# Is it time for gendered hair standards to go?



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

I understand this may cause a bit of discussion. I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. I ask that people read what I am saying and provide me with their thoughts, or with an answer if they understand what the law would actually say in this situation. This is a serious question, and is not intended to provoke people. I am hoping that the admins will allow this discussion to take place, and not delete it simply because it may be a challenging discussion to have. I believe that this forum is a place to have discussions, and this is an important issue to everyone here.

I am considering a human rights complaint regarding Canadian Forces hair standards. I am a male in the military.
If I identify myself as a male, I must have short-cropped hair.

Hair shall be taper trimmed
at the back, sides, and above the
ears to blend with the hair-style; be no
more than 15 cm (6 in.) in length and
sufficiently short that, when the hair is
groomed and headdress is removed, no
hair shall touch the ears or fall below the
top of the eyebrows; be no more than 4 cm
(1-1/2 in.) in bulk at the top of the head,
gradually decreasing to blend with the
taper-trimmed sides and back; and be kept
free from the neck to a distance of 2.5 cm
(1 in.) above the shirt collar. Taper trimmed
square back styles and shaving of all the
hair on the head are permitted.

If I identify myself as a female, I may have my hair styled in any of the ways acceptable for a male, in addition to those allowable for a female.

Subsection 15. (1) of the Canadian Constitution says: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, *sex*, age or mental or physical disability.”

Subsection 3. (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act says: “For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, *sex*, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.”

I believe that Canadian Forces hair standards are a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex within the legally enforceable regulations of the Canadian Forces (an extension of statutory law). Dress regulations are therefore federal government legislation directly subject to the Constitution. 

They clearly discriminate on the basis of gender without any real purpose other than maintaining outdated gender expectations regarding hairstyle. I believe that a human rights commission challenge on this point would be immediately successful.

I am quite serious about this question, and hope it will be taken seriously by forum members. Do you think this has merits?


----------



## MikeL (6 Jan 2013)

*Assuming you are only bringing this up because you disagree with the standards because you want long hair*
So... you joined the military and disagree that as a male you need short'ish hair.  Is requiring short hair as a member of the Military a surprise to you?


Personally.. I don't think you have much to go on here in terms of violating human rights.  If a member belonged to a ethnic group/religion that was allowed to have long hair by the CF, but your CoC was not allowing you to have long hair that would be different.


Because you are basing this argument on violating human rights, are there other standards we should relax/drop? Such as allowing males to have pierced ears,  drop the rules regarding tattoos?   Now,  back to the hair;  how long should male hair be allowed?  Slightly more relaxed standards then what we have,  or the same rules of females?

Would this fit into what the Canadian public/military feel is an acceptable military appearance?  Is the requirement for males to have shorter hair then females effecting anyone's quality of life?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

A human rights complaint??  Seriously?  I don't see any discrimination, or human rights violations, or anything of the like.  Furthermore, I can't believe, of all the possible "injustices" in our world, _this_ is the one you've decided to fight for.  What next, we should be able to wear earrings and makeup and panties?

Sorry, but I can't even wish you good luck on this...endeavour of yours.  I hope you aren't also going to go on a hunger strike *cough diet cough*  though.

 :


----------



## Gunplumber (6 Jan 2013)

He did not say he wanted to have long hair or anything. He is stating that there are different standards for both sexes and , I am assuming, that he dosnt think the ladies should have so many choices when males do not. I just dont think he wrote it down to well. I think we need more detail in this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

OK so given that your take on his post is correct, what is the requested result of this bound-to-be-succesful COA then?  Males can wear long hair, or all females must go to the male standard??

Or is this just a pointless COA with no desired change at the end?


----------



## Gunplumber (6 Jan 2013)

I personally dont think males should have long hair, If you want to join the military then make the commitment to have short hair. I dont care if the ladies want to have long hair as long as they keep it in a bun or similar but when it comes to corn rows and other stuff I dont think that is too military. Maybe there should be the same commitment? This is possibly what he is getting at? If he is suggesting that female hair regs should be exactly the same as males then I think that is going a bit far.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

When you join you agree to the Hair standard If you can't agree to it, Don't join.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2013)

It's a very valid question.  What reasons (not traditions) dictate that men must have short hair and women may have long hair?  Why are women in the military permitted to have pierced ears, but not men?  If a woman's long hair and earrings do not impact operational effectiveness and safety, then a man's long hair and earrings would not impact them either.

Many of the CF's dress and appearance regulations are based on a 1950s "Leave it to Beaver" mentality.  That needs to be tossed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

So you support the idea of male soldiers with long flowing hair and earrings ???


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So you support the idea of male soldiers with long flowing hair and earrings ???



I support the idea of all soldiers held to the same dress and appearance standards.

And since we've proven that we can have soldiers with long hair and earrings...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

I am going to have to state I am one of the forum members and serving CF members who do not, in any way, want to see earrings and Goldilocks hair on male soldiers, airmen or sailors.  Ever.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So you support the idea of male soldiers with long flowing hair and earrings ???


I was in Denmark a wile back and was invited aboard a Danish Naval ship it was crewed by a mix of long haired unshaven earring wearing(both ears) hippies, and short haired clean shaven men. I was told the drafted crew had no requirement to wash let alone shave, The volunteer crew was payed a bit more and required to meet a set standard. guess what crew I bought drinks for as a thank you for the tour at the bar that night, the ones that looked like Sailors.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Jan 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I support the idea of all soldiers held to the same dress and appearance standards.
> 
> And since we've proven that we can have soldiers with long hair and earrings...



I have to say that, intellectually, I completely agree with you, and believe that the OP has a valid point.

Emotively however, I have a different reaction - one that probably speaks to tribal identifiers and a whole host of other issues.

Maybe it is time to have ea close look at this.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jan 2013)

One standard, fair enough, but I personally would look silly with my hair in a bun, and would therefore probably keep mine short.  If I still had a dog in this fight, that is.


----------



## zander1976 (6 Jan 2013)

Kat has a good point, if you are a man you are going to go bald anyway so just shave it now.  I was never a big fan of having short hair but I clipped it awhile ago and never looked back. It was the greatest thing ever.  As far as I am concerned, the system is perfect the way it is.


----------



## Bass ackwards (6 Jan 2013)

Of the myriad double standards and injustices that are out there, this one seems like a very _strange_ thing for a male to decide to get his back up over.

Iv'e long since left the CF but I still keep my hair short because it is far more comfortable that way. It's cooler in the summer, dries much faster, requires little or no grooming.

On the other hand, most males -and I'm certainly one of them- tend to prefer women with long hair. If a woman wishes to put up with the extra work and discomfort, then God bless 'em I say.

I can't see what this complaint would achieve other than either making it legal for men to be less comfortable or forcing women to be less attractive.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Jan 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So you support the idea of male soldiers with long flowing hair and earrings ???



