another hijab debate
I guess this is what they say by 'slippery slope' effect. Once one person voices a human rights obstruction, then everyone out there with something in the same situation will jump on the band wagon to try to get the same 'justice'.
This case has so many pros and cons for either side of the situation that you can't really argue a 'no hijab' or 'yes hijab'. For example, one person would say "well she is going to be bringing in a weapon that can be taken by another criminal and used against her in a fight that could end in her death or serious injury". But then you can answer that with 'the guards come in with pepper spray, hand cuffs, billy clubs/night sticks or even hand guns that a prisoner can take away and use against them. Hell, the guards even have belts or shoe laces that can be used as whips or strangulation devices'. So, safety concern can be said that since they have those other weapons, why not allow a woman to wear a piece of clothing that her faith dictates? Though the code states that the guards can not wear neck ties (which I think should be standard in any office state simply because they are the worst things in the world and I really hate them), which is good. But to say "but the code doesnt state hijabs" is sort of odd to say. While I have not seen the code itself or read it, I am sure that it should be implied what is not allowed. I mean, if they say 'no neck ties' and leave it at that, why not ask "why can I not wear a neck tie?" answer "because someone might choke me to death with it" ok, so lets expand this. Loose article = choking death hazard. Hijab = loose article = choking death hazard. Ahhhh, so perhaps I should not be permited to wear a hijab. You might as well say "oh warden, according to your rules posted on the prison walls here, I am not allowed to bring in 'knives, guns or neck ties' but you didnt mention ice axes for climbing mountains! loop hole, thank you, now I am going to go and visit my gang buddy carrying these 3 ice axes who is in for a quadruple murder."
I like how she mentioned "but they didnt tell me til a week into my training course that I had to take off my hijab". Why didnt the officials mention before hand? ok, possibility here, it is mentioned that she was the first person to enter into the training course that wore a hijab. Perhaps the officials said to themselves "ok, she read the code, saw that she is not allowed a neck tie, she obviously has made the connection as to strangulation weapons and all so she is wearing the hijab out of course for her own reasons that we cant stop her, but when she comes to work or the course, she will remove it as per the code and regualtions" They give her a week to clue in, perhaps dropping hints in the training period such as saying "yes, while working in a prison environment you are not allowed neck ties or scarves because they can be used to kill you..yes, kill you...yes, you in the back, loose clothing to kill you" hoping that she will clue in hijab = loose clothing = strangulation weapon = death. She doesn't clue in, they mention it to her and all of a sudden it is a human rights violation. Or perhaps the officials really didn't dawn on what a hijab is and what it means. Maybe the instructors and officials thought that someone else was handling this case and after a week one of the higher ups, or instructors, kind of went up to the safety people and said "umm, excuse me, but if she wears a hijab, why can't I wear a neck tie?"
If the officials had said "oh, someone wearing a hijab is applying for the course. We won't allow loose clothing. She won't take it off due to religious reasons, so we won't grant her admitance to the course" then I am sure we would have been reading this case about 2 weeks earlier but saying "I was denied entry into a course based on my religious beliefs. That is discrimination" and this would be another sort of writing.
So, to put it bluntly, yes I would say that she should remove her hijab if she wants to continue in the course and training. If not for her own personal safety but for the safety of all those around her. Knowing the way that the sueing and negligence lawsuits have been these days, if she wins this, gets to wear the hijab and it is used to kill her and another inmate or guard, then all families will start sueing the gov't, prison, officials and everyone else for not protecting her. So, if not for her own safety, then for the safety of everyone else around her, she should remove the hijab if she wants to go into this profession. Yes, the officials should update the rules and regulations to include a more sound wording of the regulation (ie "no person shall wear any article of loose clothing on their head, arm or person that can be easiely removed and used against them or another as a weapon" which opens a new can of worms of "then, do I have to wear clothes since my shirt can be taken off and used to strangle someone?") or they can amend it to include and name every single item of clothing that they are not permitted to have on (ie "no person shall wear a neck tie, hijab, scarf/scarves, head band, leg warmers, wrist band, neck warmer, belaclava, toque, viking helmet, motorcycle helmet, judges robes, etc etc etc...). If they do the addition, then we might as well cut down an entire rain forest now and start making the paper to make that 3,000 page manual listing all the things on the face of the Earth that can not be worn.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070315/hijab_que_070315/20070315?hub=Canada
Quebec firm on hijab ban for prison guards
Updated Thu. Mar. 15 2007 6:50 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A Quebec woman who was forced to choose between her hijab and her career is considering taking her case to the Human Rights Commission.
Sondos Abdelatif, 19, was given the ultimatum to withdraw from a training session at Montreal's Bordeaux Detention Centre or remove her headscarf.
Quebec's Public Safety Department is standing behind its decision to ban the hijab. The ministry, which is in charge of Corrections Services, said a headscarf could act as a strangulation device should hostile prisoners attack a guard while on patrol.
