members of the force who MUST wear regulation uniforms to properly represent the force.

Get rid of women in the RCMP then. You okay with that? Come on now, no picking and choosing.

Regulation of uniform has been changed to include the turban if the wearer has the religious requirements.

Point is, you lose. Strike one

As far as a direct threat, one could wonder how this Sikh is going to react in making an arrest or simply react in everyday duties.

He or she will act in accordance with the training they recieved.

Point is, you lose. Strike two.

Logic dictates if this man is so determined to wear the headgear of his religion, how determined is he in other areas to apply some type of unknown type force which could be common to the type of force used in his homeland to apprehend someone, but could be an illegal way in Canada.

Logic says he will perform in accordance with training. Same goes for an uber catholic in an RCMP uniform patrolling a gay pride parade.

Point is, you lose. Strike three. You're out.

For instance I had observed a Chinese restaurant owner who (more than once) when confronted with a minor disturbance, approached the table with a meat cleaver and threatened those involved.

He said this is the way we do things back home.

So go figure.

BS. You wont eat in chinese reataurants since you loathe all non-whites, non-english speaking peoples.They dont serve penatu butter and jam on wonder bread in chinese restaurants.

And if, by some strange reason, this is true why didnt you call the police? Thats an assault and hey, you would have one less smelly immigrant in jail.

But it didnt happen, and you liked making up the story. Oh well.

[Leafless]

AHEM.....

But then again you only quote the experience of a single person , yourself (one with a tenous, arthritic grasp on reality), which no where near qualifies the fact these incidents or similar incidents are probably fictional and are something you would like to imagine happens more than they do.

Firstly learn to spell tenuous rather than "tenous".

You still continue to use 'arthritic grasp' in the wrong context.

Arthritic grasp is a physical thing and is improper to apply it towards a method of communication, such as the English language or reality.

Continue to make a fool of yourself.

Back to the topic.

Currently we have AMPLE proof many ethnic immigrants are extremist and incompatible with a modern society. Does terrorism come to mind?

In my younger days as service representative for a major Canadian appliance manufacturer, I have seen ethnic immigrants demanding a new stove top and elements after destroying the stove top and elements cooking with charcoal placed under the elements.

I have seen a truck load of ethnic immigrant jump out of a stake truck, armed with baseball bats and totally destroy the interior of a restaurant for reasons unknown.

I am currently aware what races dominate street gangs and mostly they are not White and are violent.

There is no sense to deny what everyone else knows for a fact.

We do not need ethnic immigrants that are uncivilized or that are extremist in Canada.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Leafless

[charter.rights]

We do not need ethnic immigrants that are uncivilized or that are extremist in Canada.

Well then...when are you leaving Canada?

[Leafless]

Well then...when are you leaving Canada?

I am afraid you have misunderstood the statement.

But there is no need to feel badly about yourself.

We understand the ignorant cultural aspirations of the uncivilized, driven to extremism, relating to their wants and needs of an existing modern society.

I mean, damn it, this is officially multicultural Canada.

[charter.rights]

I am afraid you have misunderstood the statement.

But there is no need to feel badly about yourself.

We understand the ignorant cultural aspirations of the uncivilized, driven to extremism, relating to their wants and needs of an existing modern society.

I mean, damn it, this is officially multicultural Canada.

Hmmm....

I thought you were talking about "uncivilized" and "extremist" which would fit you to a tee. I do realize there is still the thing about you being an ethnic immigrant to complete the thought....but then again you are about as foreign to a real Canadian as Mugabee is to being democratically elected. So in the end I figured you were just talking about yourself...~again~.

This isn't a multicultural Canada, after all. It is a nation of individuals with nations hung around their neck.

[Leafless]

Hmmm....

I thought you were talking about "uncivilized" and "extremist" which would fit you to a tee. I do realize there is still the thing about you being an ethnic immigrant to complete the thought....but then again you are about as foreign to a real Canadian as Mugabee is to being democratically elected. So in the end I figured you were just talking about yourself...~again~.

This isn't a multicultural Canada, after all. It is a nation of individuals with nations hung around their neck.

Another inane Canadian communist who has helped bend democracy and the definition of a real Canadian so out of shape, that Mugabe would indeed be a political prize and welcomed to run for PM in Canada by individuals like charter rights.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Leafless

[charter.rights]

Another inane Canadian communist who has helped bend democracy and the definition of a real Canadian so out of shape, that Mugabee would indeed be a political prize and welcomed to run for PM in Canada by individuals like charter rights.

Perhaps you need to assimilate Leafless. I mean there isn't even room for you in South Africa, or south of the Mason-Dickson Line anymore. Your breed is dying off and it is time to become "one of us". I know...I know...the white sheets and hoodies still call to you, but that is all in the past and the only way that your future children can survive is if they give up the old archaic ideas and join society as an equal "minority".

You ideas are stale and your ideology is past its due date. Give it up. You can't win. You were born a loser.....

[Leafless]

Perhaps you need to assimilate Leafless. I mean there isn't even room for you in South Africa, or south of the Mason-Dickson Line anymore. Your breed is dying off and it is time to become "one of us". I know...I know...the white sheets and hoodies still call to you, but that is all in the past and the only way that your future children can survive is if they give up the old archaic ideas and join society as an equal "minority".

You ideas are stale and your ideology is past its due date. Give it up. You can't win. You were born a loser.....

Go and beg on the streets since that is all you deserve you socialist scumbag.