As long as the "flowing hair" is subject to the following:



> Women (see Figure 2-2-3). Hair shall not extend below the lower edge of the shirt collar (see below.) Exaggerated styles, including those with excessive fullness or extreme height, are not authorized. Braids, if worn, shall be styled conservatively and tied tightly: secured at the end by a knot or a small unadorned fastener. A single braid shall be worn in the centre of the back. Double braids shall be worn behind the shoulders. Hair shall be a maximum length when gathered behind the head and braided which does not extend below the top of the armpit. With the permission of a Commanding Officer, a 60-day transition period may be granted a member to grow her hair longer for re-styling, during which time hair may extend below the lower edge of the shirt collar; all the while maintaining a positive military appearance, and subject to the member’s safety.



Braids or buns boys, which will it be?

... an d...



> female members in uniform may wear a single pair of plain gold, silver stud or pearl earrings in pierced ears.



Sorry soldier, that pretty gold ring has to go, Dress regs only allow a simple stud.

 >


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's a very valid question.  What reasons (not traditions) dictate that men must have short hair and women may have long hair?  Why are women in the military permitted to have pierced ears, but not men?  If a woman's long hair and earrings do not impact operational effectiveness and safety, then a man's long hair and earrings would not impact them either.
> 
> Many of the CF's dress and appearance regulations are based on a 1950s "Leave it to Beaver" mentality.  That needs to be tossed.



This is a very good point. Long hair (subject to a unisex standard) would not impact my ability to be a soldier, so what difference does it make if I am a male or female. It is quite clearly constitutionally invalid.

The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a haircut that would pass a military inspection.

And it definitely isn't just limited to braids or buns. Check out the allowable short hairstyles as well - so long as it doesn't go past the lower edge of the collar it would be allowable.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> This is a very good point. Long hair (subject to a unisex standard) would not impact my ability to be a soldier, so what difference does it make if I am a male or female. It is quite clearly constitutionally invalid.


During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2013)

When I joined, it was a chargeable offence to shave one's head or have a "square" cut at the back of the neck... I have friends who were charged for shaving their head.

Then it changed, we are now permitted to shave our heads and have a square-cut neck. I did not notice any drop in morale or effectiveness... I met a few guys of native origins who wear long hear in a braid... nobody even notices anymore.

Maybe we give grooming standards too much importance...


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a haircut that would pass a military inspection.


Well, _there's_ an argument-clinching point.   :facepalm:


----------



## q_1966 (6 Jan 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
> Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:



If a pony tail for men is allowed, I want a tricorn hat and sword to go with it.


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Jan 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Its not whether you can do the job Its whether you look like you can do the job



Bvvvt

Actually it's knowing that you can do the job and are of such a high standard that others can easily notice your professionalism


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Bvvvt
> 
> Actually it's knowing that you can do the job and are of such a high standard that others can easily notice your professionalism



Sorry In the public Eye Its wether you look like you can do the job.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Jan 2013)

I agree with the OP,

In fact, females should also be subjected to same standards for moustaches!  Why should they be forced to wax, or bleach them!  I say let them grow 'em staches out!







dileas

tess


----------



## zander1976 (6 Jan 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Sorry In the public Eye Its wether you look like you can do the job.



To an outsider, looking like you know what you are doing is often related to how you look and how confident you are. 

I thought the idea of have consistent hair cuts was to remove the individuality and make them one coherent team of canadian solders.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jan 2013)

Uniformity??  What a concept... Groovy man.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
> Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:



Really?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2013)

Standards for facial hair are equally unsupportable.  You can wear a beard if you're wearing a naval DEU and not going to sea, or are an infantryman who is part of a non-existent pioneer platoon, or if you have a medical chit...

Again, how about a single standard - and I'm not suggesting this one:


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

As A member of the public not knowing who that bearded giant is would be scared shitless to see him walk in to a room dressed as he is. but saying that, his look Would have a" WHO THE FUC$ WAS THAT  and WHY IS HE KILLING US?" reaction with the bad guys


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2013)

.


----------



## q_1966 (6 Jan 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Again, how about a single standard - and I'm not suggesting this one:



If you were suggesting it, I'd agree with you


----------



## Sigs Pig (6 Jan 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
> Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:



Same said of people who post w/grammatical and spelling errors, their words can't hold much water.

ME


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2013)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> ...errors*;* their...


     op:


----------



## Sigs Pig (6 Jan 2013)

Been got!  HA!

Thx,
ME


----------



## cupper (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> This is a very good point. Long hair (subject to a unisex standard) would not impact my ability to be a soldier, so what difference does it make if I am a male or female. It is quite clearly constitutionally invalid.
> 
> The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a haircut that would pass a military inspection.
> 
> And it definitely isn't just limited to braids or buns. Check out the allowable short hairstyles as well - so long as it doesn't go past the lower edge of the collar it would be allowable.



I suggest that you go back and read Part 1 and the section on discriminatory practices. The key point to keep in mind is that the practice must discriminate adversely, in other words create a situation where you suffer some form of hardship due to the difference in treatment between men and women (or what ever other basis you may challenge a regulation).

Something to consider. The regulations have been successfully challenged under the basis of religious discrimination, where the member's religion prohibited cutting of hair or beard. In this case the member suffered a hardship in that his adherence to his religious tenants was in conflict with the regulation. In your case, what hardship are you suffering?

Another thing to consider, in the many years that the Human Rights Act has been in existence, it appears that either no one has challenged the dress regulations successfully on these grounds. Ask yourself why that would be? Only two possible answers to this question, 1) No one has actually challenged the regulations on this basis, or 2) the Commission has ruled that the regulations do not discriminate on the basis of sex. I would suggest that you *strongly* consider doing some research before taking any action beyond floating this trial balloon here.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> I suggest that you go back and read Part 1 and the section on discriminatory practices. The key point to keep in mind is that the practice must discriminate adversely, in other words create a situation where you suffer some form of hardship due to the difference in treatment between men and women (or what ever other basis you may challenge a regulation).
> 
> Something to consider. The regulations have been successfully challenged under the basis of religious discrimination, where the member's religion prohibited cutting of hair or beard. In this case the member suffered a hardship in that his adherence to his religious tenants was in conflict with the regulation. In your case, what hardship are you suffering?
> 
> Another thing to consider, in the many years that the Human Rights Act has been in existence, it appears that either no one has challenged the dress regulations successfully on these grounds. Ask yourself why that would be? Only two possible answers to this question, 1) No one has actually challenged the regulations on this basis, or 2) the Commission has ruled that the regulations do not discriminate on the basis of sex. I would suggest that you *strongly* consider doing some research before taking any action beyond floating this trial balloon here.



Thank you for the response. 

