Alright, so I am not entirely sure I wish to bring this UPS article up once again but I think it is interesting to compare to another article I found linked from the Muslimah Media Watch website. Here's the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6565145.stm
This took place in Cairo rather than Canada but discusses the rights of Muslim women ignored by a news company. In 2002, two women news presenters wore their hijab head pieces and were not allowed on the air. This article does not cite the reasons given by their employers other than the the employers "objected" to this. In the Toronto UPS article it cites the full dress being a safety risk. I do not deny that there is racism or cultural intolerance within areas of Canadian life, nor do I think religious discrimination should be allowed, however, should credence not be given to safety concerns if they are legitimate? However, with this case in Cairo, what harm is there in respecting a religious freedom to wear the headpiece? Were they concerned about presenting one religious ideal over anther? If this is the case, one should look into whether they allow other presenters wear crosses or any other religious paraphenalia. No reason is given and even the court ruled in the women's favour, demanding that be allowed on the air. To me there is a major difference between the case with UPS in Toronto and this news agency in Cairo. The article from the Toronto Star is lacking in details as to whether the women were actually discriminated against becase of their religion on top of these safety concerns, or if it truly is only a safety issue. However, it appears with the Cairo case that there is no reason for this dismissal, at least given in the article, rather than religious discrimination.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Religious Change
For this post, I am going to try to take a step back and look at what religious groups are doing to change and point out their own issues within their religions. It is true that I have been critical of religions as this is a blog meant to critically analyze them but it is also important to recognize that not all Christians are a homogeneous group, nor are all Muslims or Jews. While I do not understand fully how (and here I am focusing on Christianity because that is what I am most aware of) Christian sects can interpret the Bible differently, when there are passages saying it cannot be interpreted, and still claim divine power connected to it when it is humans openly admitting to controlling what beliefs to follow and such, I still think it is important to acknowledge that some changes have been made to better fit with rights of equality. These churches, such as the United Church, recognize gay marriage and allow women to lead as well as men, do not say that by doing so their right to religion is being impeded. It is definitely worth checking out the United Church website at http://www.united-church.ca/ and I have quoted them on their views of abortion. I am compiling a list of other religious groups which openly come out and say they feel they can be true to their religion yet question their church to better respect equality and other rights.
Catholics for Choice is a group which tries to separate itself from specific teachings of the Vatican, specifically on abortion. I do not know what their view on homosexuality is or on women working in the Church but that is probably worth an investigation.
See Change : "We believe that the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic church, should participate in the UN in the same way as the world's other religions do—as a non-governmental organization."
Condoms 4 Life :"Condoms4Life is an unprecedented worldwide public education effort to raise public awareness about the devastating effect of the bishops’ ban on condoms. The campaign was launched on World AIDS Day 2001 with the display of billboards and ads in subways and newspapers saying, “Banning Condoms Kills.”" This group also does not discriminate against homosexuals and says that consensual sex between people not married happens and is not immoral. They add that even to those who feel sex must be shared only between married couples, sexual education and condom use must exist and not be prohibited.
I will keep another list of links for this subject.
Catholics for Choice is a group which tries to separate itself from specific teachings of the Vatican, specifically on abortion. I do not know what their view on homosexuality is or on women working in the Church but that is probably worth an investigation.
See Change : "We believe that the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic church, should participate in the UN in the same way as the world's other religions do—as a non-governmental organization."
Condoms 4 Life :"Condoms4Life is an unprecedented worldwide public education effort to raise public awareness about the devastating effect of the bishops’ ban on condoms. The campaign was launched on World AIDS Day 2001 with the display of billboards and ads in subways and newspapers saying, “Banning Condoms Kills.”" This group also does not discriminate against homosexuals and says that consensual sex between people not married happens and is not immoral. They add that even to those who feel sex must be shared only between married couples, sexual education and condom use must exist and not be prohibited.
I will keep another list of links for this subject.
Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law"
Getting back to a relevant issue to Canadians and religion, I turn once again to the collection of essays in Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada. This essay is Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law" and he expands upon Janice Gross Stein's "Searching for Equality" which focuses mostly on women's rights (or more specifically, the lack thereof) in traditional religions. He questions how we, as Canadians, must solve conflicts between religious rights and equality rights and discusses how these often conflict with one another. Before discussing the main issues he states: "I do not want a Canada that turns its back on multiculturalism" (p. 123) making it clear that he is not against multiculturalism or individuals' rights to it, but then brings up issues associated with this as well. He discusses the statistics in Canada relating to religion (only about 20% of the population regularily attend religious services while 85% claim to follow a specific religion) and how these figures fail in properly portraying a the increase in religious orthodoxy. British writer, Karen Armstrong, interviewed by The Globe and Mail, says that this religious fundamentalism exists as a "natural byproduct of a secular liberal society" and that "In particular... the emancipation of women has fuelled fundamentalism in all major religions, and Christianity has been 'the worst religion in the world for integrating sexuality and gender with the sacred'" (pg. 126-127). (I am quoting, I don't know what evidence she gives of this and that might be worth looking into, comparing Christianity to Islam and Judaeaism in their treatment of homosexuals and women). Valpry then brings up a series of recent religious incidents in Quebec. These include a Montreal YMCA frosting windows in a workout area so Muslim girls can exercise without men seeing them in their exercise gear, as well as a mix-up in pool schedules where there was a Muslim female swim class at the same time as a children's swim lesson which parents regularily watch but the fathers were forced out at the Muslim women's demands. At another community centre, he writes, men had to leave their partners in a prenatal class because a Muslim woman objected to their presence, and then also includes an incident where an Orthodox Jew, because of claims he needed to be home for the Sabbath, was allowed to cut in front of already waiting patients to see a doctor (pg. 128).
I do understand, especially in a country which supports multiculturalism, by bringing up such issues there is a need to exercise caution in my wording so that there is no mistaking criticism of specific incidences for an objecion to multiculturalism as a whole. The frosting of windows, to me, seems like a fair and not an unreasonable compromise as I am sure there are many women, not just Muslims or for religious reasons, who prefer privacy from men in a workout room. However, to look at this in the reverse if there was a request for a seperate men's gym this would be dismissed as being sexist, no? Same goes for the swimming lesson. If the women were promised a specific pool time away from the eyes of men, I understand how the gym would feel a need to honour this promise, but also how did the fathers feel being told that because they were born with a penis they could not watch their sons and daughters' swim lessons? If it were the mothers who were kicked out, there would have been protests against sexual discrimination. As for the prenatal classes, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not important for the father or partner to also know what to expect? I am not sure what prenatal classes include but I am sure I can safely guess they focus primarily on the actual birth, which more men are choosing to be present for and assist with at least emotional support, as well as perhaps care for the newborn. With more women working today, men are also expected to help care for the child and should know what to expect and how to properly care for their child. I wonder if the community centre then offered men-only classes? I realize a male-only prenatal class may sound absurd but I think it would be interesting to see if the community centre offered any compensation for this. Perhaps too it could have offered a seperate class which was intended only for females at another time, but this too is problematic as it is still discrimination and also could take up more the centre's funding paying an instructor for the additional time, as well as maybe interferring with other events that would otherwise be taking place in that room. As for the case at the doctors office... was the same consideration given to patients who said they needed to pick their child up at a specific time, or make it to a meeting, or go grocery shopping before the store closed?
