Speaking of which, are the rulings spoken by those third-party courts enforceable by actual law enforcement ? Or are the rulings given more or less as an “FYI this is what God would say” to all participants ?
I’m pretty sure I gave an answer to that back in Post #15. 
Poppycock. It didn’t stop anyone from serving. All someone had to do was take off their silly bugger headgear and put on other silly bugger headgear.
I want to wear a rubber ducky on my head, should I be allowed to when I join the RCMP?
Could it be because the differences in the ‘two separate cultures’ really only exist in the heads of those who say there is an actual difference? They are both Western cultures. Other than the language issue, obviously.
And of course, all Western cultures are identical, language aside. :dubious:
No difference?! WTF?! Francophone Canadians are Catholic! Anglophone Canadians are human!
Cite for this assertion?
If you have some profound moral reason to wear a rubber ducky on your head, and the RCMP has no good reason to think that doing so will reduce your authority as an officer, then yes, of course you should. Since the Canadian government is neutral on whether the Sikh requirements of living are correct or not, they naturally should allow people to live by them without having doors closed for no reason. This sort of question gets a lot harder when, say, JW children need blood transfusions, but what you seem to be suggesting is indeed needlessly discriminatory.
Culture only ever exists in people’s heads! It’s in the definition! More importantly, the political problems come through differences in identity, which more than being only in “people’s heads” is actually fairly arbitrary. Moreover, in Canada, there are fairly significant differences in political culture between Québec and Anglophone Canada — which you could see in the latest election, where Québec ridings went overwhelmingly NDP and the other two thirds of ridings went overwhelmingly Conservative.
‘profound moral reason’? What is moral about a choice of hat?
So, those other places who vote NDP do so because they are francophone?
Just for the record, when I come to power the rubber ducky will be the ultimate symbol of the authority of law enforcement.
And when people point behind you and yell “Duck!”, it will have a whole new meaning.
Sikhs believe that men-folk are morally obliged to wear specific pieces of headgear. I’m a Christian, so I don’t agree that this is the case, but the government of Canada takes no position on the issue. Since choice of headgear isn’t harming anyone or anything, that’s the right choice on the government’s part. I don’t have to justify the Sikhs’ beliefs to you, particularly since I don’t share them, and why on earth would they need to, either? That’s the path to authoritarianism, or theocracy (or its atheist equivalent, whatever that is). Your second comment doesn’t even make sense — do you wish to deny that voting trends in Québec differed drastically from Anglophone Canada? For that matter, they differed even more the election before, when most of the seats went to a party that has never had an MP (or run a candidate, but I digress) outside Québec.
So, no problem with me and my ducky, right?
If you want to join X then the uniform is Y. There is no authoritarianism, or theocracy or whatever else you think, just a uniform code for members of the service that binds the members together into a cohesive group without the trappings of an apparent state authorized religion motivating its members. If the next group wants to wear long flowing robes, no problem. The next one wants to go around naked, no problem. All claim some ‘moral’ reason, so no problem.
But one has to wonder about the brains of someone who thinks a ‘god’ would care that they must wear one particular type of hat (as opposed to just a hat) at all times. Is that someone who should be given a gun to enforce Canadian laws?
Because other people have voted for the NDP many times who don’t reside in Quebec.
The thread is too long for me to see if my points have already been addressed so forgive me in advance.
Wouldn’t the social pressures be overwhelming regardless?
Personally, WRT multiculturalism, I think the best principle is to err on the side of individual freedom that doesn’t directly interfere with others freedoms.
So if a new culture means an individual wants to do something weird, unless it harms my property or person, or limits my own freedoms to do weird shit, it’s fine. But if it’s a restrictive culture that impinges on personal freedoms then no go.
I think it’s ok to be restrictive of freedoms, however, if the only punishment is banishment. That’s basically a zoning issue.
All this religious stuff is eye roll worthy. The true puzzle is how to deal with natural resources. Distributing and protecting community property is a bitch!