The hardship I am suffering is a clearly discriminatory standard between men and women for hair standards. There is no legally defensible reason this difference exists. No one has offered any reason that would stand up in a court. I would also point out that religious arguments for not cutting hair actually strengthen my argument - not weaken it. The prohibited grounds for discrimination are equal - that is to say, a religious argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards would be as strong as a sex-based argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards.

I thank you for your point regarding research. I have done some research and spoken to a lawyer friend, but we have not found any challenges on hair standards from a sex discrimination standpoint in recent history.

I am not surprised by the amount of illogical bias and discriminatory attitudes that exist. Why is 'feminine' hair less professional? Less military? Less able to do the job of a soldier (ie. point regarding "who would you want to save you? / I only bought beers for the masculine ones!")


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> The hardship I am suffering is a clearly discriminatory standard



Wow... I agree it may be time for the CF to take a new look at grooming standards and maybe modernize them, but "hardship" ?? "suffering" ??   :

Really ??   :facepalm:


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Wow... I agree it may be time for the CF to take a new look at grooming standards and maybe modernize them, but "hardship" ??   :
> 
> Really ??   :facepalm:



It might be how we are defining 'hardship.' I don't think we should get too hung up on words, but understand that I see the difference as significant, and upholding values that aren't morally or legally right anymore.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

I only bought beers for the masculine ones!")



I bought beer for the ones that looked like sailors not like the riff raff  wharf trash that was there watching a Soccer game.I was buying the beer as a thanks for the tour of the boat and the free supper.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Jan 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I only bought beers for the masculine ones!")
> 
> 
> 
> I bought beer for the ones that looked like sailors not like the riff raff  wharf trash that was there watching a Soccer game.



So, if I dress like a sailor, you'll buy me drinks?  Ever see an Oberon crew hitting the jetty after a six-month trip? Overalls, ankle boots and two months late for a barber. I can dress like that for free drinks.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> It might be how we are defining 'hardship.' I don't think we should get too hung up on words, but understand that I see the difference as significant, and upholding values that aren't morally or legally right anymore.


Have you told us yet us why you find it a hardship to cut your hair? It may bring 1 or 2 to your side.


----------



## Remius (6 Jan 2013)

My 2 cents.

Uniforms serve a variety of purposes.  As well parts of them and how we wear them all at one point served or serve purposes.  Traditions and functionality or functionalities that have become traditions all play a role.  Soldiers have sported beards before and have standards that have changed over the years.  hair cuts and shaving were once used as a hygiene tool to prevent lice and such as well as serve as a system of uniformity.

Let's face it.  In today's society, men and women are different.  i don't care what anybody says about gender equality, we are both physically and psycologically different.  This does not mean that either cannot do each other's jobs just that we are different.  Uniforms are also meant to make someone feel as though they are part of the team but sometimes it can turn some talent away.  That also means altering /modifying said uniforms to accomodate particular groups.  Sikh, women etc etc.

We are a reflection of society. And we follow some of those trends in society.  And so do our uniforms. We have standards for women to include them based on societal norms that we currently have.  Not to discriminate against men.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, if I dress like a sailor, you'll buy me drinks?  Ever see an Oberon crew hitting the jetty after a six-month trip? Overalls, ankle boots and two months late for a barber. I can dress like that for free drinks.


Only if you have short hair and squeal lots.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> . . . . .
> 
> They clearly discriminate on the basis of gender without any real purpose other than maintaining outdated gender expectations regarding hairstyle. I believe that a human rights commission challenge on this point would be immediately successful.
> 
> I am quite serious about this question, and hope it will be taken seriously by forum members. Do you think this has merits?



I'm confused (which is common these days, must be due to previous use of aluminum mess tins).  How have you been discriminated against simply because your employer has imposed conservative dress and grooming standards (which is something that is permitted)?  There are ample accomodations in CF dress regulations (often resulting from CHRT decisions) to permit you to look like a male (or androgynous), a female to look like a female (or androgynous), an adherent of a religion that has certain dress/appearance requirements to follow those requirements, etc.

Go ahead, make a complaint.  However, I think it will be an uphill battle.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/faq/page4-eng.aspx#25


> Does the Commission take complaints about dress codes?
> 
> At the federal level, *dress codes do not violate the Canadian Human Rights Act*, unless, for example, a dress code prohibits an employee from wearing an item of clothing or a piece of jewellery required under the tenets of that employee’s religion. The Commission would also deal with the following complaints:
> 
> ...


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I'm confused (which is common these days, must be due to previous use of aluminum mess tins).  How have you been discriminated against simply because your employer has imposed conservative dress and grooming standards (which is something that is permitted)?  There are ample accomodations in CF dress regulations (often resulting from CHRT decisions) to permit you to look like a male (or androgynous), a female to look like a female (or androgynous), an adherent of a religion that has certain dress/appearance requirements to follow those requirements, etc.
> 
> Go ahead, make a complaint.  However, I think it will be an uphill battle.
> 
> http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/faq/page4-eng.aspx#25



I have read that quote on the CHRC website. This is not really a dress code in the sense that the term is used on the website. This is a regulation for which I could be punished with detention or fines for not following. The CHRC quote above refers to employers requiring certain clothing for employment (ie. the male uniform for flight attendants is trousers but for females it is skirts). 

Canadian Forces dress requlations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I have read that quote on the CHRC website. This is not really a dress code in the sense that the term is used on the website.


Really??   It *specifically* mentions hair and grooming; it could be believed that "Canadian Forces dress regulations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter" _only_ if one were adamantly determined to see it in another light....which you obviously are.

Therefore, there's really no use in anyone offering opposing views to you.   You go Sisyphus, but I'm betting on the rock.   :


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jan 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's a very valid question.  What reasons (not traditions) dictate that men must have short hair and women may have long hair?  Why are women in the military permitted to have pierced ears, but not men?  If a woman's long hair and earrings do not impact operational effectiveness and safety, then a man's long hair and earrings would not impact them either.
> 
> Many of the CF's dress and appearance regulations are based on a 1950s "Leave it to Beaver" mentality.  That needs to be tossed.



Personally I keep my hair very very short and have no desire to have longer hair.  That being said, however, I agree 100% with data. 

If you were to look at military hair styles of our Victorian ancestors they were a very hairy bunch in keeping with the styles of society of the day, mutton chops, long sideburns, goatees and beards etc.  These hair styles didn't make them any less professional or proficient at their trade craft. It wasn't until the Trenches that hygiene made short hair a necessity if IIRC from my readings.

Hair styles have changed since the 50's and we should become more progressive in our outlook.  What's wrong with at the very least whatever fits under your headdress is yours as long as it's not outrageous?


