Ontario employees sent memo about "sensitivity" to Muslims.

[Black Dog]

Clearly to deny that employees at malls, government establishments etc are told to say "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas" is denying the obvious. It does happen.

I didn't say it didn't happen. I said it has never happened to me.

As for the point: this Christmas thing simply confirms what Michael wrote earlier:

I've read such comparisons before, and they absolutely depend on having a different (i.e. preferential) attitude towards Christianity every time.

If we don't have Christmas carols then we're anti-Christian, but if we even mention a Muslim holiday then we're pro-Muslim. The double standard is essential to keeping the myth of Christian persecution alive.

BTW to respond BD's remark earlier about religious vacations, there's a difference. If a Muslim wants to take Eid off that's fine. This memo is implying that everyone must change their work habits in order not to offend a Muslim.

Nope. It's suggesting managers be aware of and sensitive to their employees' needs and make small adjustments if requested.

BTW Muslims have been working along side Christians and Jews in the country for awhile now. This is the first we've heard about these kind accommodations being offered.

I won't deny that there's such a thing as over-sensitivity. It's really a bit silly, as these things tend to be. At the end of the day, though, does it matter a jot? Only the most deluded saddo would nurture a folder of such trivialities into a full blossom Yellow Peril conspiracy with prayer rooms and such as the thin edge of the wedge that ends in sharia law.

For the sake of perspective, here's piece on how some senior Ontario government officials kiboshed a request to create a prayer room in the office. Why, it's almost as if one can look at these things on a case-by-case basis and decide what's sensible and reasonable and what's not. What a concept, eh?

As a side note, I wonder what people would say about what's happening in France right now, a country that has the largest percentage of Muslims in Europe. They are planning to ba(n) public prayer because Muslims are shutting public streets down by doing mass public prayers. Is that a reasonable response by the government of France?

It's funny how people can bitch about Canada a country which, by any standard, has done a good job if integrating its Muslim population (as has the U.S.) and claim that harsher measures are needed when those countries that have taken such measures have far greater problems with assimilation and immigration than we do.

As to the ban on public prayer, it makes sense if there's a serious disruption being caused, less so if it's merely Sarkozy kowtowing to the far right.

They've already banned the Burka a move I 100% support.

It's odd to me how quickly right-wing freedom-loving types are willing to discard personal freedoms when it comes to things that make them uncomfortable. Tell me, what other retrograde modes of religious dress or practice would you also ban?

[Boges]

It's odd to me how quickly right-wing freedom-loving types are willing to discard personal freedoms when it comes to things that make them uncomfortable. Tell me, what other retrograde modes of religious dress or practice would you also ban?

I seriously doubt that a woman wearing a burka is doing so because they wish to.

This is the Burka, not a Hijab or a Turban. Also The Burka has little to do with Islam, It's a cultural symbol of domination over women.

[Black Dog]

I seriously doubt that a woman wearing a burka is doing so because they wish to.

This is the Burka, not a Hijab or a Turban. Also The Burka has little to do with Islam, It's a cultural symbol of domination over women.

And if it is? I don't like the burka; hate it in fact. But I don't think the state has a place in the wardrobes of the nation.

[Boges]

And if it is? I don't like the burka; hate it in fact. But I don't think the state has a place in the wardrobes of the nation.

Well the ban solves two problems posed by the burka.

1) Women who refuse to show their faces in order to reveal their identity.

2) Also if they are banned then perhaps it's less likely for a women to be a victim of an honour killing for not wearing it.

[Black Dog]

Well the ban solves two problems posed by the burka.

1) Women who refuse to show their faces in order to reveal their identity.

Rather than an outright ban, wouldn't it make more sense to simply require people to show their faces to reveal their identity in order to access a service?

2) Also if they are banned then perhaps it's less likely for a women to be a victim of an honour killing for not wearing it.

