Assimilation

[GostHacked]

No one has tried to change the uniform....just an allowance to wear a different headdress from the one currently worn now which is the 3rd or 4th hat they have worn.

You change the hat, you change the uniform. Simple as that.

Army Guy

As for me, between the hat and religious freedom, I consider religious freedom to be a more important Canadian icon and tradition. And getting the right people for the jobs is the most important thing, way before any tradition.

If you are hired for a job, you do what you have to to get the job. If you want that job badly enough, then you have to change to meet those standards the job describes. He wants to stand out in the crowd, he does not want to blend in and be a Mountie. He will always be an anomoly. Besides, if I am paying you to do the job, and I have a dress code, I could not give two shits about your religion. If your religion is more important to you than the job, then you have no right to actually apply for the job.

Guyser

Then ask your friend, the girl, to quit . Woman mounties goes against the icon.

Not what you expected was it?

The icon is there, when full dress is required , the mountie stetson is worn. The RCMP at the airport wear regular cop caps.....is that an icon?

This girl has exactly what it takes to be a great RCMP officer. We even talked about the turban and females in the RCMP. And yes, when you are hired for a job, you check your religion at the door. Simple as that.

The regular cops cap is interesting now that you mention it. The iconic RCMP stetson is a formal wear hat. The other hats are not 'formal' So even at that the guy could even wear the turban in an informal situation. But when on a formal parade n stuff.. wear the hat.

What about the Changing of the Guards every day in Ottawa? I doubt you would like to see a bunch of turbans and other hats in the mix. It just does not have the same feel to it. The icon is diluted and a shadow of its former self.

Some traditions and Icons are changed over time. I also beleive some icons should remain pure.

Also, this is worth mentioning. They are mounted police. Like on horses... I guess they should still be using horses.... oh wait they do .. during formal parades.

[guyser]

This girl has exactly what it takes to be a great RCMP officer.

I dont doubt you for a moment.

But your arguement was to "not change" the icons. The icon was a man , but you are ok with that (as I am) change but not others.

[M.Dancer]

I dont doubt you for a moment.

But your arguement was to "not change" the icons. The icon was a man , but you are ok with that (as I am) change but not others.

Indeed..they had to change the tunic to allow various sized bosums...and they had to change the haircut code...if tradition and icons are important, only flat chested women with a man's haricut need apply.

hmmm....they could have had a recruiting booth on Church last week...

[GostHacked]

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?

Knowing you might want to put on a turban and not the hat tells me you are not on my side.

Guyser

I dont doubt you for a moment.

But your arguement was to "not change" the icons. The icon was a man , but you are ok with that (as I am) change but not others.

When women were given the right to vote and become citizens, then they have the rights to become part of those 'only men' clubs. They have proven women have what it takes to be in the RCMP. The level of discrimination as you call it, is much lesser for the turban than for the woman. I have yet to hear or see a case about a woman wanting to change the uniform. The only thing that was changed is they have the option to wear a skirt. Which to me is not that bad at all. This was after 101 years of the tradition. And anything that women get into, have the option of a skirt. This does not seem like a bad thing....

I can understand the dilema about women in the RCMP... and now there are lots of them. But there are plenty of women who wanted to become RCMP officers and wear the uniform, the whole uniform , with pride.

http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/09/16/ Interesting bit. They also have height restrictions. According to this bit on CBC, the mounties were one of the last police forces to allow women to join the ranks. So it took a long time for change to happen.

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/clips/3302/

The decision is not without its protestors, but as Dhillon says in this CBC Television clip, "I'm willing to look these people in the eye and tell them that I'm no different from them."

How about this argument. The turban is NOT Canadian.

[GostHacked]

Indeed..they had to change the tunic to allow various sized bosums...and they had to change the haircut code...if tradition and icons are important, only flat chested women with a man's haricut need apply.

hmmm....they could have had a recruiting booth on Church last week...

No way ... boobs come in different sizes???? Men come in different sizes as well. Maybe we can get an oversized novelty RCMP hat to fit over the turban.

[M.Dancer]

No way ... boobs come in different sizes???? Men come in different sizes as well. Maybe we can get an oversized novelty RCMP hat to fit over the turban.

You are aware I assume that the tailoring on a woman's jacket differs from a man's?

You know....darts?

Anyway...given that the headress for the RCMP has changed for the British Pillbox, to the Anglo-Indian Pith Helmet to various incarnations of the cowboy hat...I think another change would be okay.

I propose that, like the Kyber Rifles, all men and women of the RCMP wear turbans.

[M.Dancer]

How about this argument. The turban is NOT Canadian.

Neither is the Stetson.

...so much for your argument....