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Really??   It *specifically* mentions hair and grooming; it could be believed that "Canadian Forces dress regulations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter" _only_ if one were adamantly determined to see it in another light....which you obviously are.
> 
> Therefore, there's really no use in anyone offering opposing views to you.   You go Sisyphus, but I'm betting on the rock.   :



That is clearly the legal intent. The CF does not have a 'dress code.' It has dress regulations made pursuant to statutory law (ie. dress regulations have the force of law). I am sorry if that does not fit with your view of the words above, but that is my lawyer's interpretation.

I could be legally subjected to fines or detention for doing something that a woman can do, with no legally defensible reason for the difference.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> This is a very good point. Long hair (subject to a unisex standard) would not impact my ability to be a soldier, so what difference does it make if I am a male or female. It is quite clearly constitutionally invalid.
> 
> The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a haircut that would pass a military inspection.
> 
> And it definitely isn't just limited to braids or buns. Check out the allowable short hairstyles as well - so long as it doesn't go past the lower edge of the collar it would be allowable.



Read the notes that go with that regulation too (even women leave the notes out sometimes, yet that is often where the technicalities lie) ... especially if you seriously plan on launching a human rights challenge; it would then be prudent to be accurate in your assertions and aware of the full set of rules regarding women's hair.

Females can wear their hair "loose" until it reaches the bottom of their collar.  At that point in time they must submit a memo to their CO requesting permission to keep it "loose" for a maximum 90 day "transition period" (or less time) until it is long enough to put into a braid or bun.  Note:  You do not get the full 90 days automatically; if you can get it into a braid after 30 days, then it must go into the braid at 30 days.

Once that braided hair reaches your armpits when down, it _must_ go up into a bun.

In DEU, it _must_ be up in a bun.  Simply braided and down is not acceptable.



You want to wear yours in a bun or braid, fill 'yer boots, but IAW the regulations such as women already do.  Good luck.  

While you're at it, there is a regulation that says we women can wear black, high-heeled civilian shoes with our DEU (sometimes) and our Mess Kit too;   it'd probably be cost effective for you to challenge both sex-discretional rules simultaneously.  Oh, and let's not forget the skirt with my DEU or Mess Kit.  If you're truly looking for "equal" rules, then you must address those issues too.  Never-the-less, I am quite fine with our native Canadians being allowed to wear their braids down (ie: buns not necessary) while in uniform while I can not, by dress regulation, do same.  It's just not that high on my "I am being wronged" list).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I have read that quote on the CHRC website. This is not really a dress code in the sense that the term is used on the website. This is a regulation for which I could be punished with detention or fines for not following. The CHRC quote above refers to employers requiring certain clothing for employment (ie. the male uniform for flight attendants is trousers but for females it is skirts).
> 
> Canadian Forces dress requlations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter.



Horsesh*t!

Your contention that the administrative and disciplinary measures available to the CF makes this more than a "dress code" now makes me wonder if you're just another barrack room barrister who's looking to stir the pot just because you like shit disturbing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I believe that Canadian Forces hair standards are a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex within the legally enforceable regulations of the Canadian Forces (an extension of statutory law). Dress regulations are therefore federal government legislation directly subject to the Constitution.
> 
> They clearly discriminate on the basis of gender without any real purpose other than maintaining outdated gender expectations regarding hairstyle. I believe that a human rights commission challenge on this point would be immediately successful.
> 
> I am quite serious about this question, and hope it will be taken seriously by forum members. Do you think this has merits?



I think you should go for it.


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I think you should go for it.



Absolutely... then let us know how it goes !!


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Horsesh*t!
> 
> Your contention that the administrative and disciplinary measures available to the CF makes this more than a "dress code" now makes me wonder if you're just another barrack room barrister who's looking to stir the pot just because you like crap disturbing.



It absolutely does make it different. Air Canada cannot throw their members in prison for breaking the dress code, the Canadian Forces can.

I would also say, there is a clear difference between hair and allowing men to wear high heels or skirts in their uniforms - that difference being social acceptability. The 'Leave it to Beaver' poster hit the nail on the head - changing social norms have erased the gendered line between socially acceptable hair for men and women. Where a bearded man wearing a skirt and heels for his own comfort would bring discredit on the Canadian Forces, a man with hockey hair would not.


----------



## Remius (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> It absolutely does make it different. Air Canada cannot throw their members in prison for breaking the dress code, the Canadian Forces can.



You would likely be thrown in jail for failing to follow direction, not violating the dress code.

Air Canada can't order their members into dangerous life threatning situations or throw their employees into jail for being 5 mins late either.  It is different because WE are different.  The NDA has stood up to many challenges and will likely stand up to yours.  But if you feel like giving it a go, go for it.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

No, they both are violations of human rights (regarding the 'which one of these is a violation of human rights post by Technoviking above'.) If you want to have your hair short as a man or woman, that is fine. The problem lies in saying a woman can have her hair long, but as a man, I cannot. That is clear prima facie discrimination. It is essentially an exemplary definition of a discriminatory practice.

I would also say that the CF Ethics program requires that Canadian Forces members obey and support lawful authority. This standard does not obey or support the constitution or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. I believe it needs to change. I'm sorry if you disagree because it challenges your idea of 'masculine' or you don't think it is important enough.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> No, they both are violations of human rights (regarding the 'which one of these is a violation of human rights post above'.) If you want to have your hair short as a man or woman, that is fine. The problem lies in saying a woman can have her hair long, but as a man, I cannot. That is clear prima facie discrimination. It is essentially an exemplary definition of a discriminatory practice.
> 
> I would also say that the CF Ethics program requires that Canadian Forces members obey and support lawful authority. This standard does not obey or support the constitution or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. I believe it needs to change. I'm sorry if you disagree because it challenges your idea of 'masculine' or you don't think it is important enough.




What is your argument to them going to be??

That if it doesn't effect the operational effectiveness for a woman, then it does not for you either and is therefore against your _human rights_ (Seriously!)?  That's a 1st world problem that.

The very same 'argument' sees a violation of many (even CF women's rights) then.  Mine must be in the bun once it reaches my armpits.  Natives not so.  So what?

Mine must be in a bun whenever wearing DEU.  Not so my cadpat.  Operational effectiveness therefore obviously has zero to do with it as cadpat is my operational uniform and I can wear it down and braided in that uniform.

You need to find an argument other than "operational effectiveness" because the above differences I just pointed out negate that as _the_ reasoning for this regulation's existence.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jan 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That if it doesn't effect the operational effectiveness for a woman, then it does not for you either and is therefore against your _human rights_ (Seriously!)?  *That's a 1st world problem that.*



You said it better than I did.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> No, they both are violations of human rights (regarding the 'which one of these is a violation of human rights post by Technoviking above'.) If you want to have your hair short as a man or woman, that is fine. The problem lies in saying a woman can have her hair long, but as a man, I cannot. That is clear prima facie discrimination. It is essentially an exemplary definition of a discriminatory practice.
> 
> I would also say that the CF Ethics program requires that Canadian Forces members obey and support lawful authority. This standard does not obey or support the constitution or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. I believe it needs to change. I'm sorry if you disagree because it challenges your idea of 'masculine' or you don't think it is important enough.