I do understand, especially in a country which supports multiculturalism, by bringing up such issues there is a need to exercise caution in my wording so that there is no mistaking criticism of specific incidences for an objecion to multiculturalism as a whole. The frosting of windows, to me, seems like a fair and not an unreasonable compromise as I am sure there are many women, not just Muslims or for religious reasons, who prefer privacy from men in a workout room. However, to look at this in the reverse if there was a request for a seperate men's gym this would be dismissed as being sexist, no? Same goes for the swimming lesson. If the women were promised a specific pool time away from the eyes of men, I understand how the gym would feel a need to honour this promise, but also how did the fathers feel being told that because they were born with a penis they could not watch their sons and daughters' swim lessons? If it were the mothers who were kicked out, there would have been protests against sexual discrimination. As for the prenatal classes, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not important for the father or partner to also know what to expect? I am not sure what prenatal classes include but I am sure I can safely guess they focus primarily on the actual birth, which more men are choosing to be present for and assist with at least emotional support, as well as perhaps care for the newborn. With more women working today, men are also expected to help care for the child and should know what to expect and how to properly care for their child. I wonder if the community centre then offered men-only classes? I realize a male-only prenatal class may sound absurd but I think it would be interesting to see if the community centre offered any compensation for this. Perhaps too it could have offered a seperate class which was intended only for females at another time, but this too is problematic as it is still discrimination and also could take up more the centre's funding paying an instructor for the additional time, as well as maybe interferring with other events that would otherwise be taking place in that room. As for the case at the doctors office... was the same consideration given to patients who said they needed to pick their child up at a specific time, or make it to a meeting, or go grocery shopping before the store closed?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I have just added a new selection to the Suggested Books list but I must admit I have not read it or been able to find a copy of it as of yet. This book is Sumbul Ali-Karama's The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing, recommended by Muslimah Media Watch (click here for the link to the article). I have not read it yet but the website I found this article on is critical of their own religion (these articles are written by Muslim women) and are also wary of how this religion is portrayed. Another article I found was reviewing another book which supposedly stated there is nothing sexist in the Qur'an and the reviewer immediately dismissed this notion. I state this as opening, only because I know very little specific details about this religion and know that I should not just take anything posted online as fact. Also obviously the review I found is written by someone religious but it must be noted that the majority of the site is critical of it. Anyways, I just thought I would include this because even though this blog is meant to critically analyze religion, it is still important to look at some other arguments. I do not mean to say this one book changes my mind on religion nor does it all of a sudden, in my opinion, justify the sexist passages in the Quar'an (which even the author takes issue with), but I think it is worth a look, as well as does the rest of the site I've linked to.
A quick summary of the book, quoted from the review:
A quick summary of the book, quoted from the review:
"This book is basically what you wish you can give to those people who ask you all those questions that you have to answer over and over again. Now you can just hand them this book and trust that it’ll answer their questions.
Ali-Karamali doesn’t shy away from difficult questions, or gloss over them. She splits up her book into 11 chapters, and tackles the issues the media loves to talk about (veiling, stoning, jihad etc). She takes the major misconceptions about Islam and deconstructs them into base elements before explaining them.
The first half of the book introduces Islam to the non-Muslim reader and delves into more detail as the book progresses. The second half tackles the meaty topics: women in Islam, jihad and fundamentalism, stealing and adultery in Islam, American Muslim reactions to 9/11 and a concluding chapter on why misconceptions persist."
If I can get ahold of this book, I promise my own personal review when I read it.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
For this post, I am going to diverge from my main points to hopefully answer a question posed by Chris. He says, "Can we hope to have any ethics or morality based in something other than various religious teachings? Even though I'm an atheist, my sense of what is right and wrong were confirmed by a somewhat Christian childhood..." For this, I am going to rely on the writings of Christopher Hitchens. This particular selection comes from his book, god is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything (published by McClelland & Stewart Ltd in 2007).
"The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case. Very well, they seem to say, we cease to insist on the Exodus (say), or the Virgin Birth or even the Resurrection, or the 'night flight' from Mecca to Jerusalem. But where would people be without faith? Would they not abandon themselves to every kind of license and selfishness? Is it not true, as G.K. Chesterton once famously said, that if people cease to believe in god, they do not believe in nothing but in everything?
