Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

[TimG]

They absolutely have that right when the country protects a person's freedom of religion. It doesn't matter what the terms of the liability insurance are.

The point is it is out of the control of the operator. If the guests have a problem they may need to take it up with the insurance company. The guests have no right to demand that operator violate terms of their insurance to accommodate their religious idiosynchronies. If they don't like the rule they do not need to ride.

Nevertheless, I think the way it was handled, namely through mob violence, is ridiculous and ought not to be tolerated. Anyone involved in the brawl ought to be arrested and charged.

Ultimately that is the problem. I agree with your argument that there must be some rational basis for these rules but if a rule is in place it should be respected and proper channels should be followed to raise the issue with management to find out whether there is a good rational that is not immediately apparent.

[g_bambino]

The only time a business can discriminate against customers is for a legitimate business purpose.

Interesting. Though, you said, without equivocation, that the park owners - business owners - are "not allowed to discriminate". As your article shows, they are allowed to discriminate. It's just that discrimination against scarf-wearing may not be a justifiable one.

anning turbans, yamulkas or head scarfs, has no legitimate business purpose.

It does if any of those accessories conflicts with the protective head-wear required at some places of business.

You could argue here that is for the safety of the patrons on the rides; however, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate example of head-scarves being a danger to riders. For years, they had been allowed to wear them on rides without any problem and frankly, I don't see how it's possible.

It's quite possible that people wore scarves on these rides before; but, to be honest, I don't know what the park's rules were in the past. What I was reminded of in thinking about this matter was the last time I was at Canada's Wonderland and I got on a rollercoaster wearing a baseball cap. I wasn't refused boarding because of the hat, nor do I remember anyone telling me to take it off before the ride began.

However, Canada's Wonderland hasn't had the misfortune of four deaths occurring on the property in the same number of years, as Playland has. It's entirely possible that, in order to retain any kind of insurance, and thus stay in business, after those incidents, Playland had to acquiesce to high safety demands by insurers, which could well include preemptive safety measures, such as banning scarves (all head wear?) from fast moving rides.

Back to that roller coaster at Canada's Wonderland: I took the hat off, anyway, by my own volition; I knew instinctively that it could well blow off if I didn't.

[c/e]

Edited September 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Im just glad this terrorist plot to sabatage these rides with scarves was averted!

[cybercoma]

Interesting. Though, you said, without equivocation, that the park owners - business owners - are "not allowed to discriminate". As your article shows, they are allowed to discriminate. It's just that discrimination against scarf-wearing may not be a justifiable one.

I could have been clearer in what I was saying. I assumed it was understood that there may be a justifiable reason for discrimination. For example, a Sikh whose job may require him to wear a gas mask would be justified in requiring that he shave his beard or he may not be hired. The beard would prevent the mask from sealing properly around his face and ultimately result in his death. In this case, it's justified.

In this thread, I've tried to be clear that they could be justified for safety reasons, I just don't believe the risk is there in this circumstance, regardless of what some actuary may have calculated at an insurance company. I've already stated why I'm skeptical, so I won't repeat myself. I would also like to add that I don't feel saving some money on insurance is a justifiable reason for limiting a people's religious rights.

It does if any of those accessories conflicts with the protective head-wear required at some places of business.

Agreed. See above.

It's quite possible that people wore scarves on these rides before; but, to be honest, I don't know what the park's rules were in the past. What I was reminded of in thinking about this matter was the last time I was at Canada's Wonderland and I got on a rollercoaster wearing a baseball cap. I wasn't refused boarding because of the hat, nor do I remember anyone telling me to take it off before the ride began.

However, Canada's Wonderland hasn't had the misfortune of four deaths occurring on the property in the same number of years, as Playland has. It's entirely possible that, in order to retain any kind of insurance, and thus stay in business, after those incidents, Playland had to acquiesce to high safety demands by insurers, which could well include preemptive safety measures, such as banning scarves (all head wear?) from fast moving rides.

I take your point, but in my opinion there is a marked difference between telling someone to remove a ball cap, which could easily fly off, and requiring someone to break their religious observances. I also don't think a headscarf is as likely to come loose as a hat and interfere with the ride and I believe if it did, it would not be as hazardous as a ball cap. I accept that I could be wrong. This is just my opinion here.

Back to that roller coaster at Canada's Wonderland: I took the hat off, anyway, by my own volition; I knew instinctively that it could well blow off if I didn't.

[c/e]

That was probably a good idea.

[guyser]

This has nothing to do with being Muslims nor is it prejudice in any form.

The safety issue is paramount and along with that idea is the rule that no headwear be worn, be it scarf,hat jewellry or what have you.

The likelihood that it was an insurance company demands are unlikely and irrelevant. Being a govt owned park (municipally owned)they are probably self insured to a few million.

[Guest American Woman]

This has nothing to do with being Muslims nor is it prejudice in any form.

The safety issue is paramount and along with that idea is the rule that no headwear be worn, be it scarf,hat jewellry or what have you.

It's incredible that people would see it any other way. The idea that someone has to die before rules are made for people's safety has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've heard, although the idea that this is some sort of discrimination is right up there with it.

The likelihood that it was an insurance company demands are unlikely and irrelevant. Being a govt owned park (municipally owned)they are probably self insured to a few million.