Alright Matlock, you're 100% right and all the rest are wrong.

No one here is going to change your mind.

Please do us all a favour and launch your case first thing Monday morning.

This will accomplish at least two things:

1) Being an active court case, your lawyer will likely prevent you from talking about it. Even here.

2) The sooner it's launched, the sooner there'll be a decision.

In the meantime, for the rest, you can continue discussing, to no avail except frustration, or go out in the yard and hit yourselves in the face with a 2X4. You'll accomplish the same thing in regards to this discussion.

So please, hunter22, tomorrow, launch your case and when it's completed, please come back and post the decision.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (6 Jan 2013)

Disagreeing or attacking the OP's position/opinion is one thing but attacking the OP is unethical.  

Male and Female grooming standards are different and it's something most of us have always accepted.  If the OP feels this is a sex based discrimination and wants this to be addressed, so be it.  Best of luck on this endeavour.  I would be curious to see the minutes of the dress committee minutes after the topic was brought up.  If it was denied, hopefully it would be adequately explained and so be it.  If it was adopted into our ever changing culture, again so be it.  

I have to admit I was taken aback the first time I saw an NCM wearing NCD's and their ball cap on public transit.  But I accepted the change and moved on.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Alright Matlock, you're 100% right and all the rest are wrong.



I wish I were Matlock. Such flowing white locks.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> That is clearly the legal intent. The CF does not have a 'dress code.' It has dress regulations made pursuant to statutory law (ie. dress regulations have the force of law). I am sorry if that does not fit with your view of the words above, but that is my lawyer's interpretation.
> 
> I could be legally subjected to fines or detention for doing something that a woman can do, with no legally defensible reason for the difference.



So?  Women can legally wear a skirt as part of their DEU.  Does this now mean that your next query will be whether or not it is gender discrimination that males can not wear a skirt with their DEUs
?.  (Do not think that a kilt for a highland regiment is a skirt.)  Where do you really want to stop on this "gender equality"?  You are grasping at straws that have no weight in any serious argument.  

There are gender differences and those are taken into account.   As a male you are not likely going to become pregnant, breast feed, etc.  These differences exist and no gender equality argument will make the genders equal.  

If you seriously think that you should have hair that conforms to the "Female Dress Standards" of the CF, and have an ear stud, are you also going to progress to the stage that you wax and shave your limbs and upper lip?

Seriously now.  Why are you wasting time with a lawyer over such a matter?  Do we really need this in the courts?


----------



## MedCorps (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> It might be how we are defining 'hardship.' I don't think we should get too hung up on words, but understand that *I see the difference as significant, and upholding values that aren't morally or legally right anymore.*



The ball is totally in your court. If you feel really strongly about this challenge the system and force the issue to be properly examined. Stop getting your hair cut and let it grow in whatever style you think should be acceptable for the new CF.  Be prepared to be charged and defend your case in a court of law. It might end up going "all the way" to the highest courts in the land (or the military) and you can be satisfied that you made the system change when (if) you win. 

Make sure the initial charge is not a NDA 129 (ideally a NDA 83, I suggest would work - "no sir, I refuse to get my hair cut to the current standard") in so that you have the right to elect a Court Martial and this thing does not end up in a summary trial with your CO, or worse, a delegated officer who then needs to deal with you then making a charter claim. It just saves everyone a lot of effort if this thing goes right to CM.  

Good luck.  Look forward to reading about it on the CMJ CM proceedings. 

MC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

Go read Chapter 1 of CFP 265, you will quickly see who has authority to produce and authorize our dress regs and where that authority is granted.

You are challenging that authority.  Best know what it is.   

Arguing the PM doesn't have a military regulation haircut proves what?  That as the PM he isn't part of the CF.  Wow.  Neither is my mom.


----------



## NavalMoose (6 Jan 2013)

Richard Bonce


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I wish I were Matlock. Such flowing white locks.



Laughed out loud at this.  Nice Matlock reference.


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> It absolutely does make it different. Air Canada cannot throw their members in prison for breaking the dress code, the Canadian Forces can.



No. People get thrown in the clink by the CF for failing to obey lawful orders; not merely for having long hair.

You need to recognize that there is long jurisprudential recognition of the very unique nature of the military, and of the demonstrable operation need for our commanders to be able to impose with full force of law conditions that ARE arbitrary, that ARE NOT questionable. It is recognized that as a volunteer military we make the informed decision to subject ourself to rules and regulations stricter than that found in the civilian world as part of our conditions of service/ This is not imposed on you capriciously; you need only elect not to put your John Hancock on a CF444 and you will never have to trouble yourself with the little inconveniences of military service. I would be slightly surprised if your lawyer is well versed in the legal pecularities surrounding the special distinction given to military law and regulation in our justice system.

Legally, you would not be embarking on a matter of Charter law here. That is not how the Charter applies. The Charter is invoked typically (at the level of an individual) either in a request for injunction filed in court against some government entity, or as defence to a criminal charge or in subsequent appellate proceedings. So get the Charter out of your head, because you're barking up the wrong legal tree. 

The course of action you would take them would be to attempt to invoke the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in rendering a decision based on the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 7(b). You would have to contend that the C.F., "(b) in the course of employment, [differentiated] adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination." (sex).

Note, 'to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee'. You will have to be prepared to demonstrate some form of tangible adversity that you face as a result of this; not merely that you dislike that your volunteering to serve compels you to keep your hair in a manner that is deemed professional within the military, mirroring standards that exist more broadly in society at large.

I do not believe you will be successful. I do not believe it will be found that it is _ultra vires_ the conventional authority of the military to regulate grooming standards for reasons of professional appearance, or that any such actions within the scope of what the military regulates offend the CHRA. I do not wish you luck either, because invariably you're going to end up some legal officer's time and consequently the taxpayers' money.


----------



## cupper (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> The hardship I am suffering is a clearly discriminatory standard between men and women for hair standards.



That is not a hardship. What harm has been done to you as a result of the difference in standards between men and women?
(Hint: The existence of the difference itself is not an answer that would be acceptable to the commission, or the courts)



			
				hunter22 said:
			
		

> There is no legally defensible reason this difference exists. No one has offered any reason that would stand up in a court.