The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of - indeed is not even an argument for - the truth of his belief. I might, just for the sake of argument, act more charitably if I believed that Lord Buddha was born from a slit in his mother's side. But would not this make my charitable impulse dependent upon something rather tenuous? By the same token, I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited. And we forget in any case how contingent all this is. Of the thousands of possible desert religions there were, as with the millions of potential species there were, one branch happened to take root and grow. Passing through its Jewish mutations to its Christian form, it was eventually adopted by the Emperor Constantine, and made into an official faith with - eventually - a codified and enforceable form of its many chaotic and contradictory books. As for Islam, it became the ideology of a highly successful conquest that was adopted by successful ruling dynasties, codified and set down in turn, and promulgated as the law of the land. One or two military victories the other way - as with Lincoln at Antietam - and we in the West would not be the hostages of village disputes that took place in Judaea and Arabia before any serious records were kept. We could have become the votaries of another belief altogether - perhaps a Hindu or an Aztec or a Confucian one - in which case we should still be told that, strictly true or not, it nonetheless helped teach the children the difference between right and wrong. In other words, to believe in a god is in one way to express a willingness to believe in anything. Whereas to reject the belief is by no means to profess belief in nothing." (pp. 184-185)
He continues...
"An even more graphic example is afforded by the case of Rwanda, which in 1992 gave the world a new synonym for genocide and sadism. This former Belgian possession is the most Christian country in Africa, boasting the highest percentage of churches per head of population, with 65 percent of Rwandans professing Roman Catholicism and another 15 percent adhering to various Protestant sects. The words 'per head' took on a macabre ring in 1992, when at a given signal the racist militias of 'Hutu Power,' incited by state and church, fell upon their Tutsi neighbors and slaughtered them en masse." (190)
Here he does not mean to state that because the Church was in Rwanda, that the Church is necessarily evil, rather that a religious presence does not mean there is a purely ethical and moral community. Just as he says one corrupt Buddhist priest does not discredit the entire religion, this does not discredit Christianity as a whole. It does however discredit the notion that religion, and only religion, means ethics and kindness.
"The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case. Very well, they seem to say, we cease to insist on the Exodus (say), or the Virgin Birth or even the Resurrection, or the 'night flight' from Mecca to Jerusalem. But where would people be without faith? Would they not abandon themselves to every kind of license and selfishness? Is it not true, as G.K. Chesterton once famously said, that if people cease to believe in god, they do not believe in nothing but in everything?
The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of - indeed is not even an argument for - the truth of his belief. I might, just for the sake of argument, act more charitably if I believed that Lord Buddha was born from a slit in his mother's side. But would not this make my charitable impulse dependent upon something rather tenuous? By the same token, I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited. And we forget in any case how contingent all this is. Of the thousands of possible desert religions there were, as with the millions of potential species there were, one branch happened to take root and grow. Passing through its Jewish mutations to its Christian form, it was eventually adopted by the Emperor Constantine, and made into an official faith with - eventually - a codified and enforceable form of its many chaotic and contradictory books. As for Islam, it became the ideology of a highly successful conquest that was adopted by successful ruling dynasties, codified and set down in turn, and promulgated as the law of the land. One or two military victories the other way - as with Lincoln at Antietam - and we in the West would not be the hostages of village disputes that took place in Judaea and Arabia before any serious records were kept. We could have become the votaries of another belief altogether - perhaps a Hindu or an Aztec or a Confucian one - in which case we should still be told that, strictly true or not, it nonetheless helped teach the children the difference between right and wrong. In other words, to believe in a god is in one way to express a willingness to believe in anything. Whereas to reject the belief is by no means to profess belief in nothing." (pp. 184-185)
He continues...
"An even more graphic example is afforded by the case of Rwanda, which in 1992 gave the world a new synonym for genocide and sadism. This former Belgian possession is the most Christian country in Africa, boasting the highest percentage of churches per head of population, with 65 percent of Rwandans professing Roman Catholicism and another 15 percent adhering to various Protestant sects. The words 'per head' took on a macabre ring in 1992, when at a given signal the racist militias of 'Hutu Power,' incited by state and church, fell upon their Tutsi neighbors and slaughtered them en masse." (190)
Here he does not mean to state that because the Church was in Rwanda, that the Church is necessarily evil, rather that a religious presence does not mean there is a purely ethical and moral community. Just as he says one corrupt Buddhist priest does not discredit the entire religion, this does not discredit Christianity as a whole. It does however discredit the notion that religion, and only religion, means ethics and kindness.
Let me make myself clear...
