I realize that with a title like that, I might have offended some people right off the bat. I am not racist or discriminatory toward any group of people, and racial diversity doesn't bother me at all. However, as nice as it is to have so many different people living together, it can obviously pose some problems. I moved to Toronto three years ago, and the first thing I noticed in my school was the racial and religious diversity. It didn't bother, nor did it make me happy; it was just different.
I began to notice some conflicts rooted in diversity in civics class when we were discussing human rights issues involving race. I found myself debating with my teacher on every issue. She strongly believed that the people in each case were discriminated against, and that the Canadian government wasn't holding true to the section of the Canadian charter of human rights which states that every citizen has the right to practice and express their own religion. I strongly believe that every human should believe what they want to believe, even if I don't agree with everything they practice. However, the Canadian charter of human rights also states that it is every Canadian's human right to not have their own rights violated. As you might see, this can bring up some sticky situations, which I will provide in examples.
Pearson Airport Dress Code: Rules vs. Rights
In civics class we read about a woman who worked at Pearson International Airport in the customs area. The standard uniform dress code at the airport for women stated that a female employee had the choice of wearing either the issued pants or knee-length skirt, neither of which were remotely revealing. A Muslim woman who worked at the airport unhappily wore pants for five years until she finally had enough, and sewed her own skirt out of a similar material to the uniform bottoms. She went seven months before her new uniform caught the eye of her manager. She was told that her skirt was not part of the uniform, and she had to wear either the issued pants or skirt. She refused to change out of her skirt, and stated that she did not like having to wear a long skirt, but it was "her religion." As a result, she was suspended from her job indefinitely until she either quit or wore the standard uniform.
This was the part when my civics teacher began to voice her opinion that this woman was denied her human rights. It is true, this woman was technically deprived of practicing her beliefs, but if it were that simple, there wouldn't be such heated controversy over the topic. While this woman was wearing her homemade skirt she was practicing her religion, but at the same time, she was breaking the dress code of the airport's uniform, despite the fact that her skirt was more modest than what the rules called for. It might seem silly to make a fuss over one of the employees basically extending the length of their skirt, but this woman went and modified her uniform without asking permission, which is obviously against the rules. It might be tempting to want to just let the issue slide and allow the woman to wear her lengthened skirt, but what happens when you start making exceptions to the rules? More people come in demanding that they modify their uniform to fit their religious beliefs, and the airport can't really defend themselves anymore because they made exceptions in the past.
"If you let that woman wear her own skirt to work, then I should be allowed to wear my ceremonial top hat to work."
It sounds ridiculous when I put it that way, but it's true. When exceptions are made for one person, other people are going to start demanding that exceptions be made for them too. If that happens, then pretty soon there won't be a standard uniform.
In my personal opinion, I don't understand why this woman took the job in the first place, when she was aware that she had to wear a uniform that didn't align with her religion.
Man Not Allowed to Bring Ceremonial Dagger into Court
The reasons why you wouldn't let someone bring a knife to court seem obvious. Forget the long skirt; a knife? In the Sikh religion, practitioners wear a ceremonial knife around their neck called a kirpan, and it must be worn at all times along with four other articles. I don't mind if a person chooses to wear a turban or a cross to express their religious beliefs. Religious people are very closely-knit to their practices, but I start to raise an eyebrow when the sacred articles that people wear can inflict harm on others. From what I have seen, the Sikh religion and its people seem peaceful enough that I could trust them when they tell me that their kirpan is a religious symbol, and is prohibited from being unsheathed. On the other hand, even if a wearer of the knife has good intentions, we don't know that.
A man several years ago was denied entry into the Calgary courthouse because he was wearing a kirpan. When he was searched and screened before entering, he was told that he must leave his kirpan at security while in the courthouse, and could have it back when he left. The man argued for about ten minutes before leaving, and ended up not showing up to court to testify as a witness to a car accident. This upset the man, who said his human rights were being violated because he was not allowed to express his religion.
It is true that the man was not allowed to wear one of his religious garments, but I hardly think it's fair to say his freedom of religious expression was being oppressed when he was allowed to wear his turban into the courthouse. If he was allowed to wear his turban, not to mention his Kangha (comb), Kara (iron bangle), and Kachera (underwear) into the building, but not his Kirpan (knife), I find it difficult to nod my head in understanding when he says his religious beliefs are being shunned. The reason why he couldn't bring his kirpan into court was clearly stated by security: no matter the symbolism or title that the ceremonial dagger holds, it is still a knife, and while I am sure the man in this case did not intend to do harm to anyone, we can't say that about everyone. Religion has brought peace and enlightenment to many people, however, it has also being exploited quite gruesomely countless times in the past and the present by people who would be willing to use religion as leverage to get what they want. Basically, this individual was not dangerous, but how do we know for certain what a person's intentions are? If this man was let into court and ended up not harming anyone, it wouldn't seem like a big deal, but then that would mean that anyone could enter the courthouse with a kirpan from now on, since it wouldn't be fair to make special exceptions to certain people. While the likelihood of this happening is slim to none, what would happen if a person dressed as a practitioner of the Sikh religion so they could get a dagger into the courthouse and harm someone? It would cause a real mess of pointing fingers at whose fault it was, controversy pertaining to the law that allows ceremonial daggers being let into the courthouse, and not to mention that it would taint the image of the Sikh religion greatly, based on the fact that many ignorant people confuse the religion with Islam, and would label turban wearers as terrorists. Besides, the man wasn't asked to abandon wearing the dagger for eternity. He was asked to remove his knife while he entered a high security area where government officials were, and would get it back when he left. I understand that the kirpan is to be worn at all times, but can no exceptions be made at all? While it is in the Canadian charter of human rights that every person has the freedom to express their religion, it is also in the charter that every person should not be subjected to cruel treatment from others, which includes getting stabbed. No one would expect a person to be stabbed in a courthouse by a person bearing a kirpan, understandably, but expectations and reality are two very different things that should not be underestimated.
I will state for the last time that I have no issue with the religious community as a whole. My issue is what I feel is the over-accommodation of Canada to the rules of certain religions, as I have explained. When people decide to move to Canada, they should not expect the country to change for them, and just the same would apply if the reverse were to happen. If I decided to move to another country, I would take the time to learn their language, customs, and laws, and follow them. If I didn't agree with the culture and lifestyle of the country I was considering moving to, I wouldn't move there, rather than move in and expect everyone to change for me. In conclusion, I believe that every Canadian has the right to practice and express their religious beliefs, but if doing so has the potential to infringe on other people's human rights, then it is not okay.
A man several years ago was denied entry into the Calgary courthouse because he was wearing a kirpan. When he was searched and screened before entering, he was told that he must leave his kirpan at security while in the courthouse, and could have it back when he left. The man argued for about ten minutes before leaving, and ended up not showing up to court to testify as a witness to a car accident. This upset the man, who said his human rights were being violated because he was not allowed to express his religion.
 |
| Kirpan |
I will state for the last time that I have no issue with the religious community as a whole. My issue is what I feel is the over-accommodation of Canada to the rules of certain religions, as I have explained. When people decide to move to Canada, they should not expect the country to change for them, and just the same would apply if the reverse were to happen. If I decided to move to another country, I would take the time to learn their language, customs, and laws, and follow them. If I didn't agree with the culture and lifestyle of the country I was considering moving to, I wouldn't move there, rather than move in and expect everyone to change for me. In conclusion, I believe that every Canadian has the right to practice and express their religious beliefs, but if doing so has the potential to infringe on other people's human rights, then it is not okay.