Exactly. It's about not wanting people to be injured or killed.

[Michael Hardner]

It's incredible that people would see it any other way. The idea that someone has to die before rules are made for people's safety has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've heard, although the idea that this is some sort of discrimination is right up there with it.

I'm checked out of this discussion, however I want to point out that rules are often changed because people die... and in fact it may be a prime reason. Warnings can be vague or difficult to heed. Not sure what it does to the arguments on this, but there you have it.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm checked out of this discussion, however I want to point out that rules are often changed because people die... and in fact it may be a prime reason.

Not wanting people to die would be another prime reason rules are often changed and or made.

Warnings can be vague or difficult to heed. Not sure what it does to the arguments on this, but there you have it.

\

The amusement park didn't issue a "warning," it made "rules" - which are expected to be followed, regardless of people's personal beliefs (religious or otherwise). I wouldn't want to attend an amusement park that didn't have safety rules based on potential dangers, and I would wager that I'm far from alone in that regard.

[Saipan]

This is just incorrect.

Yes it IS correct. Moslem men force them.

There's NOTHING in Islam about that.

[Saipan]

This has nothing to do with 'Muslim rights'. That you fail to see that shows just how narrow-minded you are. In fact, it shows that you think Muslims specifically shouldn't have rights. My point is and always has been about liberty and freedom for anyone to practice their faith without having to worry about companies or the government making up spurious rules to limit innocuous practices of their faith.

How dangerous is to display Nativity scene in public place?

It's not allowed.

Btw, there's nothing in Koran about those "practices" Muslim men want to force on others.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Saipan

[Guest American Woman]

Mr.Canada, on 01 September 2011 - 10:37 AM, said: Its the Muslim men who force their women to wear these oppressive styles of dress under threat of death. ...it's really sad that girls are killed because they want to be a normal teenager.

This is just incorrect. Why am I not surprised that you got it wrong though? Do you know any actual Muslims? Have you ever actually talked to one? You may want to give it a go.

In some instances it is true. It's not the whole by any means, but in too many instances Muslim women are forced to abide by these rules that the men enforce on them.

[Saipan]

I'm checked out of this discussion, however I want to point out that rules are often changed because people die...

But most often just to be politically correct.

Example: Is native boy safer with 60 HP outboard motor than Caucasian (or Asian) with 1/2 HP electric Min-Kota? A man who safely sailed for 60 years.

Yet that man is required by law to have new boating licence while the boy does not.

Is it really about boating SAFETY?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Saipan

[cybercoma]

How dangerous is to display Nativity scene in public place?

It's not allowed.

Btw, there's nothing in Koran about those "practices" Muslim men want to force on others.

What is "public" space?

[guyser]

Example: Is native boy safer with 60 HP outboard motor than Caucasian (or Asian) with 1/2 HP electric Min-Kota? A man who safely sailed for 60 years.

Yet that man is required by law to have new boating licence while the boy does not.

Is it really about boating SAFETY?

Bzzzzt...Wrong.

He could have old boating licence.

Aboriginals are required by law to have an Operators Card. There are minor easements for subsistence living, otherwise they have to have one,

[Saipan]

What is "public" space?

Google will tell you all that. Public school also teaches what is public.

[Saipan]

Bzzzzt...Wrong.

He could have old boating licence.

Of course, a young boy with old licence trick! Why didn't I think of that, ninety nine?

Aboriginals are required by law to have an Operators Card. There are minor easements for subsistence living, otherwise they have to have one,

And the 'minor easements' apply to all, of course. Because they all hunt & fish to eat.

[Saipan]

There are minor easements for subsistence living, otherwise they have to have one

Are subsistence fishermen safer?

Who are subsistence fishermen and hunters?

[g_bambino]

Are subsistence fishermen safer?

Who are subsistence fishermen and hunters?

Google will tell you all that.

[guyser]

Are subsistence fishermen safer?

Who are subsistence fishermen and hunters?

Look, you didnt know they are required to have an PCOC , so dont move goalposts to try and save face.Your Point was moot anyhow.

Edited September 2, 2011 by guyser

[guyser]

Of course, a young boy with old licence trick! Why didn't I think of that, ninety nine?

That 'boy' could have had his licence 10+ years

[Saipan]

Google will tell you all that.

It did! Who are subsistence fishermen and hunters?

http://www.ehow.com/about_5565128_alaskan-native-fishing-rights.html

So what's the difference between "native" and "non-native" welfare recipient?

[Saipan]

Look, you didnt know they are required to have an PCOC , so dont move goalposts to try and save face.Your Point was moot anyhow.

Sorry it didn't work for you.

Do you know of any who paid $250 for not having licence? They are NOT required because they fish to eat. They are 'required' only in theory.

I.e. racist law, left over from liberals.

[Saipan]

(in USA)

"According to an Oct. 18, 2009, story in the Anchorage Daily News, the federal subsistence law for rural residents was enacted in 1980. A 1989 state supreme court ruling, however, said it's unconstitutional to favor one group of hunters or fishermen over another based on where they live".

[cybercoma]

Google will tell you all that. Public school also teaches what is public.

Google only has the answers they want you to see. What is public space?

[Saipan]

Google only has the answers they want you to see.

You have evidence?

What is public space?

Freely accesible space by public. I.e. no private property.