I feel I must reiterate or make clear my points that I have not yet made perfectly clear to some. I DO NOT hate or wish to incite hatred towards anyone, whether they be religious or not. I DO NOT anywhere claim to be unbiased and uncritical, so therefore it should not be a shock to anyone reading this blog that I have a certain view. I find it problematic that religion, on the basis of being religion so often is placed above national and legal authority. So far one of the best texts I have found relating this problem in a Canadian context is Uneasy Partners: Canada and Multiculturalism. The first writer, Janice Gross Stein, admits to being a Jew but still finds problems with her own synagogue which systematically discriminates against women. She says that most religious institutions are considered "private" and as such are not subject to the Rights and Freedoms which are guaranteed to ALL Canadian citizens. She then points out, however, that most religious establishments do not need to pay property tax and also receive charity status for tax purposes. Therefore, while one could argue that the place is funded by the public, one could also say that they are able to so easily receive funding because the people donating receive compensation from the government, and therefore the institution is not so private.
It is obvious what my views are on religion but please note I am not making any statements about the existence of any god or gods; I do not claim to be all-knowing about existential matters, I merely want to point out human issues that are obvious to anyone looking at these religions critically. Institutions that force women to sit at the back of a room, or exclude them from a job on the basis of being female are considered discriminatory and should be considered so without exception.
Here are my main issues:
- Catholic schools are funded by the government in Ontario (one of the few, if only, Canadian provinces with this benefit)... Why should this be allowed?
- Many religions discriminate against women, gays, and even people of other religions, and are allowed to do this on the basis of freedom of religion. I do not believe that freedom of religion should be taken away, but rather equality freedoms be placed above it.
- Many religious institutions are exempt from certain taxes and can even receive charity status to more easily fund themselves. I do not deny that many religious groups are part of charities which benefit people in Canada and around the world, but I also feel this is an insult to humanity that we must claim we need religion to do "good." I also acknowledge that many of these institutes function as community centres, but other community centres which do not claim religious affiliation do not get to benefit also from this privilege.
- While we are guaranteed freedom of religion, the very document this comes from states there is some form of a god. I do not wish this to be changed to "there is no god", but rather omit this mention or tie it back to a more humanist and earthly inspiration.
- I also wish to bring to light the fact that there are many horrific (and I do use that word purposely despite the suggestion I avoid opinionated adjectives, because this is my opinion) passages in the Christian Bible. Such passages include the stoning of rape victims, the stoning of disobedient sons, the "dashing" of babies' heads against rocks, to just name a few. Obviously and with good reason, from what I can see, Canadian Christian churches today do not follow such laws, yet claim they must follow the other sexist and homophobic laws because the Bible is "divinely inspired". If human reason can oppose the examples I gave, to the extent that the Church no longer preaches them, why then cannot it be applied to other laws as well?
I will repeat: I am not arguing for forced atheism or punishment for belief, but rather an emphasis of value on equality rights. There are too many times where hate speech is tolerated against homosexuals because it is the "Church" saying it. There are too many times where women are denied jobs within their own church, synagogue or mosque because of the religion. It is problematic that many religious "values" contradict rights and freedoms.
Perhaps I went a bit off topic with the last post so let me please tie it into the issues. I will admit I wrote it on very little sleep and should have put it through an editing process. I did not realize that people reading my blog would be shocked that I have an opinion and am not approaching this completely unbiased. Nowhere do I claim this virtue. I was expressing an opinion. It was not a xenophobic or hateful opinion against the women fighting UPS; I was upset that once again, religion seems to trump other laws on the basis of being religion. It seemed rather hypocritical that these women were claiming they were discriminated against for being female, when their very religion does this. I do not mean that UPS has a right to be sexist, not at all.
Once again, I do not hate religious people, nor do I wish to incite hatred against them. The goal of this blog is to bring up events and concepts which I (I personally, I with an opinion) find problem with. Nowhere do I claim to hold divine power or to be all-knowing. I am a concerned citizen, that is all. I am not naive enough to actually believe that my opinion is the only "right" one, or the only one for that matter. I truly do appreciate feedback, but it also saddens me what some people are taking away from what I am saying.
