# QC Jail dimisses Guard-in-training for wearing a Hijab



## niner domestic (15 Mar 2007)

A women's detention centre has had to let one of their new guards in training go for nonconformist to the Centre's safety rules.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070314/national/hijab_prison

Having worked in a number of Penitentiaries during my days at law school in the Corrections Program, I am completely on side with the dismissal.  I wasn't a guard, but I did have urine thrown at me by an inmate as I walked down the range, had a female client choke hold me in the interview room because she wasn't getting her appeal, had a male inmate grab my hair and planted my face on the interview desk, again because their appeal was denied.  Now I was these inmate's student lawyer and it got rough, and I certainly can't imagine how much more damage to me person would have occurred had I been wearing articles of clothing that gave them even more purchase to grab, hold and choke or how much rougher it can get if one were a guard and really considered by the inmates to be an enemy.  

I'm tempted to suggest that they have the woman, sign off on a waiver releasing then from liability and have her attend a range party, when the home brew is ready and everyone is boxed.  We'll see how long her hijab lasts and how tight the knot will be on her neck.  Good God, is this person an idiot?


----------



## GUNS (15 Mar 2007)

I am in no way against immigration, our country is made up of immigrants.

I am tired of the "politically correct" crowd telling Canadians that our patriotism is offending others.

We have our own culture,society,lifestyle and language( which happens to be French and English, only)

Canadian soldiers fought and died for such freedom.

The freedon to say Merry Christmas and not Season's Greeting's

The freedom to put up a Christmas tree in public places.

The freedom to practice our Christian beliefs

If God offends certain peoples, learn to live with it. God is part of our country.

How much more have Canadian's got to give up of their identity.

My Grandfather fought in WW I

My Father fought in WW II

For what?

Immigrants, not Canadian's must adapt


----------



## imjustsomeguy (15 Mar 2007)

GUNS,

Amen to that. Well put.


----------



## Bobby Rico (15 Mar 2007)

Testify, GUNS.

As a fifth generation Canadian (six generation North American) I take somewhat personal exception when people in this country tell me that I must now adapt to the changing culture in the country my ancestors helped put on the fucking map.  We built the country the way we wanted it, so when people start saying 'You must accept this, and you must accept that' in light of the fact that this or that might be sacrificing both national identity as well as our own personal customs just so this guy from this other country can feel more 'at home'.  Well what the fuck is this?  It's like asking me to rearrange my entire house just for guests.  No.  People adapt to my way of living when the come to my house, that's the way it is, and not just for me, but for every damn person on this planet.  So why are we expected to do it as a country?  Makes no damn sense, and we're the only country that does it.

Anyway, sorry, rant over.  I am by no means anti-immigration.  I mean, let them come, but don't expect me to bend over backwards to make sure these people aren't 'offended' by customs that have been held by my family since the time before I was born.  It ain't happening.


----------



## sigpig (15 Mar 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> The freedom to practice our Christian beliefs
> 
> If God offends certain peoples, learn to live with it. God is part of our country.



Don't get carried away with the religious stuff there guns, not all native born Canadians are religious let alone christian, and we certainly don't have to "learn to live with it". 

On the other hand, I love christmas trees and happily greet people with a hearty Merry Christmas


----------



## Donut (15 Mar 2007)

Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion, your right to swing your fists ends at my nose.

On the topic at hand,  I'm glad to see the union isn't defending her on this.  In fact, it sounds like they raised the alarm over it, as it is rightly a workplace hazard.


----------



## Gramps (15 Mar 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> The freedom to practice our Christian beliefs
> 
> If God offends certain peoples, learn to live with it. God is part of our country.



Those are your Christian beliefs not everyone's and certainly not mine. There is no state religion here and that is one of the many many wonderful things about this country.


----------



## Strike (15 Mar 2007)

Right guys, time for me to be the devil's advocate again.

First, the article is about wearing a hidjab.  Nowhere does the person force her beliefs on anyone else.  She just wants the right o wear this article as a prison guard. (9D, glad to see the whole immigrant and religion argument didn't come in to play with your response.  I was initially a little miffed by her firing but can now understand the reasoning behind it.)

GUNS, the PC crowd you are talking about are generally NOT the immigrants, but those touchy feely types who want to make everyone happy all the time.

As for our culture and language, given that the majority of growth in Canada right now is from immigration, you might want to rethink that.

I have heard speach after speach of immigrants FOR having a Christmas tree, keeping the Christ in Christmas, etc.

The topic is wether or not someone should be able to wear a head scarf as a prison guard, not if she should be given the time to pray 5 times a day.  It may be a religious item, but we shouldn't have to bring beliefs into a discussion about common sense, since the two barely ever mix well. ;D


----------



## Shamrock (15 Mar 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> A women's detention centre has had to let one of their new guards in training go for nonconformist to the Centre's safety rules.