So basically, you think Sikhs are too stupid to be trusted with guns. Nice. Just wait until somebody tells you what else Sikhs are obligated to wear at all times… Since you’re worried about slippery slopes, let me say this. The issue of how substantial a group has to be before they get an exception to the rules is a pretty wavy one — but obviously enough, it depends on how big an exception is needed, whether there’s some serious reason for the rule or just custom, etc. If you fail to make these exceptions, you effectively tell part of your society that they are no longer welcome*, and that’s just plain a really stupid idea. And for what? The principle that all Mounties must wear stupid rimmed hats. Wow, what a principle. Worse still, today the principle is wearing hats. What if the principle tomorrow is being drafted to invade Iceland, and you’re against the war? Why would they make an exception for your principle? By this point in history, just about every religious or non-religious group is aware of some period where their group was discriminated against. We agree to accommodate different moral demands whenever practical because the alternative is the Bad Old Days for at least someone, and sometimes, that someone will be you.
ETA: now, you’ll notice that I mentioned a “tension” earlier. When we’re talking Mounties, I think it’s stupid not to make an exception. When we’re talking construction workers who need to wear hard hats, then it’s much more defensible not to make an exception (since, after all, you take on a tangible cost if you don’t have your workers wearing proper safety equipment. It’s the same issue for soldiers, who need to wear armoured helmets. Not sweating the Mounty hats issue lets us handle the helmets issue in good faith.
And there are Canadians who vote for one or another of our resident Communist parties, yet looking at voting patterns would give you a sense pretty quickly that Canada’s political culture is different from China’s. Shocking!
*Hell, since uniformity is so sacrosanct, they presumably can’t work at McDonald’s either. Sucks to be them, I guess.
To jackdavinci, yes, there will be social pressures on women either way. But by disallowing Sharia arbitration, you eliminate one route for discrimination —so it’s still an improvement. Just as importantly, you make sure that the government does not take part in discrimination*, since we hopefully can agree that government discrimination is especially condemnable.
I’m not sure why the “religious stuff is eye roll worthy”. Resource tensions are certainly a big part of European ambivalence toward immigrants, but cultural accommodation issues are real, and the compromises made do matter to people (which is why they care about it).
*Remember, what makes arbitration work is that the government agrees to enforce the decisions the arbiter makes. Hence, if women were discriminated against in Sharia/Jewish/Catholic arbitration mechanisms, the government would find itself in the position of having to enforce rulings that violate Canadians’ rights.
“do matter to people (which is why they care about it)”… yeesh, I must be getting tired. Hopefully you get more or less what I meant.
Oh great, there was a discussion about multiculturalism in the Netherlands (filtered through the usual RaleighRally bias, of course, but what can we expect?) and it turned about Canada again! :rolleyes: Canadians really do think they’re something special when it comes to multiculturalism, either (if they vote Liberal) as an example to emulate, or (if they vote Conservative) as an example to eschew, eh?
For what it’s worth, I think this post (presumably by someone actually living in the Netherlands) is probably the best explanation:
See, when we get such radical-sounding headlines as “BREAKING NEWS: The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism!” in our media, it’s usually because some politician’s said something. And politicians usually make announcements not when they actually do something, but when they think they can gain political capital by speaking. And they’ll use terminology that’s intended to strengthen their position over that of their political opponents. If a word has become a “bad word” that people tend to associate with bad things coming to the country, they’ll say they’re against it while their opponents are for it, even though both parties’ political positions might not be all that far from each other.
So it seems that the Netherlands has problems with immigrants, often from Muslim countries, coming into the country and settling in what are basically ghettos, remaining completely apart of the general Dutch population. Yes, that is a problem, and I suppose restricting immigration, offering better services to immigrants to integrate in their new countries, educating the Dutch population to avoid discriminating against immigrants in housing and employment (can’t have happy immigrants if they cannot live or work anywhere, can’t we?), etc., are all avenues we could follow. Just naming this word “multiculturalism” and saying whether we are “for” or “against” it, or whether it works “well” in Canada or “badly” in Europe isn’t such an avenue, though, because the word doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a political catchphrase. To those who think it’s “good”, it means everything good about their country; to those who think it’s “bad”, it means all the problems they see.
Now as to Canada. I won’t reply to newcomer because his posts are merely Canadian nationalism. (Actually English Canadian nationalism, since he specifically excludes Quebec from his spiel. So much for Canadian acceptance of others.) But we get it, the guy’s an immigrant and really loves his new country. I don’t think his integration process was all that long and painful though. As for Sikh RCMP policemen wearing turbans, I don’t care. But why should I? I’m from Quebec, and the RCMP is specifically a Western Canadian cultural tradition. It’s the North West Mounted Police. While in Quebec (as per detop) we almost consider it as a criminal organization. In this thread, the decision’s been mentioned by Sam Stone and Uzi: both Western Canadians. So clearly it has some importance to them. As for religiously-based arbitration, I will admit that the idea of women being coerced to agree with “voluntary” arbitration resonates with me, and I also tend to favour a more republican model of all citizens being equal before the law. So one law for everyone.
