Assimilation

[Wild Bill]

Yes, you're right, and I was aware of the differences between religious gear and ethnic costume. Still, it's a question of how far individual rights go - one could claim that the denial of their bou-bou means cultural oppression, or some such thing - and of appealing to minority communities, as Wilber brought up. I'm also still intrigued as to how Sikhs fly jets in any air force...

Apparently, in their homeland Sikhs make a practical adjustment, adding a small bit of ornamentation to a regular flight helmet.

In Canada such accommodation is neither wanted or necessary for that community. Our governments will simply ignore such examples and cave in.

That being said, I personally don't mind small exceptions. A mountie in a turban doesn't bother me. A Sikh motorcycle rider without a helmet does. Or a construction worker or any other situation where the operative factor is safety. I believe that those who refuse safety laws should also not be protected by safety legislation or be able to sue employers if their refusal to comply resulted in injury to themselves.

[CANADIEN]

The majority is being changed by the minority in this nation.

And how many non-Sikh RCMP offers (or officers in any police department) are being forced to wear a turban?

We are leaving the tried and true method of of democratic rule and moving toward the tyranny of political correctness.

True democratic rule is more than just the tyranny of the majority; it also includes respect for fundamental rights.

The fact of the matter is that situational ethics have trumped the social morality of this nation. That morality was based on the majority will of the founders of this nation which was in fact based upon the morality of the religious historical heritage of the European culture which brought settlers to the new world in the first place.

Claim to explain how respect for freedom of religion is immoral.

We have now defined that new world, and its far different from the one in which a great many citizens were brought up in.

And that new world has at least one good feature... It is more difficult to deny individuals their rights, even in the name of the majority.

[CANADIEN]

Apparently, in their homeland Sikhs make a practical adjustment, adding a small bit of ornamentation to a regular flight helmet.

And they wear a turban as part of their ceremonial dress.

That being said, I personally don't mind small exceptions. A mountie in a turban doesn't bother me. A Sikh motorcycle rider without a helmet does. Or a construction worker or any other situation where the operative factor is safety. I believe that those who refuse safety laws should also not be protected by safety legislation or be able to sue employers if their refusal to comply resulted in injury to themselves.

Legitimate requirements associated with an occupation or an activity trumps other considerations, including freedom of religion. It is normal to expect, as a safety measure, that a hard hat be worn on construction sites and that helmets be worn when riding a motorcycle. I still have to see proof that a turban is less secure than a stetson.

[g_bambino]

Apparently, in their homeland Sikhs make a practical adjustment, adding a small bit of ornamentation to a regular flight helmet.

In Canada such accommodation is neither wanted or necessary for that community. Our governments will simply ignore such examples and cave in.

That being said, I personally don't mind small exceptions. A mountie in a turban doesn't bother me. A Sikh motorcycle rider without a helmet does. Or a construction worker or any other situation where the operative factor is safety. I believe that those who refuse safety laws should also not be protected by safety legislation or be able to sue employers if their refusal to comply resulted in injury to themselves.

I agree fully that safety should trump religious beliefs; I was happy with the ruling of the BC Human Rights Tribunal on the issue of turbans and helmets on motorcycle drivers. However, uniforms also serve a valuable purpose; tradition is one thing, but, practically, a uniform identifies the wearer as part of an organization and symbolises the organization to observers. Start messing with it - making an exception here, a unique case there - and it ceases to be a uniform. I keep picturing a line of Mounties in formation for inspection, a long row of identical caps and then one turban popping up amongst them. Seems ridiculous to me, and, if Sikhs can also wear a smaller turban-like garment under their helmets, why can Sikhs in the RCMP not just wear that under their Stetson or cap, instead of a giant, blue turban in place of the hat? As you mention: why were these examples ignored?

[guyser]

I. Seems ridiculous to me, and, if Sikhs can also wear a smaller turban-like garment under their helmets, why can Sikhs in the RCMP not just wear that under their Stetson or cap, instead of a giant, blue turban in place of the hat? As you mention: why were these examples ignored?

