guyser Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 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? gb, this is the third long winded post in reply to a simple question. "Spell it out man, what or where is the problem?" Maybe I dont understand what you are asking, thus the Q.But judging the lack of a response on subject,what the hell can one think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 gb, this is the third long winded post in reply to a simple question."Spell it out man, what or where is the problem?" Maybe I dont understand what you are asking, thus the Q.But judging the lack of a response on subject,what the hell can one think? The problem was your seeming inability to engage in the real conversation; I can't discuss things I never said. If, however, you need everything in the form of a question, I'll slightly alter my earlier statement "the broader topic is uniformity, and how far it can be stretched before it ceases to be what it is" to: "The turban exception is just a existant example to look at; the broader topic is uniformity, and how far can it be stretched before it ceases to be what it is?" Is that better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 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. Good for you. Thankfully our laws protect all of us from the likes and dislikes of others, and people can't be denied their Charter Rights because some people don't like the kind of religious hat they wear. Like I said earlier, Toronto Police officers have been wearing Turbans for over 20 years, and it hasn't done a thing to weaken the organization. In fact, having more Sikhs on the force has been a benefit in a city home to many Sikhs. If you're really concerned about the integrity of the Mounties, you might want to start with taser use and internal corruption. Those seem like bigger issues to most of us than their hats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 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. If I somehow became a citizen of India, and I was a part of a public institution that was denying me my constitutionally guaranteed rights, you're damn right I would speak out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 A uniform, is a set of slothing that is alike. Changing the definition of that one word has changed many other things. I'd really, really, like you to show me the damage done to the Toronto Police force since its members were allowed to wear Turbans 20 years ago. Otherwise, stop making yourself look ridiculous by making a mountain out of, well, nothing. The majority is being changed by the minority in this nation. How so? Because of a religious hat? Is this the best example you can come up with? Good job. We are leaving the tried and true method of of democratic rule and moving toward the tyranny of political correctness. One can say we are already there. So, in your words, we're already living in a state of "tyranny" . . . Jackass, do you know what tyranny really is? Yes or no? Because if things are that damn bad in your mind, we must be living in totally separate countries, because I don't see ANY evidence of tyranny around me. Maybe you could provide us with some evidence of this tyranny? Or, you could admit you're being a sensationalist chicken-little. 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. 1 - There is no national "morality," there are laws. We're a secular nation, not a religious one. 2 - We are not based on "the heritage of the European culture" - because Europe isn't a culture, it's a region filled with many cultures and nations, and even from day one, Canada has been a country with many different people living in it. 3 - You're full of BS, because there isn't a shred of legislation or law that backs up your claim that Canada is "A Christian European nation" Most Canadians don't want to be European or anything else anyway, we want to be Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Good for you. Thank you. Thankfully our laws protect all of us from the likes and dislikes of others, and people can't be denied their Charter Rights because some people don't like the kind of religious hat they wear. Indeed. But there are limits to the Charter's applicability. For instance, a recent case involved a Canadian Forces officer who taught at the Royal Military College and felt that the Forces' requirement that he stand and salute during the loyal toast and singing of the royal anthem was an infingement on his Charter rights. From the Chief of the Defense Staff all the way to the Federal Court, he lost. So, somewhere in between the Sikh getting to be the lone turban in a sea of caps, and an Irish nationalist being denied the ability to give a middle finger salute to the Queen instead of a proper military one, there is a line. All I've ever been asking here is where that line is drawn. Everyone just keeps defending the Sikh in response. I'm sure he appreciates the support, but it isn't moving this conversation forward at all. If you're really concerned about the integrity of the Mounties, you might want to start with taser use and internal corruption. Those seem like bigger issues to most of us than their hats. Maybe; but neither is really the focus of the discussion at hand. The hat is just an illustration to look at, not the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 All I've ever been asking here is where that line is drawn. Seems to be the line is that commonly accepted clothing requirements for religious people shouldn't be a barrier to employment in civil service. And I'll say it again - what negative effects, if any, has there been in the Toronto Police Force since it started allowing devout Sikh officers to join? I haven't seen any. And the slippery slope argument is bunk, because there's been no further uniform changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Seems to be the line is that commonly accepted clothing requirements for religious people shouldn't be a barrier to employment in civil service. So, you're fine with a police officer in a burka? there's been no further uniform changes. And that's definitive proof that there never will be any ever again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 So, you're fine with a police officer in a burka? Sure why not? The ID badge is right there to take note of. Havent seen a policewoman in a burka....yet...and likely never will. But still, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 Sure why not? The ID badge is right there to take note of. Havent seen a policewoman in a burka....yet...and likely never will. But still, why not? There are safety issue with a burqa that do not exist with a turban or a stetson. A hijab though, is something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) Sure why not? The ID badge is right there to take note of. Havent seen a policewoman in a burka....yet...and likely never will. But still, why not? No, I don't believe there are any policewomen in burkas anywhere, in Canada, at least. However, JB said that religious gear should trump uniform rules; so, by his statement, a devout Muslim woman who wears the burka would not be barred from joining the ranks of any forces and continuing to wear her garb. It's not really just about the identification, though; it's also partly about institutional unity, whether symbolic or otherwise. The uniform denotes an organization; it visually amasses all the individuals who wear it into a collective whole, including sub-divisions like rank and regiment. The more diluted the uniform becomes with exceptions, the less it is a uniform (even one deviation makes the term "uniform" technically inapplicable), and the less it can perform its function as a visual unifier. Canadien is right, too, that safety and performance must also be taken into account; though, I don't believe RCMP officers often wear stetsons on the job. It's really just a ceremonial thing, isn't it? Edited August 7, 2008 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.