Canadian Mounties can wear hijabs.

[Vanisleryan]

6 hours ago, Jägermeister said:

But are they allowed to wear Burkinis?

Haha beat me to it.

[riffraff]

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

9 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

We're just giving a specific group of people this kind of privilege before they even ask for it?

 

This kind of preemptive capitulation never works out favourably anywhere else because of the precedent it sets, how is this a good thing?

How on earth did I know that you would be against this?

 

Where's Mustafa? I'm sure he'll have something negative to say about it too.

[Twilight Sparkle]

that really doesn't affect me in any way. good for them

[nucklehead]

12 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

We're just giving a specific group of people this kind of privilege before they even ask for it?

 

This kind of preemptive capitulation never works out favourably anywhere else because of the precedent it sets, how is this a good thing?

what do you mean like when I know my child's hearts wish is to be able to join a hockey team but he is not asking me outright for it and then I surprise him with new gear? No, you're right,  bad precedent.

[clam linguine]

20 hours ago, cabinessence said:

 

 

Although firmly rooted in Islamic tradition, hijab is not strictly defined in the Muslim holy book, the Quran. It is often a personal and cultural concept, not a religious one. Expression of hijab varies within the Muslim world and beyond.

Good point for discussion undeserving of minuses.  

[Warhippy]

5 minutes ago, clam linguine said:

Good point for discussion undeserving of minuses.  

LMAO not even a little bit.  What discussion?

 

A question asked without ANY attempt to look for a VERY easily found answer backed up by a statement pulled from wikipedia that completely contradicts the attempted statement that poster was trying to make

 

Which was

 

Traditional religious garb and decoration which is recognized as being ok by the RCMP and the federal government services vs...a baseball cap?

 

You shart in the comment box again and missed the toilet completely

[clam linguine]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

LMAO not even a little bit.  What discussion?

 

A question asked without ANY attempt to look for a VERY easily found answer backed up by a statement pulled from wikipedia that completely contradicts the attempted statement that poster was trying to make

 

Which was

 

Traditional religious garb and decoration which is recognized as being ok by the RCMP and the federal government services vs...a baseball cap?

 

You shart in the comment box again and missed the toilet completely

He asked a question to have a discussion.  The discussion benefits everyone.  We should not be trying to write technical reports here.  You need to tone down your bullying.

[Warhippy]

6 minutes ago, clam linguine said:

He asked a question to have a discussion.  The discussion benefits everyone.  We should not be trying to write technical reports here.  You need to tone down your bullying.

It's cute you thnk this is bullying.  Life must be tough for you.

 

No, no he didn't ask that for a discussion.  It was a clearly asked question with the intent of baiting people which did not work as again the evidence is a search engine and short bit of reading away.   Since you erased the full comment from your initial post I will correct that.

 

"Are Christian police allowed to wear crucifixes on their uniforms? Are Jewish police allowed to wear kippahs? Then again that would be irrelevant because the hijab isn't truly a commandment in islam, more of a cultural preference. I guess baseball fans can now wear ball caps of their favorite teams as part of the uniform!"

 

Now, where is the discussion?  A question asked which was very easily found information shows laziness or unwillingness to look for the answer.  A statement made which was immediately contradicted by the quote pulled up.  And a statement made which is laughably absurd as to just simply be ignored.

 

Show me where the actual discussion is being generated in that comment.  And then show me where the internet bullied you on this doll and we can have a tisane and make it all go away

[cabinessence]

22 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Well if you actually looked for that information before you posted your nonsense you'd know the answer is yes.

 

Yarmulke

Turban

Cross

 

And as you saw very clearly outlined it is a personal choice of religious and traditional standing much like the turban, the yarmulke, the cross and more.

 

Wear a ball cap though or try to make that claim or comparison and you're just making yourself look like an idiot

Actually knew it, you assumed and were wrong. No, RCMP are not permitted to wear crucifixes or other jewelry on their respective uniforms. Under, yes, but not over. Show some evidence that the proof of a certain god is more likely than that of humpty-dumpty.  2-0.

[cabinessence]

22 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Yes. Do your research. That ball-cap comparison is just ridiculous. 

No, they are not. Do some research yourself or ask an officer. why is worshiping the New York Yankess more ridiculous than someone who allegedly lived eons ago?1-0.

[cabinessence]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

LMAO not even a little bit.  What discussion?

 

A question asked without ANY attempt to look for a VERY easily found answer backed up by a statement pulled from wikipedia that completely contradicts the attempted statement that poster was trying to make

 

Which was

 

Traditional religious garb and decoration which is recognized as being ok by the RCMP and the federal government services vs...a baseball cap?

 

You shart in the comment box again and missed the toilet completely

Lazy comment War Hippy, just lazy.

[cabinessence]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

It's cute you thnk this is bullying.  Life must be tough for you.

 

No, no he didn't ask that for a discussion.  It was a clearly asked question with the intent of baiting people which did not work as again the evidence is a search engine and short bit of reading away.   Since you erased the full comment from your initial post I will correct that.

 

"Are Christian police allowed to wear crucifixes on their uniforms? Are Jewish police allowed to wear kippahs? Then again that would be irrelevant because the hijab isn't truly a commandment in islam, more of a cultural preference. I guess baseball fans can now wear ball caps of their favorite teams as part of the uniform!"