Far be it from me to return this thread to the subject at hand, we can go back to bashing godless (or inappropriately godded) immigrants later.

Are there any instances of hijab-wearing guards elsewhere?  Have those instances proven hijabs to be that detrimental to job performance or this instead an extreme reaction to nonconformity?  Hair, as you mentioned, gives purchase; shouldn't that required to be removed, too?  I'm not familiar with hijab, but would it not be possible to fabricate one of easily torn materials?

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that if it's of detriment, then either it goes or she signs a waiver indicating she's aware of and accepts the risks associated with her style of dress (and ensure she's properly made aware of the risks so she can't challenge it in court).


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2007)

Good point.  anyone know what the hair policy is for female prison guards?  seems that long hair whether tied or not could be as problematic as Hijab.


----------



## Strike (15 Mar 2007)

This is such a hot topic right now, especially with the recent hubbub about the young girl playing soccer.

I am not familiar with how one is worn, but if the ends are tucked into a shirt and worn tightly enough to reduce the ability for someone to grab it, it seems feasible that it should be of no more danger than someone who has long hair.  Even worn in a bun it's easy to grab.


----------



## goingback (15 Mar 2007)

I think the whole soccer thing was stupid, But I do feel that the prison was right. Defiantly not a place to wear something that restricts vision( I understand some can affect peripheral vi sion) in anyway or gives a inmate something else to grab on to. I also think that if you want to Work for a place that has a uniform ( military, Police, corrections, etc) that you should not be asking for exceptions to the uniform.


----------



## Sassy (15 Mar 2007)

Corrections Canada has a uniform, if she wasn't prepared to wear the "Proper" equipment that's her problem not the systems. A Hijab is part of a "Custom" and "tradition" but it is not mandatory for Islamic followers to wear a head scarf or hijab. While earning my degree in Criminology I visited many prisons, it is hard enough for a female to fit in but wearing something on one's head could make you a target and this item can also be used as a weapon (rip it off and strangle someone with it) against her or other inmates.  It's a safety issue, not a religious one. This nonsense has gone on long enough, if the system has to change to accomadate "A small minority" than it's not the system that's broken but society for pandering to the wishes of a "FEW" screamers and moaners.  Stuff PCness, and pandering and appeasement.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> This is such a hot topic right now, especially with the recent hubbub about the young girl playing soccer.
> 
> I am not familiar with how one is worn, but if the ends are tucked into a shirt and worn tightly enough to reduce the ability for someone to grab it, it seems feasible that it should be of no more danger than someone who has long hair.  Even worn in a bun it's easy to grab.



It's a hell of a lot easier to strangle someone with a scarf than it is their own hair. It's not just a matter of grabbing, but it can also be effective in killing someone. ie: the wearer. In a system where the range gets locked down because a chicken bone (could be sharpened) is found, you don't give them anymore tools than you can.


----------



## GUNS (15 Mar 2007)

I am not dumping on immigrants because they are immigrants, far from it.

My rant is about people coming to Canada for a better lifestyle and once they are here its," you do as I do" attitude.

Its about turbans as a RCMP headdress.

Its about children allowed to bring ceremonial swords to school but Canadians are in trouble for carring a pocket knife.

Its about fathers not allowed to attend prenatal classes with their wives/partner because there are women there from another country.

Its about forcing schools of learning to set up space for certain groups to practice their religious beliefs but Christ is not allowed in the classroom.

As I mentioned, its not the immigrants, its having to bend over backwards to please them.

My Oncologist is from India, the Dr. who looked after my chemo. and radiation is from Iran and the Dr.'s who looked after me during hospital stays were from Pakistan so I owe my present existence to immigrants.

All I am saying is, welcome to Canada now become a good CANADIAN.


----------



## MediTech (15 Mar 2007)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Those are your Christian beliefs not everyone's and certainly not mine. There is no state religion here and that is one of the many many wonderful things about this country.



Au contraire, the Canadian Constitution states "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

That's God with a capital G.  Not some Allah or Yahweh or some god with ten arms but the Christian God.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2007)

We've been down this road alot before.........any chance we can get back on track

The track being Hijab and working in a prison....

army.ca staff


----------



## MediTech (15 Mar 2007)

I think if it's a health hazard you should be dismissed.  I wouldn't allowed to be in the military if I decided I wanted to wear something like fluorescent clothing out in the field.


----------



## niner domestic (15 Mar 2007)

These are the hair regs for CSC, now as far as the regs for the provincial bucket, I have not got those handy.  

Hair and Facial Hair
50. Hairstyle is a matter of personal choice. However, hair must be clean, neatly styled and well groomed. Hair ribbons, barrettes and other means of keeping hair in place must be discreet, must complement the uniform, and must not pose any health or security risk.