It is obvious what my views are on religion but please note I am not making any statements about the existence of any god or gods; I do not claim to be all-knowing about existential matters, I merely want to point out human issues that are obvious to anyone looking at these religions critically. Institutions that force women to sit at the back of a room, or exclude them from a job on the basis of being female are considered discriminatory and should be considered so without exception.
Here are my main issues:
- Catholic schools are funded by the government in Ontario (one of the few, if only, Canadian provinces with this benefit)... Why should this be allowed?
- Many religions discriminate against women, gays, and even people of other religions, and are allowed to do this on the basis of freedom of religion. I do not believe that freedom of religion should be taken away, but rather equality freedoms be placed above it.
- Many religious institutions are exempt from certain taxes and can even receive charity status to more easily fund themselves. I do not deny that many religious groups are part of charities which benefit people in Canada and around the world, but I also feel this is an insult to humanity that we must claim we need religion to do "good." I also acknowledge that many of these institutes function as community centres, but other community centres which do not claim religious affiliation do not get to benefit also from this privilege.
- While we are guaranteed freedom of religion, the very document this comes from states there is some form of a god. I do not wish this to be changed to "there is no god", but rather omit this mention or tie it back to a more humanist and earthly inspiration.
- I also wish to bring to light the fact that there are many horrific (and I do use that word purposely despite the suggestion I avoid opinionated adjectives, because this is my opinion) passages in the Christian Bible. Such passages include the stoning of rape victims, the stoning of disobedient sons, the "dashing" of babies' heads against rocks, to just name a few. Obviously and with good reason, from what I can see, Canadian Christian churches today do not follow such laws, yet claim they must follow the other sexist and homophobic laws because the Bible is "divinely inspired". If human reason can oppose the examples I gave, to the extent that the Church no longer preaches them, why then cannot it be applied to other laws as well?
I will repeat: I am not arguing for forced atheism or punishment for belief, but rather an emphasis of value on equality rights. There are too many times where hate speech is tolerated against homosexuals because it is the "Church" saying it. There are too many times where women are denied jobs within their own church, synagogue or mosque because of the religion. It is problematic that many religious "values" contradict rights and freedoms.
Perhaps I went a bit off topic with the last post so let me please tie it into the issues. I will admit I wrote it on very little sleep and should have put it through an editing process. I did not realize that people reading my blog would be shocked that I have an opinion and am not approaching this completely unbiased. Nowhere do I claim this virtue. I was expressing an opinion. It was not a xenophobic or hateful opinion against the women fighting UPS; I was upset that once again, religion seems to trump other laws on the basis of being religion. It seemed rather hypocritical that these women were claiming they were discriminated against for being female, when their very religion does this. I do not mean that UPS has a right to be sexist, not at all.
Once again, I do not hate religious people, nor do I wish to incite hatred against them. The goal of this blog is to bring up events and concepts which I (I personally, I with an opinion) find problem with. Nowhere do I claim to hold divine power or to be all-knowing. I am a concerned citizen, that is all. I am not naive enough to actually believe that my opinion is the only "right" one, or the only one for that matter. I truly do appreciate feedback, but it also saddens me what some people are taking away from what I am saying.
Monday, November 17, 2008
UPS and Discrimination?
"UPS dress code case settled: 8 Muslim women claimed discrimination in firing"
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/538235
I found this article and decided to post it since most of my research has been on Christianity. Basically, there are 8 devout Muslim women claiming they were fired from UPS on the basis of religious and gender discrimination. They refused to hike their dresses above their knees for safety reasons (i.e. climbing up ladders 6 metres high) and UPS claims this could have resulted in injuries and accidents. At this point, apparently the sides have reached an agreement but it is yet to be published.
There are plenty of women employed by UPS today and they are not claiming they are victims of gender discrimination. It is the women's choice to follow these strict guidelines of their religion. I do understand that it is also a culture thing so they could possibly face discrimination at home, but they are choosing to remain there and choosing to follow the rules even at work. UPS did not fire them because they were Muslim, but because they wore unsafe clothing at work. I do not think it right that, if this is a valid concern, that these women believe themselves to be above safety regulations. If any other female (or male) were to wear long dresses, whether they were Muslim or not, they would face the same problem. If they were to fall off the ladders and become injured, they could possibly sue UPS or be out of work for awhile and still receive injury pay. There is no reason why UPS should have consented to this, if it is a valid safety concern.
