METRO VANCOUVER - Two turbaned Sikhs have filed a human rights complaint against International Forest Products, saying a new hard hat policy is preventing them from returning to their jobs at a Delta sawmill.
Complete story here.
Related posts:
Sikhs Upset Over Hardhat Rule
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Sad that I know it’s April 1st but I know this isn’t a joke.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Why not design a hardhat (motorcycle helmet, bicycle helmet, …) that fits over their turban? Or under the turban? Or even integrated with the turban? Why not solve the problem rather than make a big stink and complain?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Woo a story from my home-town made the front page!
They had similar problems being cops, or obeying the traffic laws and wearing helmets. It’s also been an issue that we let them carry around real ceremonial “swords”, which they’ve used to battle against the Hindu’s.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
What a bunch of maroons. “They should exempt them”, I get sick and tired of hearing about people wanting to be exempted from this and that rule because of their ridiculous little belief system. Suck it up asshat, you have to follow the rules like the rest of us. Don’t like it? Go find another job. Better yet, start your own business and make your own rules.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I’m halfway between Mu and Michael on this one. Yeah, the Sikhs should figure out some way to accomodate the needs of the many so they can follow some basic safety rules (Like a hardhat shaped like a turban and blessed or whatever they need to do to make it “official”). But I always appreciated the fact that their religion *required* them to be armed . . . I have no fears of the Sikhs being able to defend themselves against the Scientologists. ;)
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
If they care that much, they can have custom-made hardhats that will work with their turbans. It’s their personal decision to wear a turban, therefore it’s their responsibility to abide by the rules.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
1) All Sikhs are not immigrants
2) Many Sikhs are citizens
3) Many Sikhs were BORN IN CANADA
4) Many Sikh families have been in Canada for several decades
5) Initiated (amritdhari) Sikhs are required to wear a turban, not a “scarf”
6) The requirement is not to “cover your head” but to have a unique identity. They could cover their heads with a Kleenex. That’s not the point.
7) Jesus, Moses, Ramanand, and all great spiritual leaders wore turbans.
8) Sikhs have fought in wars with and without protective gear, but always with turbans.
9) Some Sikhs DISAGREE with this rule, some AGREE. Even some turban-wearing Sikhs agree that you should wear protective gear in a job like this.
10) These Sikhs are not new immigrants.
11) The RIGHT to protest this rule is guaranteed by our constitution.
12) Nobody has the RIGHT to spread hate speech about individuals, especially based on their RIGHT to protest a rule with which they disagree.
13) The court of Canadian Law runs our justice system, not the court of public opinion.
14) Racism is a blotch on the face of Canadian society today. We have a lot of contempt for the USA, but actually the USA is far more progressive with addressing racial issues than Canada. Canada FAKES its multiculturalism, while the mainstream media always has biased reporting.
15) Sikhs, who are initiated, who wear turbans, who were born in Canada, who agree or disagree with this law, do appreciate and respect and abide by the laws of Canada.
16) Sikhs are protectors and defenders of the Canadian culture, Canadian society, and Canadian laws.
17) Sikhs have been part and parcel of the Canadian landscape for over 100 years, and they are as Canadian as Hockey, Maple Syrup, and the Rockie Mountains.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Let me respond to 17 points.
1) Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant
3) Irrelevant
4) Irrelevant
5) Irrelevant, arbitrary fashion rules don’t interest me
6) Irrelevant, arbitrary fashion rules don’t interest me
7) Irrelevant
8) Irrelevant
9) Good but irrelevant
10) Irrelevant
11) Good but irrelevant. Furthermore, bully for them for exercising their right!
12) Irrelevant but… Yes they do (or at least should) have the right to hate speech. As abhorrent as such speech is, it should be protected like all speech.
13) Irrelevant
14) Irrelevant
15) Irrelevant
16) Irrelevant
17) Irrelevant
Perhaps I missed something, Mathias. Did anyone here suggest that all of these Sikhs are immigrants? That fact is irrelevant anyway. All citizens have equal rights, whether they are fresh off the boat or their ancestors were the first to settle the land.
Relevant:
If someone is unable to perform the duties of a job for whatever reason, they shouldn’t be able to work that job. That’s not racist at all, that’s common sense.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Just a small addition; Safety regulations are designed for protecting the people working in the hazardous enviroments.
If one is not willing to follow such regulations, one can employ the services of a lawyer in drafting a document where one affirms that he is willing to work without such devices and any harm, any harm at all is the fault of him and not any other person, firm or organization.
After getting such document notarized they would be free to work without such safety devices but the employer, insurance company and others who might otherwise be at fault of wrongdoing due the lack of adherence to safety regulations would also be protected.