Lets get rid of the women in that photo too. Oh and the Stetsons.....both are changes to RCMP codes.

Its a turban, let it go.

[g_bambino]

Lets get rid of the women in that photo too. Oh and the Stetsons.....both are changes to RCMP codes.

That doesn't address what I said in the least.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What's wrong with admitting some cultures are objectively superior, on balance?

Think of the British empire. The countries that evolved from that empire are by far the most successful, peaceful, free, non-violent and organized, not to mention wealthy.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is characterized by thug dictatorships, murderous revolution, women's human rights abuses, midievil laws, starvation, devastation, disease and filth.

And we want to import that here as if it's giong to "help make us better"?

Give us a break. Why do we hate ourselves so, while the cultuires we import have such confidence, when we are clearly objectively superior!?

[guyser]

That doesn't address what I said in the least.

Sure it does.

You were talking about uniforms and the iconic status of such. You also said you want a turban tucked up in a stetson.

So, a stetson is not a CDN icon, nor is having women serve as RCMP part of the iconic status of the RCMP.

So, you want to cherry pick which icons you want to keep. And in this case, turbans are not part of what you want. I say fine. Lets get rid of them, but at the same time lets get rid of the women in the RCMP (you can tell them yourself, I'm ducking out of that job), get rid of the RCMP police cars to.

Progress, good or bad will continue.

Besides, the uniform is recognized the world over, with or without a turban.Sounds to me as if you dont like turbans.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sure it does.

You were talking about uniforms and the iconic status of such. You also said you want a turban tucked up in a stetson.

So, a stetson is not a CDN icon, nor is having women serve as RCMP part of the iconic status of the RCMP.

So, you want to cherry pick which icons you want to keep. And in this case, turbans are not part of what you want. I say fine. Lets get rid of them, but at the same time lets get rid of the women in the RCMP (you can tell them yourself, I'm ducking out of that job), get rid of the RCMP police cars to.

Progress, good or bad will continue.

Besides, the uniform is recognized the world over, with or without a turban.Sounds to me as if you dont like turbans.

I don't mind the turbans, but as a matter of principle, I would ask...why?

This is a very interesting question which goes to the heart of cultural confidence.

Let's think about how we've been indoctrinated with sensitivity in this country. DO you realize I heard a country cong the other day about killing the asshole taliban, and my knee jerk was to stop and think about whether it was offenseive to anyone? THE TALIBAN!! A murderous regime the worst of which we haven't seen since Hitler!!! and I'm a CONSERVATIVE IN FAVOR OF THE WAR! Think about the level of brainwashing that has been done for me to react like that.

Now, translate that to sensitivity generally: would you ever presume to go to India, enroll in their National Police Force, one with a known traditional uniform, and demand the right to change it? I would venture to say most Canadians, in their meagre, cultural self-hatred, wouldn't dare.

Yet the opposite happens all the time in this country. Heck, the Ontario government hands out spousal support benefits for multiple wives to muslim men in this country. I mean WTF!>!>!>!?!?!?!?!?

This turban, or any other, issue is about cultural confidence. OPther cultures feel entitled to demand, whereas we feel obliged to give in.

Think about it.

Edited July 30, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[g_bambino]

You were talking about uniforms and the iconic status of such. You also said you want a turban tucked up in a stetson.

So, a stetson is not a CDN icon, nor is having women serve as RCMP part of the iconic status of the RCMP.

Besides, the uniform is recognized the world over, with or without a turban.Sounds to me as if you dont like turbans.

Again, you completely miss what I actually said.

I pointed out that the term "uniform" means "all the same." I further elaborated that this sameness of appearance serves the practical purpose of creating a cohesive identity for an organization that allows insiders and outsiders to identify the members of said organization. Not once did I venture into the topic of Canadian iconography, nor did I say anything about whether or not I like turbans.

Care to try one more time?

[guyser]

Now, translate that to sensitivity generally: would you ever presume to go to India, enroll in their National Police Force, one with a known traditional uniform, and demand the right to change it? I would venture to say most Canadians, in their meagre, cultural self-hatred, wouldn't dare.