This article also brings up another problematic issue, which is the charitable status bestowed on most religious institutions. This means that the institution is able to raise money easier through the public and claim to be funded by its followers rather than the government, and therefore argue it is private and can follow religious laws rather than actual Canadian laws against discrimination. This specific mosque which these women attend issues slurs on Jews and still has this charitable status. Furthermore, the majority of mosques demand that women be seperated from the men and continue to discriminate against women. The clothing is only one example of this. Women cannot be imams in traditional mosques and until recently (in some more liberal mosques) women cannot lead prayer to a group of mixed gender or men. These women should be suing their mosque for gender discrimination, not UPS.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/538235
I found this article and decided to post it since most of my research has been on Christianity. Basically, there are 8 devout Muslim women claiming they were fired from UPS on the basis of religious and gender discrimination. They refused to hike their dresses above their knees for safety reasons (i.e. climbing up ladders 6 metres high) and UPS claims this could have resulted in injuries and accidents. At this point, apparently the sides have reached an agreement but it is yet to be published.
There are plenty of women employed by UPS today and they are not claiming they are victims of gender discrimination. It is the women's choice to follow these strict guidelines of their religion. I do understand that it is also a culture thing so they could possibly face discrimination at home, but they are choosing to remain there and choosing to follow the rules even at work. UPS did not fire them because they were Muslim, but because they wore unsafe clothing at work. I do not think it right that, if this is a valid concern, that these women believe themselves to be above safety regulations. If any other female (or male) were to wear long dresses, whether they were Muslim or not, they would face the same problem. If they were to fall off the ladders and become injured, they could possibly sue UPS or be out of work for awhile and still receive injury pay. There is no reason why UPS should have consented to this, if it is a valid safety concern.
This article also brings up another problematic issue, which is the charitable status bestowed on most religious institutions. This means that the institution is able to raise money easier through the public and claim to be funded by its followers rather than the government, and therefore argue it is private and can follow religious laws rather than actual Canadian laws against discrimination. This specific mosque which these women attend issues slurs on Jews and still has this charitable status. Furthermore, the majority of mosques demand that women be seperated from the men and continue to discriminate against women. The clothing is only one example of this. Women cannot be imams in traditional mosques and until recently (in some more liberal mosques) women cannot lead prayer to a group of mixed gender or men. These women should be suing their mosque for gender discrimination, not UPS.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Freedom from Religion?
In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it is clearly stated that everyone is guaranteed "freedom of conscience and religion"(2b). However, it also states at the very beginning "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." While this does not mean it must be the Christian god or the Jewish god or the Muslim god, it does mean that these laws are based on the fact that some singular god does exist. We are given freedom of religion, but we are also given freedom of conscience which can mean abstaining from religion too. I found an interesting group called Freedom from Religion which claims that not only is it important that we have the right to choose religion, we must also have the right to be separate from religion and not forced into it. This would mean removing the opening statement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The freedom of religion would remain but those of us who wish to abstain from it do not need to "recognize the supremacy of God".
"God" is also found in the Canadian anthem. So often in school they make children singing a mismatched bilingual version, never telling the students that the French one is not at all a translation of the English one. Therefore, when you switch between the French and English one, you are actually singing two very different things. The French version translates into this:
O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
"God" is also found in the Canadian anthem. So often in school they make children singing a mismatched bilingual version, never telling the students that the French one is not at all a translation of the English one. Therefore, when you switch between the French and English one, you are actually singing two very different things. The French version translates into this:
O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.
(Taken from: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm#a8)
Not only does this mean children could be singing about being willing to go to war for their country at the age of 7 (or however young they are when they first sing it), it also makes them state they are willing to carry the cross. This is referencing directly the Christian faith so even those of other religion, not just atheists and agnostics, should be concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)