For religious apparel: 

Dress Requirements Based on Religious Affiliation
CSC will comply with all direction provided by the Human Rights Commission and relevant accepted practices with the confines of the safety and security requirements.
54. Members of the Sikh religion may wear:
a. a turban, provided its colour complements the uniform and the turban conceals the hair and is neat; and
b. a small, non-metallic replica of a khirpan (not more than 8.75 cm in length), which is the symbolic Sikh sword, worn under the uniform.

From: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/doc/351-1gl_e.pdf

Now, as far as this person and the young soccer player is concerned.  I noticed in all the pictures of the soccer player that her hijab was not one specially designed for sports.  Those tend to be sleeker and more fitted to the head and are held together with velcro fasteners. Which look like this:  http://www.thehijabshop.com/capsters/index.php

Even though they are tighter fitted against the head and would render as much purchase in being grabbed as hair, the issue I have with the safety is that they cup the throat and chin.  A yank from the back and a twist and it's now a choke hold.  

I am absolutely positive that in the soccer player's case, the above type of hijabs would not have caused a concerned.  The ones with pins, caps, fasteners and tied under the chin would have, just as working with the criminal element will be an issue with the same kind.  

And let's for a moment look at not just the choking issue, but also the vision hampering but simply pulling a hijab over the wearer's eyes.  They would never see the shank coming.  

But my big beef with this, is the recklessness of attempting to push this agenda forward when the lives of other guards would also be put at risk.  For those who have ever been on a range that is trying to get locked down, no one can afford to give the inmate population the upper hand.  

Please don't begin on the Charter, otherwise I'll be forced to do my "This is the Charter" lecture I give my students and I will be giving a quiz afterwards.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Mar 2007)

About the girl playing soccer with her headgear on.  FIFA rules call for removal of all jewelry, head dress, and loose clothing for player safety.  FIFA has existed since 1930, and includes Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and Budhist football nations in its membership.  In all that time, the first time the rule is ever questioned is by an 11 year old  girl in Canada?  Says more about us than it does FIFA, I think.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2007)

This is not TGIF fridays where employees are supposed to add "character" to their wardrobe. When dealing with Corrections Officers, they should be seen as instruments of the government. Not as Sikhs, Hebrews, Christians or Muslims. It's called a 'UNIFORM' for a reason.


----------



## Steel Badger (15 Mar 2007)

I am a correctional officer.....


And I dont wear my TIE on the ranges, lest some miscreant display his displeasure with his current circumstances by choking the *&^% out of my good self, my partner or other staff.....

Wear a Burka, wear a tie, hell, even carry a gun.......it all comes down to the same issue

Don't carry anything into a dayroom that the mopes can use against you..... or shove up your gunga.



cheers



SB


----------



## Gramps (15 Mar 2007)

MediTech said:
			
		

> Au contraire, the Canadian Constitution states "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".
> 
> That's God with a capital G.  Not some Allah or Yahweh or some god with ten arms but the Christian God.


Well, since this thread will be shut down if I reply then I will do it by PM. Now as for wearing anything set out by religious or cultural customs WHO CARES!! As long as it does not endanger anybody by it simply being worn then there should be no problem, if it is a safety concern then of course it should not be worn.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Mar 2007)

After reading the scant details of this episode in the link that accompanied the opening post and the many comments in the posts that followed, a couple of questions came to mind.  

What kind of person was this?  An observent Muslim woman? An immigrant? Wanting to work in a prison? But the only information that I was able to glean from the on-line accounts was that she was a 19 year old Montrealer.  So the only supposition that I was able to make from that is it's about a Canadian teenager who like most of them is seeking an interesting, reasonably paid job with some future.  Probably the only thing not normal about her is that she is religious.

Why wasn't the woman informed that she wouldn't be permitted to wear the hajib when she was interviewed or offered the position; why did they wait until she was into the first week of the training? 
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/40741.html


> ….. said she had included photos of herself wearing the hijab in her job application.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070315/hijab_que_070315/20070315?hub=TopStories


> ....says if her headscarf was a problem, officials should have notified her sooner.
> 
> Abdelatif applied to become a corrections officer in November of last year. Her application included a complete portfolio with photos of her wearing a headscarf and there were no questions asked about her hijab at the time.
> "I had my veil on and you could clearly see that I had my veil on," Abdelatif told CTV Montreal on Thursday.
> Abdelatif completed her initial examination and was a week into her training before officials at the Bordeaux Detention Centre confronted her with the ultimatum.



