A question of 'rights' and wrongs.

[Guest Peeves]

The recent case of a woman wanting a hair cut at a Muslim shop brought differing rights into conflict.

The religious rights of the Muslim vs the right to be free from discrimination (gender)

That will be occurring with more frequency given the tribunals and the influx of societal influences and immigrants and such.

The law may be forced to pick a winner since some only think their right right is absolute.

When I think of a core right, I think of a right accorded to all.

When I think of a common right I think of perhaps the right of gays to marry.

It's a core right that Priests nor Imams for example are not forced to perform such marriage, while a civic marriage commissioner, in a common right is hired to do exactly that.

Is there a right to refuse to take off a veil while testifying in our courts or is that something less?

Is a Catholic school obliged to condone gay rights and not preach or restrict gay orgs. on campus?

Should a religious person be allowed to post as a freedom of expression on his views about gays? Do his rights trump their rights on discrimination?

Are some claimed 'RIGHTS" just phony ?

" When we in Canada talk of Human Rights we consider it a core right that the government not kill you."

When we talk about rights that require someone to do things for you it

s not a right at all: says " since genuine rights don't conflict at all"

paraphrased. (litigation Director, Canadian Constitution Foundation.)

I think all too often a culture or tradition is held to be a right when it is not and should not be accepted as equal to a core right, a law, a requirement

To me in judging the 'haircut or not to hair cut issue, I would personally judge thus.

The woman can certainly seek another tonsorialist at no extra cost. The Muslim would have to bring in a different non Muslim barber at an extra cost to avoid conflict with his rights.

A reasonable solution is therefore that she should go elsewhere. The barber might of conscience offer to pay for all or part of her alternative.

She should consider the impact on his rights as well.

Then I recall the (as I recall) case where the Tribunal awarded a gay couple that were denied a room for religious reasons. The Bed and Breakfast was fined $ 4,000.

Where is that different than not cutting the ladies hair?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/gender-vs-religion-woman-refused-haircut-by-muslim-barber-highlights-problem-of-colliding-rights/

Edited December 4, 2012 by Peeves

[Shady]

There is no difference. Other than we bend over backwards for Islam, but not so for most other religions.

[GostHacked]

There is no difference. Other than we bend over backwards for Islam, but not so for most other religions.

In Canada it was bending over backwards to support the Jewish family courts. Since the Muslims could not have it, as it goes against Canadian laws and rights, they were denied. And at the same time, the Jewish family courts were also abolished. In my view that was a correct decision. We have one set of rules to govern Canada. Like it or leave.

[Sleipnir]

Where is that different than not cutting the ladies hair?

In my opinion it was the fault of the barbers to discriminate against sex. If you want to practice your religion that's fine, just don't force it upon others by discriminating against them

[guyser]

The woman can certainly seek another tonsorialist at no extra cost.

She wanted a haircut, not her tonsils painted.

[Guest Peeves]

She wanted a haircut, not her tonsils painted.

I suppose, then I wanted an intelligent discourse and look how guyser replied. It all evens out.

[Guest Peeves]

In my opinion it was the fault of the barbers to discriminate against sex. If you want to practice your religion that's fine, just don't force it upon others by discriminating against them

But isn't she also discriminating against his religious rights?

[cybercoma]

ISLAM BAD!

[Guest Peeves]

In Canada it was bending over backwards to support the Jewish family courts. Since the Muslims could not have it, as it goes against Canadian laws and rights, they were denied. And at the same time, the Jewish family courts were also abolished. In my view that was a correct decision. We have one set of rules to govern Canada. Like it or leave.

That's an extreme exaggeration. The Jewish/Catholic family courts were of a minor nature at best only involving a very few orthodox Jews and extreme Catholics, and they still had to conform...not violate Canadian law. It was also for a very short time , from 1991.

"Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991. The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights."

It was however correct to abolish Jewish and Catholic family courts.

[Guest Peeves]

ISLAM BAD!

Not so, well, not in toto though some extreme radical elements can be a bit nasty on occasion. I call them Islamists to differentiate from the run of the mill follower.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a question of balancing rights. Surely, you have given it a little more consideration than many do. But the issue around cost is really just one aspect. The costs in either case are negligible. I think there are enough 'personal services' available that are gender-specific, such that the courts should give this one a pass and let the barber continue with discriminatory practices.

[Guest Peeves]

It's a question of balancing rights. Surely, you have given it a little more consideration than many do. But the issue around cost is really just one aspect. The costs in either case are negligible. I think there are enough 'personal services' available that are gender-specific, such that the courts should give this one a pass and let the barber continue with discriminatory practices.

I don't have a problem a problem with that, but, it's the Human Rights Tribunals that cause the problems most times.I say eliminate them (except in the work place)and go back to laws.

When I was a kid no woman would enter a barber shop or poolroom, or get a tat, but then men wouldn't wear an earring either.

[guyser]

I suppose, then I wanted an intelligent discourse and look how guyser replied. It all evens out.