That's a plus, but I don't think it really hits the cultural problem that leads to such killings. You're talking about a band-aid.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Black Dog

[capricorn]

Well the ban solves two problems posed by the burka.

1) Women who refuse to show their faces in order to reveal their identity.

2) Also if they are banned then perhaps it's less likely for a women to be a victim of an honour killing for not wearing it.

How about that male terrorism suspect who tried to escape capture by wearing a burqa?

A MALE suspect in a major anti-terrorist investigation in Britain escaped capture by allegedly disguising himself as a Muslim woman dressed in a burka, The Times can reveal.

The man, who was wanted in connection with serious terrorist offences, evaded arrest for several days as police searched for him across the country.

The fact that a fugitive remained at large after disguising himself in an Islamic dress which covered his face will further fuel the debate sparked by Jack Straw, Leader of the House of Commons, about the wearing of the veil.

Details of the man’s true identity were circulated to ports and airports to try to prevent him leaving the country.

He was eventually caught and is now one of more than 90 suspects in British prisons awaiting trial on terror charges.

It is the first time that a male suspect has allegedly disguised himself as a Muslim woman in Britain. However, the tactic has been used frequently by Islamist fighters — including suicide bombers — in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, often dressed in a burka to evade American forces hunting him.

Counter-terrorist agencies in Britain and Europe have long been concerned about the readiness of male Islamist terrorists to wear female clothing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article666149.ece

[Shady]

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that this memo will be the only one sent out regarding religious sensitivity, and only this particular religion.

[eyeball]

Yes, we have to be sensitive to all such religious groups and we are.

There's no point in singling any religion out, as this is done for all religions.

Would it be to much too ask for a special day, preferably statutory, of observance for atheists?

It would be especially nice if theists could cover up their idols and put their fetishes on hold for just one day a year, I mean a whole month would be fantastic, especially with the overtime.

[eyeball]

Well the ban solves two problems posed by the burka.

1) Women who refuse to show their faces in order to reveal their identity.

2) Also if they are banned then perhaps it's less likely for a women to be a victim of an honour killing for not wearing it.

It's the men who have the most problem with uncovered women right, so wouldn't it be easier not to mention appropriate to make men wear blinders instead?

I suppose this would make driving a problem...and suddenly it makes sense why the women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.

[treehugger]

The same reason we adjust for the needs of Jews, Hindus and Sikhs by making allowances for their religious practices in the workplace. That reason being some of us aren't assholes.

Indeed, we should stop catering to any group that believes in magical sky fairies.

What is it that you have to adjust at your or any workplace for Jews, Sikhs or Hindus? There is nothing. Muslims are the only ones who go to pray at different times of every day.

[guyser]

Complete nonsense.

Any time you trot out 'complete nonsense' is laughable.

And in this case....status quo.

In fact, it's the opposite. During Christmas, we're told not to actually not say Merry Christmas to anyone, because it might be offensive, so Happy Holidays must be used instead. Christmas trees are now referred to as Holiday trees, and Christmas cards are referred to as Holiday cards. And God forbid somebody puts up a nativity scene!

People get serious cases of the vapours!

People in dept stores may be told this, people ijn retail perhaps. But thats business.

The nativity scene I grant you, but , I dont see any Ramadan displays, nor Tet, nor Hannukah and so on since that would be promoting one religion.

Yea, complete nonsense means your post was.

Edited September 27, 2011 by guyser

[treehugger]

You hit the nail Bob. Hudak is no better than McGuinty in trying to be all things to all people. Both are steadfast in avoiding controversy or insulting some group's sensitivities.

EVERY politician caters to people from other countries, Didn't Dalton McTaxes make Hudak apologise for saying the word immigrant???

[treehugger]

It's the usual rhetoric of the left, as whenever I attack multiculturalism and "sensitivity" policies, I'm immediately smeared as a racist. Nevermind the fact that I have more real and genuine Muslim friends than perhaps everyone in here combined.