[M.Dancer]

Stetson is the standard in hats, the essence of the spirit of the West and an icon of everyday American lifestyle. Because of its authentic American heritage, Stetson remains as a part of history and, for the same reason will continue into the future.

Stetson, it's not just a hat, it's the hat.STETSON HATS

601 Marion Dr.

Garland, Texas 75042

[guyser]

When women were given the right to vote and become citizens, then they have the rights to become part of those 'only men' clubs.

Thus the icon got changed.

They have proven women have what it takes to be in the RCMP. The level of discrimination as you call it, is much lesser for the turban than for the woman. I have yet to hear or see a case about a woman wanting to change the uniform. The only thing that was changed is they have the option to wear a skirt. Which to me is not that bad at all. This was after 101 years of the tradition. And anything that women get into, have the option of a skirt. This does not seem like a bad thing....

Thus the icon got changed.

I can understand the dilema about women in the RCMP... and now there are lots of them. But there are plenty of women who wanted to become RCMP officers and wear the uniform, the whole uniform , with pride.

Thus the icon got changed.

How about this argument. The turban is NOT Canadian.

Neither is a skirt.

The point is ghost is that the icon really has not changed. The PR campaigns show the dress uniform pretty much what it has always been , save for the odd skirt and the odd turban.

If you want to stick to your belief that icons shouldnt change fine, but go tell your female RCMP friend that .See what she says to you.

(be prepared to duck)

[guyser]

...if tradition and icons are important, only flat chested women with a man's haricut need apply.

hmmm....they could have had a recruiting booth on Church last week...

Quote of the week.

Too funny!

[bush_cheney2004]

Neither is the Stetson.

...so much for your argument....

...well played Sir.

[Leafless]

Neither is the Stetson.

...so much for your argument....

Nevertheless, the RCMP adopted the Stetson for official use in the RCMP and and did NOT adopt the ##**## turban.

So much for your inane condescending comment.

[capricorn]

capricorn @ Jun 27 2008, 01:50 AM

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?

Knowing you might want to put on a turban and not the hat tells me you are not on my side.

If we were on a battlefield or other armed conflict, I'm sure you'd know if I was on your side and it wouldn't be because of any headgear.

[guyser]

Nevertheless, the RCMP adopted the Stetson for official use in the RCMP and and did NOT adopt the ##**## turban.

I guess the "##**##" would be your true feelings about Sikhs? No surprise there.

Um...the RCMP have officially approved for use, the turban. Otherwise wearing one would be in violation of dress code.

As for a bon mot to show your...oh never mind lets just show your words again.

So much for your inane condescending comment.

Except he was spot on . Did you keep that kleenex...?....you have egg on your face.

[CANADIEN]

How about this argument. The turban is NOT Canadian.

But religious discrimination is?

A headgear is not what makes or unmakes a Canadian. It is the person wearing it.

As for the argument that people should check their religion at the door when getting a job, it may work for people whose religion is attending worship for two hours a week. it does not work for people whose religious beliefs govern all aspects of their lives. To follow your argument, a doctor hired in a public hospital would be obligated to perfom abortions even if this goes against hiséher beliefs.

[Black Dog]

Nevertheless, the RCMP adopted the Stetson for official use in the RCMP and and did NOT adopt the ##**## turban.

They did in 1989. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[CANADIEN]

Knowing you might want to put on a turban and not the hat tells me you are not on my side.

Members of Canada`s police and armed forces who are dedicated to their duties are clearly on Canada`s site, no matter their headgear. You stand on another side, your problem.

[Wilber]

The object of the exercise is to provide policing, not wear hats. If you have large ethnic communities in your society, you need people in your police force who can function in that society. If they can display a symbol of that community which helps them carry out their job better, that is not a bad thing. If you are intimidated by a police officer just because he wears a turban, that's your problem.

[M.Dancer]

Nevertheless, the RCMP adopted the Stetson for official use in the RCMP and and did NOT adopt the ##**## turban.

So much for your inane condescending comment.

First Leafless has to trot out a falsehood to pump up his flaccid point. Point of fact his the RCMP has an officail turban.....therefore another argument falls limp.

And ithen n this gem from Leafless we have in a nutshell why this debate is absurd.

An iconic canadian symbol wears an american hat yet for some strange reason headgear with a far longer history and greater peerage would be foreign...

Typically wingnut Canadian.

Edited July 4, 2008 by M.Dancer

[g_bambino]

The object of the exercise is to provide policing, not wear hats. If you have large ethnic communities in your society, you need people in your police force who can function in that society. If they can display a symbol of that community which helps them carry out their job better, that is not a bad thing. If you are intimidated by a police officer just because he wears a turban, that's your problem.

