XPost: can.politics, bc.politics   
   From: ConsRCons@govt.cda   
      
   On 9/15/2013 11:10 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   > On 9/15/2013 10:03 AM, Tom P wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 9/14/2013 9:02 PM, Tom P wrote:   
   >>>> The employer has the right to impose a dress code. In this case its   
   >>>> the   
   >>>> province telling their workers to keep their religion at home.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Personally, I don't have a problem with that. If it is that important   
   >>>> that someone doesn't want to hide their religion at work then they   
   >>>> should look for other employment.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't want my children to be taught by teacher wearing a Kirpan or a   
   >>>> male teacher wearing a dress and being openly Gay.   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   >>> I've never supported double standards for safety, like the right to   
   >>> wear   
   >>> a turban instead of a helmet, or allowing kirpans in places where   
   >>> knives   
   >>> are banned for secutiry reasons.  Otherwise, people should be permitted   
   >>> free expression of their beliefs and values, in the workplace and   
   >>> elsewhere.  You have to think of what could be next, Tom, maybe a   
   >>> ban on   
   >>> Greenpeace logos on your clothing?   
      
      
   Maybe the majority of Canadians "never supported double standards - like   
   the right to wear a turban instead of a helmet, or allowing kirpans"   
   but that is exactly what happened in Canada.  Religious 'rights' of   
   minority groups supplanted the common sense rules of Canadian culture.   
      
   And now we have still more of those minority groups demanding more   
   religious rights in Canada - some which are costing taxpayers and some   
   which fly in the face of common sense - like covering of the face with a   
   niqab when having identification photos taken for driving licences or   
   passports.  That's religion supplanting common sense rules.   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   >>> Standing up for the rights of people you don't agree with is tough but   
   >>> it's something you should do. The day will come when the people you   
   >>> seek   
   >>> to oppress will feel completely righteous about curtailing your rights.   
      
      
   Standing up for the rights of the majority of people in this country is   
   much more important than catering to incoming religions and cultures.   
      
   This country's strengths come from common sense rules and laws.  It is a   
   country attractive to immigrants because we have, except for the   
   occasional protests against oppressive governments, a peaceful way of   
   life.   Built on common sense, NOT RELIGIONS in the everyday workings of   
   our institutions.   
      
   It is not "oppression" to demand that religious garb and activities and   
   beliefs be kept to the private lives and hours of those who have those   
   religions.   
      
      
   TomP:   
   >> I agree with you on the safety standards... That just makes sense. But   
   >> going back to my other example, would you support your child's male   
   >> teacher to be a cross dresser and show up to school in a dress and high   
   >> heals? It may be an extreme example, but where is the line crossed?   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky again:   
   > Why not?  That would fall into the category of free expression.  I   
   > certainly wouldn't like it but I would tolerate it, just because then   
   > I may expect the same right to freely express myself.  One can't be   
   > intolerant of others and then demand tolerance for yourself.   
      
      
   That's not a 'tolerance or intolerance' issue.  That's a common sense   
   issue that restricts having one's kids exposed to a way of life that   
   parents don't want them exposed to.   
      
   Just like a parent wouldn't take their kid into a bar or a whore house,   
   they should not expect to have their kids exposed to sexual modes of   
   dress inappropriate to an atmosphere of learning how to read or do math.   
      
      
   TomP:   
   >> Should there be a dress code for salesmen? Should your gas jockey wear a   
   >> company uniform? These are required for the job. If you don't want to   
   >> wear the company garb, then get another job.   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   > You're saying private sector practices should now apply to the public   
   > sector?   
      
      
   A whole lot of public service employees have to wear specialized   
   uniforms, Dobranski.  And safety equipment.  This has nothing to do with   
   'private or private sector jobs'.   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky again:   
   > When do we ban unions?   
      
      
   Unions aren't religious organizations, ya dumb rabbit.   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky again:   
   > Isn't the public sector a special case because it serves all of our   
   > interests, not just shareholders?  Isn't the public service supposed   
   > to be a reflection of Canada's multicultural values?   
      
      
   No, the public service has nothing to do with 'reflecting Canada's   
   multicultural values'.  It is there to protect employees from unfair,   
   oppressive or dangerous directives of an employer.  Full stop.   
      
   And yes, the public sector serves our particular interests in particular   
   areas of government.  It is not there to provide special religious   
   considerations to people of varied religions.   
      
      
   TomP:   
   >> It's the same with religious symbols and civil servants who have to   
   >> interact with the public. I don't see where it is a problem for the   
   >> province to tell their employees to leave their religion at home when at   
   >> work.   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky again:   
   > Tom, this is HR, we have received a complaint that you have a   
   > Greenpeace logo on your lunchbox.  Some of your fellow employees feel   
   > this violates their right to a belief-neutral workplace. We'd like you   
   > to remove it.  Do so or we have no choice but to refer you to   
   > neutral-belief sensitivity training.   
      
      
   Greenpeace is not a religion, ya dumb rabbit.  And this discussion is   
   not about "belief-neutral workplaces".   
   eg:  I believe you are an idiot.  I not only have the right to continue   
   to believe it, I could never be asked to change my mind about the issue.   
     Now, if your lunchbox has a nazi logo on it, or you chant and rock   
   back and forth while you read the talmud in the lunchroom, I think your   
   beliefs and religion should take a back seat to MY sensitivities - and   
   you should be instructed to leave them at home.   
      
      
   TomP:   
   >> Civil servants are already required to keep silent on their   
   >> political beliefs and not to criticize the government they work for. And   
   >> that even includes when not on the job!   
      
      
   Kim Dobranski posting as Chom Noamsky again:   
   > A basic proposition of secularism is that people of different   
   > religions and beliefs are equal before the law.   
      
      
   No it isn't.  You made that up to support your faulty statements from   
   above.  Let's take it right from an unbiased source:   
      
   *Secularism* is the principle of separation of government institutions,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)