However, Abdelatif says if her headscarf was a problem, officials should have notified her sooner.
Abdelatif applied to become a corrections officer in November of last year. Her application included a complete portfolio with photos of her wearing a headscarf and there were no questions asked about her hijab at the time.
"I had my veil on and you could clearly see that I had my veil on," Abdelatif told CTV Montreal on Thursday.
Abdelatif completed her initial examination and was a week into her training before officials at the Bordeaux Detention Centre confronted her with the ultimatum.
"They just told me you either take it off, or you can't work here," Abdelatif said.
"It was kind of like they were telling me that I had nothing to offer, that I was good for nothing."
Female guards are required to wear their hair tied back and abstain from wearing ties, but there is no mention of hijabs in the prison's uniform policy.
According to Canadian and provincial correctional authorities, this is the first time that a woman who observes the Muslim custom has wanted to become a corrections officer in the province.
Abdelatif is upset she will not be given the chance to fulfill her career aspirations.
"I liked it a lot. I figured out that's what I want to do with my life," said Abdelatif.
She said she would like to have an open dialogue with the prison and the Public Safety Department before she takes her case to the Human Rights Commission.
Sarah Elgazzar, a spokesperson for the Canadian Council on American Muslim Relations, said the ministry should be willing to compromise.
"If there were security concerns they should have addressed the security concerns," Elgazzar told CTV Montreal.
"They should have said, 'Hey, look we're worried about you. We have your best interest in mind, is there a way that you can do this without endangering yourself?'"
Elgazzar reiterated there are specifically designed hijabs used by the Canadian armed forces that could be a compromise to this situation.
A spokesperson from the Public Safety Department said they are not considering alternatives to the ultimatum.
This recent incident has further fueled the debate about reasonable accommodation for minorities within Quebec.
An 11-year-old Ottawa girl was ejected from a soccer game in Quebec after she refused to remove her headscarf during the game in February.
The small town of Herouxville drew international attention when it adopted a declaration of "norms'' that tells immigrants how to fit in and forbids face coverings other than on Halloween.
In Montreal, men were banned from pre-natal classes at one Montreal community centre to accommodate Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women.
With files from the Canadian Press and a report by CTV Montreal's Tania Krywiak.
This case has so many pros and cons for either side of the situation that you can't really argue a 'no hijab' or 'yes hijab'. For example, one person would say "well she is going to be bringing in a weapon that can be taken by another criminal and used against her in a fight that could end in her death or serious injury". But then you can answer that with 'the guards come in with pepper spray, hand cuffs, billy clubs/night sticks or even hand guns that a prisoner can take away and use against them. Hell, the guards even have belts or shoe laces that can be used as whips or strangulation devices'. So, safety concern can be said that since they have those other weapons, why not allow a woman to wear a piece of clothing that her faith dictates? Though the code states that the guards can not wear neck ties (which I think should be standard in any office state simply because they are the worst things in the world and I really hate them), which is good. But to say "but the code doesnt state hijabs" is sort of odd to say. While I have not seen the code itself or read it, I am sure that it should be implied what is not allowed. I mean, if they say 'no neck ties' and leave it at that, why not ask "why can I not wear a neck tie?" answer "because someone might choke me to death with it" ok, so lets expand this. Loose article = choking death hazard. Hijab = loose article = choking death hazard. Ahhhh, so perhaps I should not be permited to wear a hijab. You might as well say "oh warden, according to your rules posted on the prison walls here, I am not allowed to bring in 'knives, guns or neck ties' but you didnt mention ice axes for climbing mountains! loop hole, thank you, now I am going to go and visit my gang buddy carrying these 3 ice axes who is in for a quadruple murder."
I like how she mentioned "but they didnt tell me til a week into my training course that I had to take off my hijab". Why didnt the officials mention before hand? ok, possibility here, it is mentioned that she was the first person to enter into the training course that wore a hijab. Perhaps the officials said to themselves "ok, she read the code, saw that she is not allowed a neck tie, she obviously has made the connection as to strangulation weapons and all so she is wearing the hijab out of course for her own reasons that we cant stop her, but when she comes to work or the course, she will remove it as per the code and regualtions" They give her a week to clue in, perhaps dropping hints in the training period such as saying "yes, while working in a prison environment you are not allowed neck ties or scarves because they can be used to kill you..yes, kill you...yes, you in the back, loose clothing to kill you" hoping that she will clue in hijab = loose clothing = strangulation weapon = death. She doesn't clue in, they mention it to her and all of a sudden it is a human rights violation. Or perhaps the officials really didn't dawn on what a hijab is and what it means. Maybe the instructors and officials thought that someone else was handling this case and after a week one of the higher ups, or instructors, kind of went up to the safety people and said "umm, excuse me, but if she wears a hijab, why can't I wear a neck tie?"