Societal norms are sufficient grounds to implement differing standards for dress and deportment. The Supreme Court has based many of it's decisions on what is acceptable within society. It is accepted that there are differences between Men and Women (assuming that what my parents told me in the birds and bees speech is true), and as such allowances are made for those differences. But to claim that some harm has been done to you because women are allowed to wear hair long, and you are limited to short length hair cannot be substantiated.



			
				hunter22 said:
			
		

> I would also point out that religious arguments for not cutting hair actually strengthen my argument - not weaken it. The prohibited grounds for discrimination are equal - that is to say, a religious argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards would be as strong as a sex-based argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards.



The arguments are not equal. Requiring a member to wear hair short in violation of the member's religious convictions puts direct harm on the member, in that it places a restriction on the member's ability to practice his religion freely. A clear harm is being done. And as for immunity to regulations, there is none being conferred. It is a matter that the standards are modified to address the requirements of one's religion, or address differences in appearance standards for one's gender.


----------



## Shamrock (6 Jan 2013)

Anyone else giggling at the thought of OP having his case successful and the CF responding with, "Clippers for all!"


----------



## secondchance (6 Jan 2013)

Short hair of man and long hair of woman have their own historical background.Learn it before.

P.S.. Is there any army in the world with long hair for men and without religion reason ?


----------



## MJP (6 Jan 2013)

secondchance said:
			
		

> Short hair of man and long hair of woman have their own historical background.Learn it before.
> 
> P.S.. Is there any army in the world with long hair for men and without religion reason ?



Yes several, including one example already given in the thread.


----------



## cupper (6 Jan 2013)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Anyone else giggling at the thought of OP having his case successful and the CF responding with, "Clippers for all!"



And "We're all Highlanders now!"


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2013)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> The ball is totally in your court. If you feel really strongly about this challenge the system and force the issue to be properly examined. Stop getting your hair cut and let it grow in whatever style you think should be acceptable for the new CF.  Be prepared to be charged and defend your case in a court of law. It might end up going "all the way" to the highest courts in the land (or the military) and you can be satisfied that you made the system change when (if) you win.
> 
> Make sure the initial charge is not a NDA 129 (ideally a NDA 83, I suggest would work - "no sir, I refuse to get my hair cut to the current standard") in so that you have the right to elect a Court Martial and this thing does not end up in a summary trial with your CO, or worse, a delegated officer who then needs to deal with you then making a charter claim. It just saves everyone a lot of effort if this thing goes right to CM.
> 
> ...



Medcorps- Nope, such a charge wouldn't even look at the issue of the constitutionality of our dress regs. He would be charged entirely on the grounds of disobeying a lawful command. The burden of proof on the defendant in such cases is to demonstrate that the command is _manifestly_ unlawful (R.v. Liwyj, 2010 Court Martial Appeals Court). That is to say, if there is deemed to be some ambiguity about whether our dress and grooming standards might be in contravention of some higher point of law, so long as there is reasonable uncertainty a command to cut his hair would remain a lawful order. He would be charged and convicted on that ground alone; the issue of whether the grooming standards somehow violate the CHRA would be correctly viewed as a question for a different legal proceeding.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

secondchance said:
			
		

> Short hair of man and long hair of woman have their own historical background.Learn it before.
> 
> P.S.. Is there any army in the world with long hair for men and without religion reason ?


Danish conscrips don't need to cut their hair.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I would also point out that religious arguments for not cutting hair actually strengthen my argument - not weaken it.



Have you read this?

Dress Code Policies – Short Hair – Exemptions – Discrimination
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Reports_AR_2004_3.html#part12


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Go read Chapter 1 of CFP 265, you will quickly see who has authority to produce and authorize our dress regs and where that authority is granted.
> 
> You are challenging that authority.  Best know what it is.
> 
> Arguing the PM doesn't have a military regulation haircut proves what?  That as the PM he isn't part of the CF.  Wow.  Neither is my mom.



I was pointing out that social norms have changed. I understand that Stephen Harper is not subject to the CF Dress Regulations.


----------



## NavalMoose (6 Jan 2013)

You are though.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Have you read this?
> 
> Dress Code Policies – Short Hair – Exemptions – Discrimination
> http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Reports_AR_2004_3.html#part12



Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:


----------



## cupper (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:



I think you missed the point. :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I was pointing out that social norms have changed. I understand that Stephen Harper is not subject to the CF Dress Regulations.



Social norms does _not_ = CF realities / norms.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:



"The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance. The CDS concurred."


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:



Dude, I think you need to deploy to one of those destinations where hardship has more to do with survival then with hairstyle.
And suffering involves, well... pain !!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:



That is a bad idea for many reasons.  Seriously.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Jan 2013)

I fully encourage you to challenge the current situation in any way that you can.  

If the regulations are defensible (and I strongly suspect that they are), then the system, as well as all of us in it who currently keeps their locks happily shorn, have nothing to worry about.  

If the regulations are indefensible, then they should change.

I am a firmly believer that questions must be routinely asked and answered, particularly of an institution as turgid and resistant to change as the CF.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Just something I was thinking about on my drive tonight. I am also wondering about the cadets.

1. Is a cadet who joins up subjected to the same hair standards as the CF?

2. (For someone who knows) Are cadets considered to be fully civilian members of the public?

3. Would a male cadet be subject to punishment or denied membership because he refused to cut his hair?

I think these are more questions for a cadet officer if there are any around these forums.


----------



## Shamrock (6 Jan 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I fully encourage you to challenge the current situation in any way that you can.
> 
> If the regulations are defensible (and I strongly suspect that they are), then the system, as well as all of us in it who currently keeps their locks happily shorn, have nothing to worry about.
> 
> ...



Well put. 

Though my initial concern of this complaint would be the waste of manhours, and though on its surface the complaint seems frivolous, we in the CF need to maintain ourselves as a reflection of Canadian ideals and not assert we are above them. So, should it go forward, the ensuing review can either confirm the validity of our regulations in the modern era or bring about the required change. 

I personally don't mind the different standards. However, I'm in a position where I don't get less than gentle reminders when my hair is outside of acceptable boundaries.


----------



## Alex10370 (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> Just something I was thinking about on my drive tonight. I am also wondering about the cadets.
> 
> 1. Is a cadet who joins up subjected to the same hair standards as the CF?
> 
> ...



1 -  yes.  hair standards for the Air, Army and Sea Cadets are all the exact same as they are for the military. 

2 - Cadets are not considered to be members of the Canadian Forces and are still "civilians" however upon joining, the cadet in question signs a paper essentially stating that he/she will follow all the regulations as set out in the CATOs (Cadet Administrative Trainning Orders) which include dress regulations.

3 - If a cadet were to disobey dress regulations the matter would move up the CoC most likley being eventually taken to his CO who then would have several options at his/her disposal including administrative disipline (writing the cadet up), calling the cadets parents (we are talking about kids as young as 12 after all), suspension from the squadron/corps, and even expulsion from the squadron/corps.  obviously these steps would be taken progressivly; for instance a cadet isnt going to get expelled from cadets for having his hair touching his ears on a parade night, but a cadet who consistently is simply not adhearing to the dress regulations would be punished more and more severely as time went on.


