XPost: can.politics, bc.politics   
   From: ConsRCons@govt.cda   
      
   On 9/15/2013 5:25 PM, ConɀRConɀ wrote:   
   > 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 public 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)