"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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
At least prior to the "anti-religion" crusade you are leading, your tirades on abortion views were at best passable. Now your ignorance astounds me, and your attempts to publish this opinionated, hate-filled diatribe in attempts to receive a grade from an academic class by provoking controversy is completely misguided and overshadowed by your implicit xenophobia.
While religion maybe problematic, this is simply subjective hate-speech. Congratulations, you're steps away from labeling yourself a bigot.
There's your A+ for you.
I'm hoping this is a meta-project. Some sort of study where you're actually looking at the feedback you'll get when you post articles like this online, pretending they're what you believe.
And if I'm wrong, if you actually stand behind the words you've written here? I'd have to say that I'm ashamed to have you in this faculty.
People can have their opinions. Calling someone a bigot is one thing but you cannot infringe upon someone's right to free speech. I can see both sides of the story on this one.
Although I horribly disagree with your description of "tent-like" statement describing muslim women's choice of clothing, I do see the issue as well with safety.
There is a fine line when you mix religion and the work place. The fact is you should not mix religion and the work place. The problem lies in respecting someone's personal religious beliefs or lack there of and the safety of employees. The Muslim women should have made some concessions to the safety concerns of UPS possibly by wearing pants instead of the "tent-like" structures you so attribute to their attire. I have seen plenty of muslim women in other workplaces dressed in pants yet still covered from head to toe so as not to interfere with their religious beliefs. The company should not have fired them, but tried to work on a compromise.
****
As far as public funding for private religious schools, I think it is totally wrong and biased. People defend these specialized schools based on personal religious beliefs but how do you think people would react if someone tried to open a school based on atheist beliefs and asked for public funding for that school? There would be an uproar. Another reason by religion should be a private matter between oneself and their God or not God.
You have no right to say things like "ridiculous guidelines of their religion", who made you the judge? Statments like this just makes you sound ignorant and distracts from the point you are trying to make. You should have gone more indepth on the issue you are writting about instead of simply coming off as anti-religious. Your veiw is too clouded by odvious religion bias to take seriously or even consider. Try not to just bash the other side of things and focus on the topic at hand.
Xenophobia, if we are to believe wikipedia, is "an intense dislike and/or fear of people from other countries" and is "typically used to describe a fear or dislike of foreigners or of people significantly different from oneself."This does not describe me at all. I have stated in a previous post that I do not hate or wish to incite hatred towards those who are part of religion. I have some amazing friends who are religious; Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jews...
I will admit that I should be more careful in wording my posts, and am going back to edit this one now. I do sincerely apologize to anyone I have offended. However, I still feel I bring up some valid points.
I also have been discussing with some friends this issue about UPS and one brought up a very valid point that perhaps firing them was too srong an action and if the saftey issue was a valid point, perhaps UPS could have had them sign a waiver or something. Anyways, thank you all very much for your comments.
First commenter you are a (fill in unnecessarily extend slew of swearing).
Can I swear on these posts or allude to them?
Although the original post does come off somewhat radical and potentially somewhat ignorant, it in no way justifies your comments. You have failed to make even a marginal attempt to support your "hate-filled diatribe" against this writer, who is eager to provoke social change. Surely you would not want to be wrongly accused of libel and, as such, it would certainly be enlightening to hear you elaborate on your points of her espousing hate speech. I'm sure you are able to at least produce a reply that contains more substantial content than the "opinionated" and "ignorant" blog entry in which you critique.
Hi Heather, it's Chris.
First, let me say that this is an interesting foray into the repurcussion free world of internet blog comments. I hope the people who made the above comments would have the courage to accuse you of racism and xenophobia in person, instead of flinging heavy words at you online.
Second, I want to point out that MUST be given consideration when discussing Islam in North America. This is the context of how this religion is percieved at this historical conjecture. It is simply not fair, or in anyway useful, to comapre christianity to Islam in North America. With Canada raping Afghanistan and the US embedded throughout the Middle East, torturing people and detaining them without trial, the waves of Islamophobia whipped up whenever a turban is spotted are akin to anti-communist hysterics of the cold war.
But we've always needed an enemy--however artificialy constructed--to invade nations. This time it's the threat of Islam, and by casting it in the light of a brutalistic and evil religion only does service to those who are using it to oppress others. This being said, I am against the oppressive patriarchy of Islam and do not believe religion is necessary.
But these women that lost their jobs garner attention not because they are not following safety procedures, but because it is clear that their foreign-ness in not following our standards is more of a threat than their personal safety. These women are victims of severe racism everyday--not to mention sexism at home--and now they cannot even work? It must appear quite insulting to them.
Another thing I wanted to mention is the fact that you believe this to be such a weighty topic in the first place. I must admit, I have never understood your resistence to religion. Of course we are moral without god, and of course we are capable of redeeming oursleves and seeking comfort in things other than some guy with a big beard--supposedly. I have a question for you: Do you think religion has any influence on the policies Canada creates, nationally, provincially, locally.etc
I suppose I'm an atheist by default because religion never enters my mind. None of my close friends are religious. I shrug off religion as an "opium of the masses," but I don't see church attendence suddenly bubbling over. The states is a different pot, and one that has a different religious history.
Another question: 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...
First let me say to both "Scott" and "Chris", thank you both for posting names, if only for making it easier to respond to specific posts rather than to the collection of "anonymous" posts.
Chris, you do raise some very valid points and thank you for backing them up rather than simply name-calling. I posted this article because I was afraid that I would appear as criticizing only Christianity and wanted to create some diversity. I do understand that perhaps some more caution must be exercised when examining the Muslim religion because of the current Islamophobia as you say, and I do not wish to included in this group. However, I do not think this means that the religion of Islam is exempt from criticism. For example, in the article it states that even other Islamic groups are against this specific mosque the women are a part of because it has been issuing Jewish slurs. These groups even wish the charity tax status be removed from the mosque. Are these the only people allowed to criticize Islam, its own followers? I do not think that these women should never work. I just think if, what UPS says is correct, their garb poses a threat and they refuse to dress differently, perhaps UPS should offer them a different job within the company which does not require ladder climbing and the like.
As for your questions on the influence of religion on current Canadian law and also whether or not ethics can be taught in a non-religious class or manner, I think this merits a separate post which I will be working on soon.
Canada raping Afghanistan? If this is the case you clearly have heard more of what is going on there than me. I would be interested to know what exactly Canada is doing in Afghanistan that is having a strong negative impact because I'm a bit hazy on the specifics of the operation.
Post a Comment