I wondered why you would use a word that means painting tonsils when talking about a hair cut.

Intelligent discourse doesnt start with incorrect words. It muddies it. Kind of like picayune and jejeune.

Maybe if you stopped trying to be a wordsmith , incorrectly I might add, then intelligent discourse can flow.

Edited December 4, 2012 by guyser

[Sleipnir]

But isn't she also discriminating against his religious rights?

No, not at all. Our society is based on secular laws and such laws should triumph over all religious imposition upon others.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Sleipnir

[guyser]

. The Jewish/Catholic family courts were of a minor nature at best only involving a very few orthodox Jews and extreme Catholics, and they still had to conform...not violate Canadian law. It was also for a very short time , from 1991.

You mean the same as the Sharia Courts were to be?

Minor in nature..check

Very few using them...check

Conform to Canadian Law...check

And they were right to abolish them all. But it could have gone the other way and what would have happened?

Nothing.

[Bonam]

ISLAM BAD!

That is NOT what the thread said or was about, and you do a disservice to the discussion by pretending that it is. Rather, the OP was a reasonably thoughtful post about what happens when differing "rights" clash, and how that should be resolved, and the poster's opinion on that. It's not at all about "ISLAM BAD".

[Guest]

If I had to pick a "right" here, I would go with the barber. I would require him to state his limitations clearly on his place of business.

I think the lady in question would not be very hard done by to find another place for a haircut, whereas his religious restriction might be life long and of great importance to him.

That's not to say I would find likewise in every similar case. Just this one. Others taken on merit.

[Sleipnir]

That is NOT what the thread said or was about, and you do a disservice to the discussion by pretending that it is. Rather, the OP was a reasonably thoughtful post about what happens when differing "rights" clash, and how that should be resolved, and the poster's opinion on that. It's not at all about "ISLAM BAD".

I think cyber was just mocking Merlin.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Merlin]

You mean the same as the Sharia Courts were to be?

Minor in nature..check

Very few using them...check

Conform to Canadian Law...check

And they were right to abolish them all. But it could have gone the other way and what would have happened?

Nothing.

Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.

We'd have women's rights being trampled upon if Sharia Law was enacted. It would be awful.

[cybercoma]

That is NOT what the thread said or was about, and you do a disservice to the discussion by pretending that it is. Rather, the OP was a reasonably thoughtful post about what happens when differing "rights" clash, and how that should be resolved, and the poster's opinion on that. It's not at all about "ISLAM BAD".

Oh but it will be. Yet again.

[cybercoma]

I think cyber was just mocking Merlin.

That wouldn't be nice. I wouldn't do that.

[guyser]

Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.

We'd have women's rights being trampled upon if Sharia Law was enacted. It would be awful.

It wouldnt happen because our common law rules everything.

Think Civil Law , both parties agree.

Any of your business? No , so dont worry.

And please, stay away from any Mosques. They have their eyeballs on you all the time. Stay home, forever, stay safe. Probably best not to use a computer too, they can track you online and find out where you live in Halton.

ohh.....scarey!

[Guest Peeves]

I wondered why you would use a word that means painting tonsils when talking about a hair cut.

Intelligent discourse doesnt start with incorrect words. It muddies it. Kind of like picayune and jejeune.

Maybe if you stopped trying to be a wordsmith , incorrectly I might add, then intelligent discourse can flow.

The usage is correct though superfluous.In my day and perusal of literature I have often come across the term used in relationship to a barber. That you haven't is not my problem.

Is a barber also called a tonsorialist?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Yes. Its just the ridiculously fabulous way of saying it.

67% 2 Votes

Tonsorialist is that which encompasses a wide variety of specialties which 'barber' just happens to be one of the more readily descrptive ones.

Tonsorialist include but are not limited to the skills associated with cosmetology, costuming, scene design and decoration, bloodletting, sorcery, magicians, poets, town criers, noble mans clothing, sexual aids, erotic body artist, gigilos and a an overwhlming plethora of othe related and not so related skills of whatever tickles ones fancy... the barber of seville was a tonsorialistic mastermind and provider as well.

...Jack the Ripper was considered a tonsorialist for relevant displays of his victims dead bodies.

One who is credible enough to take ones tonsils is a tonsorialist just as one who possesses a TONNAGE of greatly adept skills and obscure abilities......

[Guest Peeves]

In my opinion it was the fault of the barbers to discriminate against sex. If you want to practice your religion that's fine, just don't force it upon others by discriminating against them

But the lady had other non troublesome alternatives. The Muslim was confronted with a dilemma. Is their no superior right in your opinion? In mine, the lessor need was that of the lady. She simply had to be considerate and go elsewhere. Why I wonder had she chosen this particular barber one might ask?

[bleeding heart]

I agree. It's a discriminatory practice, but one that has no actual, objective, real-world deleterious effect on potential customers.

So shrug your shoulders--retort "your loss!" if you absolutely need to vent it--and go elsewhere.

Problem solved, literally and totally.

What's the issue?