First of all, I would not go to India and sign up for the NPF and ask for a change since I have absolutely no religious icons I want to preserve. I seriously doubt they even have a tribunal to complain to.

I imagine if I was Jewish and wore the yarmulke 24-7 then I would ask to be able to wear it. No more no less.

Secondly, Canadians have no cultural self hatred. You complain about lefties and there wild notions, but in reality you have notions that are not borne of truth. Self hatred? Uh no.

Yet the opposite happens all the time in this country. Heck, the Ontario government hands out spousal support benefits for multiple wives to muslim men in this country. I mean WTF!>!>!>!?!?!?!?!?

Happens all the time. Of course you could list when it happens, or has happened couldnt you?

And check your facts, Ontario did not give out spousal benefits to multiple wives. Only one wife could claim.

This turban, or any other, issue is about cultural confidence. OPther cultures feel entitled to demand, whereas we feel obliged to give in.

Think about it.

I did.

This is a small country, and we are growing. We have immigrants contributing to this country and as a nation we realize that we need to and will change to accomodate people. Who better to go into the communities of Sikhs than a turban wearing RCMP of Sikh persuasion. Aboriginal communities have OPP officers in slightly different gear patrolling . I dont see a problem there.

Or... we could be like France and marginalize the new arrivals, keep them perpetually isolated and and on the fringe, until one day they start a riot and create havoc.

No thanks, I like Canada and its new arrivals and want to make changes since it will be a better country for it.

Plenty of people complained when the Italians came. Those damn wops and the fancy railings and weird food and all of them living in one house/apt. Yet years later we realize without them half of Toronto would never have been built.

Or...we could go back in time when this country was sooooooooooooo boring they even locked public swings on Saturday night, you could not see a liquor bottle at the LCBO instead you had to write a code down and take it to the counter, and the sidewalks closed on Sat nights.

No thanks.

[guyser]

Again, you completely miss what I actually said.

Not from my angle I didnt.

I pointed out that the term "uniform" means "all the same." I further elaborated that this sameness of appearance serves the practical purpose of creating a cohesive identity for an organization that allows insiders and outsiders to identify the members of said organization. Not once did I venture into the topic of Canadian iconography, nor did I say anything about whether or not I like turbans.

Care to try one more time?

Said "insiders and outsiders" could not identify an RCMP officer in full red dress because of a turban? I doubt that.

Brown leather boots, knee high, blue jodphurs with a yellow stripe, red coat, white gloves and a stetson which they stole from the yanks

vs..

Brown leather boots, knee high, blue jodphurs with a yellow stripe, red coat, white gloves and a turban.

I see two RCMP officers , what do you see ?

[AngusThermopyle]

I see two RCMP officers , what do you see ?

I see this discussion going on for days with no resolution in sight. Lets just get rid of turbans and stetsons and johdpurs and all the rest.

They should all just have to wear assless chaps and Carmen Miranda fruit hats instead.

[CANADIEN]

I agree fully that safety should trump religious beliefs; I was happy with the ruling of the BC Human Rights Tribunal on the issue of turbans and helmets on motorcycle drivers. However, uniforms also serve a valuable purpose; tradition is one thing, but, practically, a uniform identifies the wearer as part of an organization and symbolises the organization to observers. Start messing with it - making an exception here, a unique case there - and it ceases to be a uniform. I keep picturing a line of Mounties in formation for inspection, a long row of identical caps and then one turban popping up amongst them. Seems ridiculous to me, and, if Sikhs can also wear a smaller turban-like garment under their helmets, why can Sikhs in the RCMP not just wear that under their Stetson or cap, instead of a giant, blue turban in place of the hat? As you mention: why were these examples ignored?

And what seems ridiculous to me is the notion that people can't recognize a RCMP agent in a ceremonial dress if he wears a turban.

The India Air Force adopted the helmet solution because of a security need (you can not fly a combat jet safely without a helmet). I am still waiting for someone to show me the security reason that would warrant wearing of helmet as part of the ceremonial dress of a RCMP agent. And if there is actually a security reason, why makes a Stetson so safe that those wearing it do not need to wear an helmet with it?