Taking the protection of ones religion against any harm and injury is thus possible but one has to waive all claims for compensation from wordly sources if and when any harm would befall to such a person.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
jagannath,
Re post 9, I don’t think that one can guarantee that the signing by the employee of such a waiver, of course drafted by a lawyer, would absolve the parties you list from responsibility in the eyes of the law, in all jurisdictions and in all cases. Ultimately, one would not know until this is brought to court e.g. in the case of a particular incident. In the employer’s shoes, I probably would not want to take the risk, because the damages award could be very high, and the distraction and media attention of a long court case of this sort is usually not good even if you win.
Furthermore, injury for one employee often results in risk to others, e.g. in rescue and recovery, or even secondary accidents that are caused to other workers resulting from the first accident having incapacitated the first party that was injured and so on, wherein those other workers may not have signed similar waiver.
But probably I’ve just spent far too much time with lawyers :-).
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I admit that drafting a truly good waiver is hard and it is hard to know how good it is until it is tested in the courts.
But such a task can be tried by those who want to avoid simple following of safety regulations which are put into order on the benefit of the workers.
Then at least the religous party of such situation is taking responsibility of his actions instead of merely saying ‘those rules do not apply to me as god is on my side, you must comply to my demands’.
Such behaviour is quite annoying for the employer who cannot fire the workers due their religious convictions and are instead forced to expend more for the sake of one or few.
It is quite unfair to those who obey the regulations and do not demand peculiar priviledges.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Mathias:
1) All Sikhs are not immigrants (But the majority are)
2) Many Sikhs are citizens (A very low amount)
3) Many Sikhs were BORN IN CANADA (Also a growing but still low amount)
4) Many Sikh families have been in Canada for several decades (Not learning English and screwing up our housing taxes)
5) Initiated (amritdhari) Sikhs are required to wear a turban, not a “scarf” (Religion is dumb)
6) The requirement is not to “cover your head” but to have a unique identity. They could cover their heads with a Kleenex. That’s not the point. (This is also very dumb)
7) Jesus, Moses, Ramanand, and all great spiritual leaders wore turbans. (I do not consider them great leaders by any means)
8) Sikhs have fought in wars with and without protective gear, but always with turbans. (Making it easy for their enemies to kill, no doubt, which explains the British rule)
9) Some Sikhs DISAGREE with this rule, some AGREE. Even some turban-wearing Sikhs agree that you should wear protective gear in a job like this. (The ones who disagree should be banned from these jobs, and most of society)
10) These Sikhs are not new immigrants. (Who cares?)
11) The RIGHT to protest this rule is guaranteed by our constitution. (We have a constitution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada )
12) Nobody has the RIGHT to spread hate speech about individuals, especially based on their RIGHT to protest a rule with which they disagree. (This is the biggest problem I have with Canadian Law, everyone should have the right to voice their opinion, no matter what it is. You are an idiot for using this to try and protect Sikhism from opinion; telling people they don’t have rights…)
13) The court of Canadian Law runs our justice system, not the court of public opinion. (Not for long)
14) Racism is a blotch on the face of Canadian society today. We have a lot of contempt for the USA, but actually the USA is far more progressive with addressing racial issues than Canada. Canada FAKES its multiculturalism, while the mainstream media always has biased reporting. (Fuck you)
15) Sikhs, who are initiated, who wear turbans, who were born in Canada, who agree or disagree with this law, do appreciate and respect and abide by the laws of Canada. (No they don’t, there are COUNTLESS exmaples of Sikh extremism in Canada, just Google Air India Bombings)
16) Sikhs are protectors and defenders of the Canadian culture, Canadian society, and Canadian laws. (I hate cops)
17) Sikhs have been part and parcel of the Canadian landscape for over 100 years, and they are as Canadian as Hockey, Maple Syrup, and the Rockie Mountains. (Maybe so, but that doesn’t give your group special status or powers over the rest of us, even if it is only wearing a stupid headband)
April 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I don’t get it. Why do people take jobs that have requirement they can’t meet?
Better yet, why can’t employers simply fire them? This is why religion should play no role in actual society, because kicking someone out because they wear a turban is “religious discrimination”, while kicking someone out because they wear a baseball cap is allowed.
“Don’t want to wear a hardhat? Sorry buddy, you signed a contract you would. Still refuse? Well, goodbye then and good luck with your next job.”
I mean, people who don’t like animals don’t become vets. People who can’t handle blood don’t become doctors, and people who don’t want to wear hardhats shouldn’t become construction workers.
If anyone sees a flaw in my reasoning please say so, because I simply think these people are:
A - Idiots
B - Desperate for atention
C - In need of lawsuit-money
D - Morons
E - All of the above
I’m leaning towards E, with a little A added for good measure.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I would love to see someone find a flaw in your reasoning Alcari. That would be amusing since there aren’t any.
I think the root issue is most religious people are religious because they can’t handle thinking they are insignificant specks. Their religion teaches them eventually that they are special, although the christian religion jumps through a bunch of hoops getting there, trying to first convince them that they are lowly sinning trash.
My point is, since their religion teaches them that they are special, that means they are entitled to special status. If they don’t want to wear a hardhat, then damn it, they get treated different than everyone else. Because, as their religion teaches them, they are special.