You are NOT a rascist. You have a right to discuss any of these subjects. It's the "others" who are the problem. People that have been here for generations are slowly having ALL of their rights taken away while others that come here get all of the rights.

Edited September 27, 2011 by treehugger

[guyser]

People that have been here for generations are slowly having ALL of their rights taken away while others that come here get all of the rights.

Go ahead and name ONE right you've lost and others gained.

Name one....shouldnt be hard .......right?

[treehugger]

Go ahead and name ONE right you've lost and others gained.

Name one....shouldnt be hard .......right?

The right to eat lunch when muslims are having ramadan that's what started the whole thing here. that's a right lost. Jobs going to immigrant people and the instructions say "You can't hire white Canadians". Everything in work places has been taken away at Christmas. MAny are not rights they are things that have forced Canadians to change the way they do things since so many immigrants have come here. There's three for a start.Give me time! .

[Black Dog]

The right to eat lunch when muslims are having ramadan that's what started the whole thing here. that's a right lost.

You still have that right.

Jobs going to immigrant people and the instructions say "You can't hire white Canadians".

Examples?

Everything in work places has been taken away at Christmas.

Every office I've worked in has been decorated at Christmas. Santa Claus, snowflakes and all that. If you mean overt displays of religion, that wouldn't fly with any religion.

MAny are not rights they are things that have forced Canadians to change the way they do things since so many immigrants have come here. There's three for a start.Give me time! .

So when you say "lost rights to" you actually mean "have been somewhat inconvenienced by."

Edited September 27, 2011 by Black Dog

[guyser]

The right .....Give me time! .

I will just leave this right here....

you actually mean "have been somewhat inconvenienced by."

[Shwa]

So when you say "lost rights to" you actually mean "have been somewhat inconvenienced by."

Not even. Maybe theoretically inconvenienced unless he actually received the memo and any suggested discipline for contravening it's content, if that is even suggested in the actual memo. Which he didn't receive.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

All I see in this thread is hyperbole and people screaming about rights that other religions already have, mostly since they've been here longer.

You are not obliged to be sensitive, and many on this thread are proud to be insensitive. Where I work, though, we depend on each other quite a bit and insensitivity, exaggerated senses of entitlement and offensive language would mark you as being undesirable.

Of course, it's your right to be so.

But it takes more out of the workplace to act that way than it ever could by taking a few minutes out to pray, or taking a religious holiday off. In my experience, people who stand on their chair and take a stand on such petty issues are likely acting out from personality problems they developed in childhood.

Be polite. It's easier.

[Shady]

So when you say "lost rights to" you actually mean "have been somewhat inconvenienced by."

Why should anyone be inconvenienced at all?

[guyser]

Why should anyone be inconvenienced at all?

They shouldnt.

Dont slow me down with those stupid traffic lights.

Lines at the supermarket.

Somebody didnt think.....

[Shady]

They shouldnt.

Dont slow me down with those stupid traffic lights.

Lines at the supermarket.

Somebody didnt think.....

Huh? You think that's an apt comparison?

Somebody didn't think all right.

[Black Dog]

Why should anyone be inconvenienced at all?

Because in a free society in which people of different backgrounds converge there's going to be some tension and some give and take. IMO, that's healthy.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Black Dog

[guyser]

Huh? You think that's an apt comparison?

Somebody didn't think all right.

Not at all, perhaps you can show where it was posited that it was a 'comparison' ?

Your idiotic blanket statement was what I replied to.

[Michael Hardner]

Because in a free society in which people of different backgrounds converge there's going to be some tension and some give and take. IMO, that's healthy.

Exactly. You take the bad with the good.

Incidentally, nobody ever seems to take note of the positive differences that many of these immigrants bring: work ethic, strong family ties and so on. Instead we get these quibbles about notes suggesting that we be sensitive.

Seriously, is that enough to get upset over ? If you don't like immigration then please go back to your Conservative Party meetings with your beefs and tell them - maybe they'll pay attention to you.