 

Now, where is the discussion?  A question asked which was very easily found information shows laziness or unwillingness to look for the answer.  A statement made which was immediately contradicted by the quote pulled up.  And a statement made which is laughably absurd as to just simply be ignored.

 

Show me where the actual discussion is being generated in that comment.  And then show me where the internet bullied you on this doll and we can have a tisane and make it all go away

A question was asked and yo use insulting language. Great. Do some research. Or post a picture of all our Jewish RCMP officers wearing crucifixes. Please show your source. I think the true lazy poster has been shown. 3-0 at least "doll".

[Red Light Racicot]

7 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

How on earth did I know that you would be against this?

 

Where's Mustafa? I'm sure he'll have something negative to say about it too.

 I suppose I can't blame you for assuming that. Thanks for noticing.

 

My main problem here is that this is not treating people equally. Imo it is a lot like denying a specific group a privilege every one else has.

 

Either every culture's ancient traditional outfits should be accommodated or none of them.

 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, cabinessence said:

Actually knew it, you assumed and were wrong. No, RCMP are not permitted to wear crucifixes or other jewelry on their respective uniforms. Under, yes, but not over. Show some evidence that the proof of a certain god is more likely than that of humpty-dumpty.  2-0.

Wrong again.

 

Chaput V Roman:  all religions have equal rights

 

Equality of all individuals is guaranteed by Section fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Reasonable accomodation allows for the RCMP to show religious or traditional garb and items up to and including a Cross or crucifix, a yarmulke, turban and now Hijab, the ceremonial sikh dagger being excluded limited only by preservation rights as the gun holster takes precedence in safety.

 

Simply put, a Yarmulke is worn UNDER the hat or helm as it is small enough, and the cross or crucifix is worn UNDER the shirt and vest of an officer in the line of duty as such ARE NOT VISIBLE

 

You have to do a hell of a lot better than simply going 0-1 champ  Basis of proof is on you for such foolish claims.

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, cabinessence said:

No, they are not. Do some research yourself or ask an officer. why is worshiping the New York Yankess more ridiculous than someone who allegedly lived eons ago?1-0.

Again, see religious freedoms in canada based under the charter of rights and freedoms.  if you do not understand why your claim is so foolish just walk away now.

 

UNless of course you can present a claim evidence or argument that backs up your statement.

[Nuckles80]

On 8/26/2016 at 2:52 PM, Warhippy said:

See this I agree with.  I was pulled over in Northern Alberta a few winters ago and refused to open my window as the officer had a face covering on due to the cold.  I rolled it down just enough to inform them that without being able to see their face or name plate I had distrust due to issues across North America in law enforcement.

 

He had absolutely no problem, even got in my car to warm up and let me know it looked like a chunk was missing from my back tail light.  Good cop all around.

Interesting, you wouldn't roll down your window but you let him in your car....

 

ooooh Kay!

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, cabinessence said:

Lazy comment War Hippy, just lazy.

What's lazier, you making a statement not based on fact then copy and pasting a wikipedia document that contradicts your statement

 

Or factual based evidence in reply?

57 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

A question was asked and yo use insulting language. Great. Do some research. Or post a picture of all our Jewish RCMP officers wearing crucifixes. Please show your source. I think the true lazy poster has been shown. 3-0 at least "doll".

A question was not asked actually, a statement was made.  I used language that was in keeping with the absolute ludicrous nature of such statement.  When dealing with children you speak down to them.  It happens.

 

Again and please follow along.  Because of the way the uniform is worn any cross or crucifix will not be visible as any yarmulke would not be visible as it is small enough to be worn under the cap which is the essential garb of the RCMP in canada

 

Want evidence, ask an RCMP member if they are wearing a cross then ask them to show you, wait the 2 minutes while they unbutton their shirt and possible vest.

 

You're trying to source an argument that somehow the RCMP in Canada are NOT allowed to wear a crucifix or yarmulke and only turbans or hijabs are allowed which goes against the rights of religious freedoms and the canadian charter of rights and freedoms.  Do you honestly think for a single INSTANCE that if the government told the RCMP not to wear those specific religoous items that there would not be a country wide backlash lasting decades?

 

How foolish are you.

 

Now go ahead claim you're somehow 3-0 again but hey don't provide evidence while doing it

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Nuckles80 said:

Interesting, you wouldn't roll down your window but you let him in your car....

 

ooooh Kay!

Absolutely, once he identified himself properly and started speaking to me I left my car provided a roadside check he wrote me a citation for having a broken tail light and wrote it in my car because it was like -40

 

It's called courtesy.

 

Critical thinking comes to mind before response no?

[Nuckles80]

18 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

We're just giving a specific group of people this kind of privilege before they even ask for it?

 

This kind of preemptive capitulation never works out favourably anywhere else because of the precedent it sets, how is this a good thing?

You mean like "white privilege"? That thing that white people get without even asking for it and ignore that its actually real?

 

Why someone wearing basically a different hat bothers you is more reflective of your bigotry and unwillingness to recognize it than anything else.

 

Does it offend you if someone wears a cowboy hat to a hockey game? Its not a 'traditional canadian hockey hat', its not 'culturally correct for our history'. Perhaps we should all be wearing traditional native clothing if 'traditional culture' is so important? Oh that's right, 'white culture' is the correct traditional culture - not that of those who were FIRST here. You see the absurdity yet? I hope so and that you learned something, perhaps to look inside yourself and ask yourself about your personal biases.

 

Please man, deal with your issues. Really