What is their *official * policy about head wear/coverings?  It brought back memories of some 20 years ago when one would have thought that permitting a Sikh to wear a turban in the CF or the RCMP (or the Legion) was sure to result in all sorts of mayhem.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/montreal/story.html?id=47a2e6fe-65c6-496d-b661-3d0514e817d2


> Use of a Velcro-fastened hijab might allow a 19-year-old Islamic Montrealer to resume her abruptly terminated training to become a Quebec prison guard, a senior Public Security Department official said late yesterday......
> 
> "We'd have to at least take a look at that," Lortie said after an Islamic group suggested the woman could wear a modified hijab and keep her job. "We are not people who are obtuse or incapable of discussing a situation."  .....
> 
> ...



While some of my questions were answered, one remained.  If she follows Islamic customs, would she be able to physically handle and control male inmates?  Because, after all the external (minor) issues of dress are put aside, that is what the job will be.


----------



## gaspasser (16 Mar 2007)

I'm going to get back to the basics of the issue here.  It all boils down to SAFETY!
CO's do not wear anything that can be used as a weapon.  Cops (correct me if I'm wrong) wear tight fitting clothing to prevent handholds during a struggle.   Their tie, if they have one, is quick release.  
I remember back in 1985-6, there was a Sikh fellow who went thru Cornwallis and kept getting recoursed (for about a year) because he wouldn't conform, continued to would wear his ceremonial knife and refused to take off his turbin.  They finally passed him on to the next stage, which was Artillary school.  {as the story goes} He refused to replace his turbin with a helmet, BANG-SAFTEY, you're gone.  Simple.
IMHO, this teenage muslim girl has no leg to stand on if she wants to be a Corrections Officer.  Conform to the safety standard or you're gone.
My 0.02!  Hope it's worth it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> They finally passed him on to the next stage, which was Artillary school.  {as the story goes} He refused to replace his turbin with a helmet, BANG-SAFTEY, you're gone.  Simple.



The Indian Army wears helmets and  respirators when required. No turbans or beards when operational. Why do we tolerate it?


----------



## Yrys (16 Mar 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why do we tolerate it?



'Cause we're CANADIANS !


----------



## armyvern (16 Mar 2007)

The newspaper article mentions the hair regulations. Why? Because the females guards must have their hair tied back in order not to obstruct their vision & to avoid entanglement for safety reasons. Ergo, the same principles are being applied to the hijhab in this instance as it restricts the vision and can also become entangles, and/or used as a weapon etc against this female. IE it is a safety hazard.

Hair regulations though, play no other part in this story andthe actual wording of the hair regulations is moot. 

This this same woman very possibly has hair as short as mine under her hijab. It is also a matter of my experience with Muslim women as well, that most also have plenty of expertly applied make-up underneath those hijabs. To her, it is not a matter of not wanting to conform, it is a matter of her religious beliefs.

Although not all Muslim women "must" (or are obligated to) wear the hijab, it is a matter of the extent of their devotion and is a sign of their faith. Much the same way as some of the more _devoted_ Catholics etc will attend those masses daily, rather than show up just for confession on Sunday. Comments that they shouldn't wear them "because they don't have to" are inappropriate. You would never say "Catholics can't go to daily mass because they don't have to."

In this case however, the decision has been made because it has a direct impact upon her personal safety and therefore IS the proper decision under the circumstances. 

Whether she signs a waiver or not is also a relatively largely moot point. Even if a waiver was signed, you can bet your butt that should something _ever_ happen to her after it was signed, the Provincial, Federal, Municipal employer would indeed still be on the hook for willfully & knowlingly placing this pers in a situation where her personal safety could not be ensured, probably sued, and more than likely found culpable. Waivers or not, you will find that the Canada Labour Code expressly forbids employers from putting employees into a situation which may compromise their safety, ergo the employees "right to refuse."


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Mar 2007)

The difference being that, if I am a daily mass attending catholic, the employer can ask what means more to me, daily attendance or steady paycheck.  It is not a requirement of the faith, any more than a rosary is mandatory to catholics.  No accomodation required.


----------



## Harris (16 Mar 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Immigrants, not Canadians must adapt



+1


----------



## Strike (16 Mar 2007)

Sorry, I find that a little rich considering the country was built by immigrants, and the population growth right now is because of them as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2007)

I obviously missed this thread during my little Florida getaway but folks, please stop it with the immigrant thing, this could just as easily be a 4th or 5th generation Canadian whom decided to wear the hijab. When does 'being an immigrant' stop?

This is a no-brainer for many other reasons, it could be used as a weapon,[ and yes I would ask a Christian to remove any Cross he/she might have showing],it would restrict the ability to don an MSA/ gas mask facepiece, and/or the most important thing of all,...would restrict the senses of the wearer which, in this business, ARE THE MOST important thing you have to keep you AND YOUR FELLOW STAFF safe.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Mar 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *When does 'being an immigrant' stop?*



Any group (not just immigrants) will claim a special status until they stop receiving special rights, compensations, considerations for such status.



It wasn't a test question? Damn.


----------