Er, hold on a second there... If it's only about symbols, why not then have a woman wearing a turban, or a man of Japanese descent? Further, why pander to the sensibilities of one group and not another; after all, you show concern for comforting some communities but seem to have no regard for the feelings of others. If I'm reading you correctly, why the double standard?

[Wilber]

Er, hold on a second there... If it's only about symbols, why not then have a woman wearing a turban, or a man of Japanese descent? Further, why pander to the sensibilities of one group and not another; after all, you show concern for comforting some communities but seem to have no regard for the feelings of others. If I'm reading you correctly, why the double standard?

Women (not even Sikh women) and Japanese don't wear turbans as part of their religion so what's your point? I can see prohibiting them if it is necessary to do the job but not if it can actually help them in certain situations. I have a Sikh buddy who is an ex F-18 driver. Obviously a turban wouldn't work too well in that job.

[g_bambino]

Women (not even Sikh women) and Japanese don't wear turbans as part of their religion so what's your point? I can see prohibiting them if it is necessary to do the job but not if it can actually help them in certain situations. I have a Sikh buddy who is an ex F-18 driver. Obviously a turban wouldn't work too well in that job.

I know women and the Japanese don't (traditionally) wear turbans; that's why I chose them. My point is: if symbols to comfort others are all that matter, then what difference does it make on whom they're placed? In other words, why recruit a Sikh to patrol a Sikh community when a turban plopped on any old officer could do? The symbol is just the same, right? Further, if that is the case, then must there be officers who sport the religious and cultural gear of all ethnic communities? Why not just let them eschew the uniform all-together and just wear traditional national costumes? Wearing boots, pants, tunics, and stetsons is not necessary to do the job, and it might help them carry out their job better in minority communities.

I'm being somewhat sarcastic, of course, but there actually is a question here of why traditional symbols (the RCMP uniform being the example here) are altered: is it to suit those being policed, or the individual joining the police force? The two are not the same thing.

[GostHacked]

But religious discrimination is?

A headgear is not what makes or unmakes a Canadian. It is the person wearing it.

As for the argument that people should check their religion at the door when getting a job, it may work for people whose religion is attending worship for two hours a week. it does not work for people whose religious beliefs govern all aspects of their lives. To follow your argument, a doctor hired in a public hospital would be obligated to perfom abortions even if this goes against hiséher beliefs.

If you get hired for a job, you can't start changing their rules. If you are a doctor that always worries about an operation that might go against your religion, you need to find yourself another occupation. The work place is a place of work, and not worship. Again, check your religion at the door, or don't bother applying.

g bambino

'm being somewhat sarcastic, of course, but there actually is a question here of why traditional symbols (the RCMP uniform being the example here) are altered: is it to suit those being policed, or the individual joining the police force? The two are not the same thing.

Actually this is right on the money. And because it was really one guy that made a fuss about it... squeaky wheel gets the grease. If he was not alowed to wear the turban, I bet you any money this man would have left the RCMP. Hypothericaly if this was the case, then the whole turban thing is a joke and an insult to the RCMP uniforms and traditions.

[Wilber]

I know women and the Japanese don't (traditionally) wear turbans; that's why I chose them. My point is: if symbols to comfort others are all that matter, then what difference does it make on whom they're placed? In other words, why recruit a Sikh to patrol a Sikh community when a turban plopped on any old officer could do? The symbol is just the same, right? Further, if that is the case, then must there be officers who sport the religious and cultural gear of all ethnic communities? Why not just let them eschew the uniform all-together and just wear traditional national costumes? Wearing boots, pants, tunics, and stetsons is not necessary to do the job, and it might help them carry out their job better in minority communities.

I'm being somewhat sarcastic, of course, but there actually is a question here of why traditional symbols (the RCMP uniform being the example here) are altered: is it to suit those being policed, or the individual joining the police force? The two are not the same thing.

I think that if you exclude valuable, qualified people who you need to work with different ethnic communities, for no other reason than they wear a certain kind of hat because of their religion, it's your loss.

We didn't exclude the largest volunteer army in history from fighting on our side during WW2 because a lot of them wore turbans.

[g_bambino]

I think that if you exclude valuable, qualified people who you need to work with different ethnic communities, for no other reason than they wear a certain kind of hat because of their religion, it's your loss.

We didn't exclude the largest volunteer army in history from fighting on our side during WW2 because a lot of them wore turbans.

Okay then, fair enough. But, this brings me to the question: where do you stop? There are countless ethnic communities in Canada, and many of those have more than just headgear to identify themselves. So, why not dispense with the uniform all-together? Or, if you want to go with the WWII analogy, should the RCMP ranks be divided along ethnic/religious lines, each regiment with its own specific uniform, as was done with those Sikhs who signed up to fight fifty years ago?