Correct me if im wrong anyone!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2013)

Hunter 22, have the regulations changed since YOU applied to join "THEM"?


----------



## dimsum (6 Jan 2013)

So....how about goatees/soul patches?   :stirpot:


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hunter 22, have the regulations changed since YOU applied to join "THEM"?



Sorry I do not understand the question.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Alex10370 said:
			
		

> 1 -  yes.  hair standards for the Air, Army and Sea Cadets are all the exact same as they are for the military.
> 
> 2 - Cadets are not considered to be members of the Canadian Forces and are still "civilians" however upon joining, the cadet in question signs a paper essentially stating that he/she will follow all the regulations as set out in the CATOs (Cadet Administrative Trainning Orders) which include dress regulations.
> 
> ...



I find it quite interesting then that the cadets have not had anyone challenge this on human rights grounds. This is clear discrimination on the basis of sex. Anyone with a basic understanding of law could determine that. Cadets is not a 'private' organization, it is very much 'public / government' and directly subject to the Charter, and the CHRA. Interesting!


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2013)

Your complaint is nonsense.

Stop wasting everyone's time and effort, suck it up and get your hair cut.

We have some very good reasons for our standards, first and foremost it is a STANDARD.

Second, shorter hair is lower maintenance. We allow First Nations people their braids, but that is a cultural issue.

Third, an Afro or long biker hair may have difficulty fitting into a Kevlar helmet. Its also hygiene risk and a hazard, long hair etc could get caught in moving parts, or catch on fire.


But do go on, hunter. I'm anxious to see how you make out, sweet pea.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Your complaint is nonsense.
> 
> Stop wasting everyone's time and effort, suck it up and get your hair cut.
> 
> ...



With respect, a 'standard' does not necessarily make something 'legal' or 'right.' 

30 years ago, Sikhs couldn't wear turbans, Aboriginals couldn't wear braids and Muslim women in the CF could not wear hijabs. These were 'standards' and they were found to be illegal 'standards' that were not in line with Canadian law.

I am a sweet pea, and hopefully you will see how sweet I can look with my long hair within the next five years. I am sorry to challenge your paradigms.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2013)

Ok, if you don't like being told what to do, what to wear, where to be and what time to be there, don't join the CF.

This includes grooming standards. I've outlined some reasons why men have their hair standards the way they are, but you sluffed these off as not too important.

This is the way it is, buttercup. We cut our hair.

Period.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I find it quite interesting then that the cadets have not had anyone challenge this on human rights grounds. This is clear discrimination on the basis of sex. Anyone with a basic understanding of law could determine that. Cadets is not a 'private' organization, it is very much 'public / government' and directly subject to the Charter, and the CHRA. Interesting!


I do believe we had a Charter challenge it was a young MicMac from N.S. who wanted to wear braids for Religious cultural reasons.


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I find it quite interesting then that the cadets have not had anyone challenge this on human rights grounds. This is clear discrimination on the basis of sex. Anyone with a basic understanding of law could determine that. Cadets is not a 'private' organization, it is very much 'public / government' and directly subject to the Charter, and the CHRA. Interesting!



Trying to equate the cadets to the CF from a legal standpoint is largely fallacious. Civilians are not the C.F., and the C.F. are not civilians.

It's also very apparent that you have much less understanding of how rights law works than you think you do. Your utter disregard of my post earlier where I address this stuff in fair detail is telling.

I'm not surprised that the question 'have the rules changed since YOU joined THEM?' went right over your head.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Ok, if you don't like being told what to do, what to wear, where to be and what time to be there, don't join the CF.
> 
> This includes grooming standards. I've outlined some reasons why men have their hair standards the way they are, but you sluffed these off as not too important.
> 
> ...



In response to your 'other' reasons for cutting hair.

1. It needs to fit into equipment - there would be a unisex standard that applies to both sexes. If it fits into a kevlar helmet well enough to protect a woman, it probably would for a man as well.

2. Shorter hair is lower maintenance - that is interesting. Women seem to fare just fine. I would say getting haircuts two or more times a month is quite high maintenance as opposed to once every two months. 

Your arguments regarding the practicality of long hair are weak and are really beside the point - is there a Charter or CHRA argument in favour of long hair? Yes there is. Would it win? Maybe not, but there is quite clearly an argument that would likely run and is legitimate. With complete respect, many people are simply going with their initial gut reaction to the matter rather than thinking about it critically. It is interesting to read the responses of people who are talking about the legislation and I appreciate them. I am still not sure what route I will take, but I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the argument and my thoughts here.


----------



## Scott (6 Jan 2013)

Perfect! Time for me to get a note from the Doc claiming a need for medicinal shrooms, let the hair buck into pigtails to satisfy the native surely hiding in my Acadian ancestry, and tell the first RSM I see to go fuck himself because I'm in need of a "me" day. I can't wait!

While I am in complete agreement with PPCLI Guy's thoughts on the matter, I am also kind of asking "is this one of them high hills to die on"? Or is this more "socks in the mess" type of thing?

I think I'll sleep on it.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2013)

We have had these standards in place since WW 1. Why change?

Give me your reasons.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Trying to equate the cadets to the CF from a legal standpoint is largely fallacious. Civilians are not the C.F., and the C.F. are not civilians.
> 
> It's also very apparent that you have much less understanding of how rights law works than you think you do. Your utter disregard of my post earlier where I address this stuff in fair detail is telling.
> 
> I'm not surprised that the question 'have the rules changed since YOU joined THEM?' went right over your head.



I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.


----------



## Scott (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.



Better get your lawyer on that one then, the Cadets don't get paid and can't afford it.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.



Explain. Sorry I am a bit thick at times.

Oh.....how long have you been in the CF and what unit are you in?


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.



Your manufactured shock lends no additional credence to your one man fighting patrol.

I genuinely look forward to hearing the AAR on this one. I think it shall be amusing whether you go the grievance, CHRC, or '**** you, charge me' route.

I am also curious about how long you've been in the military and in approximately what capacity.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.




Oh great, something else for me to lose sleep over now, thanks a lot.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We have had these standards in place since WW 1. Why change?
> 
> Give me your reasons.



My main reason is this. Different standards are applied to men and women for no reason. The Charter and CHRA guarantees me protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. That it is still happening to young people in the cadets (when they do not sign on for any such rules) is quite surprising. 

It is an outdated standard and it is time for it to change.

(Army, Approx. 15 years).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2013)

Let's not make this personal folks.


----------



## Messorius (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> 2. Shorter hair is lower maintenance - that is interesting. Women seem to fare just fine. I would say getting haircuts two or more times a month is quite high maintenance as opposed to once every two months.