[g_bambino]

Not from my angle I didnt.

Then I suggest you change your angle.

Said "insiders and outsiders" could not identify an RCMP officer in full red dress because of a turban? I doubt that.

Brown leather boots, knee high, blue jodphurs with a yellow stripe, red coat, white gloves and a stetson which they stole from the yanks

vs..

Brown leather boots, knee high, blue jodphurs with a yellow stripe, red coat, white gloves and a turban.

I see two RCMP officers , what do you see ?

Perhaps your angle is too narrow. The turban exception is just a existant example to look at; the broader topic is uniformity, and how far it can be stretched before it ceases to be what it is.

[g_bambino]

And what seems ridiculous to me is the notion that people can't recognize a RCMP agent in a ceremonial dress if he wears a turban.

See above.

[guyser]

.

Perhaps your angle is too narrow. The turban exception is just a existant example to look at; the broader topic is uniformity, and how far it can be stretched before it ceases to be what it is.

Perhaps you could provide an example of what you speak? I cant think of anything, save for the Vancouver Canucks uni's over the years.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps you could provide an example of what you speak? I cant think of anything, save for the Vancouver Canucks uni's over the years.

Did I not just say the turban exception is an existent example to look at? But, why do we need an example in order to discuss the dilution of uniformity; the concepts are what they are.

[guyser]

Did I not just say the turban exception is an existent example to look at? But, why do we need an example in order to discuss the dilution of uniformity; the concepts are what they are.

In that case we have a long way to go before anyone cant recognize the uniform.

So, you cant recognize a turban wearing RCMP officer because of the turban. Ok

[g_bambino]

So, you cant recognize a turban wearing RCMP officer because of the turban. Ok

I welcome you to participate in the discussion that's being had, but I'm afraid I'm not able to engage in whatever conversation it is you're apparently having with youself.

[guyser]

I welcome you to participate in the discussion that's being had, but I'm afraid I'm not able to engage in whatever conversation it is you're apparently having with youself.

Thats fine thanks. If it is above your comprehension then say so. Dilly dallying about does you no good.

Spell it out man, what or where is the problem?

[g_bambino]

Thats fine thanks. If it is above your comprehension then say so. Dilly dallying about does you no good.

Spell it out man, what or where is the problem?

How on earth would I know if your fantastical conversations are above my comprehension or not? Perhaps you have the uncanny ability to read minds, but, I do not, and, until science allows me to do so, I will continue to be unable to participate in debates going on in your imagination. Perhaps that's what you perceive as "dilly dallying," and the problem is that you don't seem to realise I am only a mortal and don't possess the gift of clairvoyance.

[guyser]

How on earth would I know if your fantastical conversations are above my comprehension or not? Perhaps you have the uncanny ability to read minds, but, I do not, and, until science allows me to do so, I will continue to be unable to participate in debates going on in your imagination. Perhaps that's what you perceive as "dilly dallying," and the problem is that you don't seem to realise I am only a mortal and don't possess the gift of clairvoyance.

Rather nice deflection . Ok.

BTW, I can read minds.

[g_bambino]

Rather nice deflection . Ok.

You see? What I said struck right at the heart of the matter: though we're talking to each other, we're not actually participating in the same conversation; you ascribed to me statements I never made and brought up issues that had nothing to do with the topic. Now, you go and call my raising of this problem a "deflection," which is the exact opposite of what it actually was. This starts to show a pattern which says that you either have comprehension difficulties, or you're purposefully making false claims and confusing matters in order to be inflammatory. Which is it?

[Black Dog]

This turban, or any other, issue is about cultural confidence. OPther cultures feel entitled to demand, whereas we feel obliged to give in.

Canada's respect for pluralism is one of the things that makes us better than the backwater cultures you admire for their confidence. Let me put it another way: Canada's habit of compromise and accommodation is part of our culture, just an aspect you dislike. So who's the real self-hater?