If the officials had said "oh, someone wearing a hijab is applying for the course. We won't allow loose clothing. She won't take it off due to religious reasons, so we won't grant her admitance to the course" then I am sure we would have been reading this case about 2 weeks earlier but saying "I was denied entry into a course based on my religious beliefs. That is discrimination" and this would be another sort of writing.
So, to put it bluntly, yes I would say that she should remove her hijab if she wants to continue in the course and training. If not for her own personal safety but for the safety of all those around her. Knowing the way that the sueing and negligence lawsuits have been these days, if she wins this, gets to wear the hijab and it is used to kill her and another inmate or guard, then all families will start sueing the gov't, prison, officials and everyone else for not protecting her. So, if not for her own safety, then for the safety of everyone else around her, she should remove the hijab if she wants to go into this profession. Yes, the officials should update the rules and regulations to include a more sound wording of the regulation (ie "no person shall wear any article of loose clothing on their head, arm or person that can be easiely removed and used against them or another as a weapon" which opens a new can of worms of "then, do I have to wear clothes since my shirt can be taken off and used to strangle someone?") or they can amend it to include and name every single item of clothing that they are not permitted to have on (ie "no person shall wear a neck tie, hijab, scarf/scarves, head band, leg warmers, wrist band, neck warmer, belaclava, toque, viking helmet, motorcycle helmet, judges robes, etc etc etc...). If they do the addition, then we might as well cut down an entire rain forest now and start making the paper to make that 3,000 page manual listing all the things on the face of the Earth that can not be worn.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070315/hijab_que_070315/20070315?hub=Canada
Quebec firm on hijab ban for prison guards
Updated Thu. Mar. 15 2007 6:50 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A Quebec woman who was forced to choose between her hijab and her career is considering taking her case to the Human Rights Commission.
Sondos Abdelatif, 19, was given the ultimatum to withdraw from a training session at Montreal's Bordeaux Detention Centre or remove her headscarf.
Quebec's Public Safety Department is standing behind its decision to ban the hijab. The ministry, which is in charge of Corrections Services, said a headscarf could act as a strangulation device should hostile prisoners attack a guard while on patrol.
However, Abdelatif says if her headscarf was a problem, officials should have notified her sooner.
Abdelatif applied to become a corrections officer in November of last year. Her application included a complete portfolio with photos of her wearing a headscarf and there were no questions asked about her hijab at the time.
"I had my veil on and you could clearly see that I had my veil on," Abdelatif told CTV Montreal on Thursday.
Abdelatif completed her initial examination and was a week into her training before officials at the Bordeaux Detention Centre confronted her with the ultimatum.
"They just told me you either take it off, or you can't work here," Abdelatif said.
"It was kind of like they were telling me that I had nothing to offer, that I was good for nothing."
Female guards are required to wear their hair tied back and abstain from wearing ties, but there is no mention of hijabs in the prison's uniform policy.
According to Canadian and provincial correctional authorities, this is the first time that a woman who observes the Muslim custom has wanted to become a corrections officer in the province.
Abdelatif is upset she will not be given the chance to fulfill her career aspirations.
"I liked it a lot. I figured out that's what I want to do with my life," said Abdelatif.
She said she would like to have an open dialogue with the prison and the Public Safety Department before she takes her case to the Human Rights Commission.
Sarah Elgazzar, a spokesperson for the Canadian Council on American Muslim Relations, said the ministry should be willing to compromise.
"If there were security concerns they should have addressed the security concerns," Elgazzar told CTV Montreal.
"They should have said, 'Hey, look we're worried about you. We have your best interest in mind, is there a way that you can do this without endangering yourself?'"
Elgazzar reiterated there are specifically designed hijabs used by the Canadian armed forces that could be a compromise to this situation.
A spokesperson from the Public Safety Department said they are not considering alternatives to the ultimatum.
This recent incident has further fueled the debate about reasonable accommodation for minorities within Quebec.
An 11-year-old Ottawa girl was ejected from a soccer game in Quebec after she refused to remove her headscarf during the game in February.
The small town of Herouxville drew international attention when it adopted a declaration of "norms'' that tells immigrants how to fit in and forbids face coverings other than on Halloween.
In Montreal, men were banned from pre-natal classes at one Montreal community centre to accommodate Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women.
With files from the Canadian Press and a report by CTV Montreal's Tania Krywiak.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 7:06 PM
2 Comments:
Wow, it's v complex isn't it? There are safety concerns with the headscarf, but like you said, ripped sleeves or pant-legs can also be used to strangle. Banning her for whatever reasons will only arouse suspiscion that racism/religious-cist is at play. I can only suggest this: let her finish training, and then not put her on active duty; like make her a trainer or administrator or something. Let the thing blow over, and never let hijab wearers even pass round-1 in the future.
But without proper changing of the regulations, denying other hijab wearers still will be considered discrimination. Also, to put a person on a desk job based on their clothing is about as discriminatory as putting them in a desk job due to their gender or religious beliefs.
Very complex situation, very touchy. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
Post a Comment
<< Home