The care required for long hair to be kept neat and put up daily isn't really comparable in the slightest, speaking as someone who could sit on her hair when she started paperwork and now has it clipped very short.  5min+ opposed to 5 seconds and a wet comb.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> My main reason is this. Different standards are applied to men and women for no reason. The Charter and CHRA guarantees me protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. That it is still happening to young people in the cadets (when they do not sign on for any such rules) is quite surprising.
> 
> It is an outdated standard and it is time for it to change.
> 
> (Army, Approx. 15 years).



So by your reasoning we should be equal....not equitable?

In 1975 Sgt Rafter, RCR, told us why we have short hair. We do it as a sign of our commitment to our nation.

Maybe that isn't important to you, but it is to me.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Messorius said:
			
		

> The care required for long hair to be kept neat and put up daily isn't really comparable in the slightest, speaking as someone who could sit on her hair when she started paperwork and now has it clipped very short.  5min+ opposed to 5 seconds and a wet comb.



So with respect, would you say that all women should be forced to cut their hair to the 'male' standard when joining - because that is what I am forced to do because of my sex. This discussion isn't about what hairstyle is lowest maintenance - it is about the existence of a clearly discriminatory standard on the basis of sex.


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2013)

Whatever, dude. You want to make a crusade of this, fill your boots.

The one last bit of gratis advice I will give you is, for the love of God, let your chain of command find out about your commencement of a complaint, claim, or injunction against Her Majesty's CF from you, not when some lawyer from the CHRC serves your CO with papers. You DO have a responsibility to attempt to resolve this at the lowest level, working progressively upwards from there and keeping your chain of command informed throughout such as is appropriate.

Whatever else should play out on this, you DO remain a member of the C.F. and owe your chain of command loyalty and obedience, including keeping them informed about issues that WILL result in some serious ass pain higher up.


----------



## Messorius (6 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> So with respect, would you say that all women should be forced to cut their hair to the 'male' standard when joining - because that is what I am forced to do because of my sex. This discussion isn't about what hairstyle is lowest maintenance - it is about the existence of a clearly discriminatory standard on the basis of sex.



You'd have to start by proving to me that they were forcing you do do anything, since I'm pretty sure we're not drafting anyone at the moment.


----------



## hunter22 (6 Jan 2013)

Messorius said:
			
		

> You'd have to start by proving to me that they were forcing you do do anything, since I'm pretty sure we're not drafting anyone at the moment.



Messorius - You don't sign away your Charter rights by joining the Canadian Forces. Some of them are compromised, but it is to the extent required for military service. I would say that a law that limits mobility (ie. those related to AWOL) is defensible. A requirement for a haircut based on sex discrimination is not. Although I understand your argument in saying that all military service is voluntary, that does not mean that by enrolling I need to subject myself to discriminatory practices in regulations.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Jan 2013)

Personally I don`t think men should have long hair in general but the whole argument is whether it is legal in Canada which under the charter not if I think it is right or wrong. It is a similar attitude such as women shouldn't be in the military of the 1970`s and women cannot be combat arms or other trades as they are female. This time it is kinda reversed around. If women can perform there job effectively with long hair then it can be reasonably assumed men can to. Saying to keep something just for the sake of we have always done or it is standard is stupid. If the dress regs were changed so that everyone in the Canadian Forces are to wear pink uniforms (for example) than that would be the new standard.
Make a single standard it is only hair after all. Whether it is long or short, stud earrings or not, 8 pushups or 19, I don`t care but have the same standard for both genders as they both are doing the same job.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2013)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> ... This time it is kinda reversed around. If women can perform there job effectively with long hair then it can be reasonably assumed men can to. ...
> Make a single standard it is only hair after all. Whether it is long or short, stud earrings or not, 8 pushups or 19, I don`t care but have the same standard for both genders as they both are doing the same job.



I've posted previously as to the actual dress regs on hair that obviously indicate that the reasoning for the differences is NOT based upon "operational effectiveness".  Mine can be worn down in my operational uniform, yet must be bunned in my DEU.  Obviously, the difference is not "operational" based then.

Even if he "wins to right" the wear his hair IAW female dress regulations, there will _still_ be at least two standards out there (Native Canadians); so it ain't about "a common" standard either.

If, what he is after is "gender equalness in dress regs", then he must fight the whole kit and kaboodle ... high heels, hair, ear-rings, skirts etc.  If my being subject to a differing dress standard than he is, is WHAT actually_ is _causing him the harm (and that is where he seems to be arguing the harm is caused), then _all_ of those differing standards cause harm to him equally and must be addressed.


----------



## hunter22 (7 Jan 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If, what he is after is "gender equalness in dress regs", then he must fight the whole kit and kaboodle ... high heels, hair, ear-rings, skirts etc.  If my being subject to a differing dress standard than he is WHAT actually is causing him the harm (and that is where he seems to be arguing the harm is caused), then all of those differing standards cause harm to him equally.



I disagree. There is clearly a reason why a male CF member cannot walk around in high heels, makeup and a skirt just because he feels like it. That would bring discredit upon the Canadian Forces because it has not yet reached a point where it is socially acceptable. Although the Canadian Forces (rightly) allows for this with transgender individuals, I cannot do it just because I feel like trying out something new on Fridays.

I think that men's hair length has reached a different place in contemporary society. The argument regarding discredit on the Canadian Forces does not hold water in the same way when it comes to hair (and yes, possibly earrings too). Times have changed, there is no reason here for a sex-based standard and it should be discarded. It is clearly discriminatory on the basis of sex, and as a Canadian citizen, I am guaranteed protection from such discrimination under the Charter and the CHRA.


----------



## brihard (7 Jan 2013)

hunter22 said:
			
		

> ...as a Canadian citizen, I am guaranteed protection from such discrimination.




...Subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Why does everyone always forget that part of the Charter? It's only the very first section...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2013)

Alright folks, the conversation has gone circular a couple of times. 

No one's mind is being changed and no one is putting forth anything new.

Once hunter22 has un\successfully completes his human rights challenge, he can ask a Mod to reopen his thread and post the decision.

We're not spending anymore time on the repetitive back and forth.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2013)

I think his hardship is that, as a male member of the CF, he cannot go down to the bar in the evenings and lure all the ladies with his long blonde Fabio locks.  So, I don't think he will push his agenda onto skirts and high heels.

Personally, I hope he is not successful.  I don't want to see this change.
However, the OP makes a compelling argument. There is no operational requirement for the differentiation in hair regulations for men and women (nor do I believe there is another argument that can be demonstrably justified).  Maybe, in modern Canada, the military should have unisex operational and DEU hair standards.  … but, I am in no hurry to find out.  We can keep doing things the same old way for now.

[edit: apologies for posting through the block - I did not notice it was there.]


----------