In Quebec (and elsewhere too, [post=13938855]see Johnny L.A. here[/post]) we tend to use the phrase “reasonable accommodation”. It works both for culturally or non-culturally-linked requests; as in the linked post it was originally used to refer to accommodating the needs of the physically disabled. What it means is, is this demand that’s made of us and which contradicts our usual policies (such as allowing Sikh RCMP agents to wear turbans instead of their usual hats, or allowing women wearing burqas to identify themselves without removing the burqa or only removing it in front of a woman, or removing seats in an airplane to allow passengers to bring their wheelchair) something the average person would consider reasonable? If so, then let’s do it. If not, then I’m sorry but we cannot do it. Of course, like “multiculturalism”, “reasonable accommodation” has also become a meaningless political catchphrase. :rolleyes:
Actually, even though francophone Canadians will still define themselves as Catholic in large numbers, (at least in Quebec) religious practice is now extremely low and most people are no longer Catholic in any meaningful way. I mention it because it’s actually an important part of how we define ourselves as a nation. We beat the Church and the sway it used to hold upon us in order to establish ourselves as a modern nation.
I think Sam Stone’s asserted this in older threads, but I won’t skim through them to find it. The idea, as far as I remember it, is that you can be compelled to appear in front of a “human rights commission” for publishing articles critical of subcultures present in Canada. This commission can blame you (and fine you? I don’t remember) but it’s in no way a criminal or even judicial proceeding. It’s happened to some ultra-conservative pundits like Ezra Levant, and the reason Sam Stone knows about it is that this guy talked incessantly about it. I think the last time this was mentioned, Spoons was the one who posted the unbiased explanation, so let’s invite him again.
Come on, man, regardless of how similar Quebec’s and the rest of Canada’s cultures are (and I’ll agree they are similar in many ways, though also different), you know the reason why Quebecers voted NDP this time isn’t the same as the reason why some people in the rest of Canada have voted for the party since its creation in the early 60s. An unionized worker in Southern Ontario will vote NDP because the party favours labour unions and workers. A Quebecer voted NDP in 2011 because it was perceived as the only major federal party Quebec hadn’t tried before, one that is potentially both effectual and open to Quebec’s issues, and because it got caught in the snowball effect.
I don’t give a shit about hats. I care about bending over for purely arbitrary religious reasons rather than rational one. It ties directly to your last sentence, “So one law for everyone” and we don’t cater to your religious preferences unless you can produce your god to back up your claims.
And I don’t think you realize that many people in the ROC who vote NDP will do so because it isn’t the other two usual parties. Quebec had a ‘perfect storm’ this time out is all.
The difference between us is that I focus on our similarities while you focus on our differences. I see them as small, you see them as large. What is large is the gulf between recent immigrants, mostly Muslim, who don’t have our similar western cultural heritage. Which is the point of this particular thread.
They cannot produce their god, but can you produce a reason why RCMP officers need to wear Stetson hats (that’s how they’re called, right?) Or are you just jealous that they wouldn’t let you wear your rubber ducky?
Though I do see your point. I understand accommodations done for purely physical disability reasons. They can be justified on rational grounds. But why do we accommodate cultural or religious requirements? In which way is a Sikh wanting to wear a kirpan or a turban different from you “wanting” to put a rubber ducky on your head? My only answer is that we live in a world where religious practices are truly important and “real” to an important fraction of the population. Like it or not, they are recognized in this world. (I’m more on the “not” side, but I don’t get to decide.) So a Sikh man wanting to serve in the RCMP and wear a turban with his ceremonial uniform? Reasonable. You wanting to serve as well but with whatever stupid thing on your head? That’s just you being difficult and wanting to make a point, so unreasonable.
And also, once again like it or not, those religious practices affect even those of us who don’t practice. Say, I don’t know, that Sikh kid who wants to bring a kirpan in school? You can refuse on the grounds of it being an irrational request, but then the child won’t get to go to school which will it make it more difficult for him to integrate. Better to consider it a priori potentially reasonable, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide whether it really is reasonable or not. Perhaps it won’t be. But at least we can try something.