Meanwhile back at the perpetually offended tent/Infidel tattoo questions

[Cloud Cover]

I see police officers, paramedics, firefighters with exposed tattoos all the time, including police officers in Toronto on bike patrol. Maybe there is a policy stating these must be covered, but whether that is enforceable at all in say, a disciplinary setting, is quite different than just having a written policy.

You might also take note that in the absence of a union (which has a grievance system and a right to fair representation), a non-union employer will receive much more scrutiny in order to  assess their disciplinary actions. 

 

[mariomike]

, a non-union employer will receive much more scrutiny in order to  assess their disciplinary actions.

Scrutiny from whom?

The answer on hiring is simple and straightforward – an employer can legally choose not to hire based on any (visible) tattoos or piercings. There would be no violation of the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not relevant. This simple statement applies whether it is a unionized workplace or a union free workplace

Non-union workplace

Here there are no legal restrictions on prohibitions by employers against tattoos and piercings. Simply put the employer's rights are as broad as noted above with respect to hiring.

That is from the above Canadian source.

Also this. From another Canadian source. Something to consider if changing employers,

So long as the tattoos or piercings are not part of an ethnic, religious or tribal custom, the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to employers’ hiring choices with regards to body modifications.
https://www.kcyatlaw.ca/tattoos-piercings-workplace-canada/

This can also be a hiring factor,

"Distinguish between employee roles (i.e. those that do and do not interact with customers or clients)"

eg: A call-centre or warehouse etc.

I see police officers, paramedics, firefighters with exposed tattoos all the time, including police officers in Toronto on bike patrol. Maybe there is a policy stating these must be covered, but whether that is enforceable at all in say, a disciplinary setting, is quite different than just having a written policy.

I would guess most waited until after  they got hired. That's the conventional advice to candidates.

After they get on the job, I think covering and discipline depends on individual circumstances. Being unionised, there is also a grievance and arbitration process.

Trivia,

( Most probably would not remember, but it wasn't so long ago that all Metro officers - with or without tattoos - wore long-sleeved shirts all summer. And that was before their cars had air-conditioning! )

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, find a nordic ancestor and go nuts with your Viking tribal customs.

 

[Loachman]

People from my ancestral area of origin (Norfolk/East Anglia) either beat up the locals or were beaten up by the "migrants" prior to eventually intermingling and crossbreeding over a millennium ago, so I probably could "go nuts".

I have some ideas in mind - perhaps a C7 composed of the word "Pride" (thanks, Jarnhamar - excellent suggestion; it reclaims "pride" as well) crossing a dripping bearded axe - but lack any interest in acquiring a tattoo.

 

[X Royal]

"deemed to be"  Who doesn't love being put into a Orwellian scenario??

Meaning changes greatly when you drop the first part of the quote.
It said "that could be deemed to be offensive".
The "that could be" changes the whole meaning. Far more inclusive.
But for some reason you knew that.

 

[Stoker]

I think the moral of this story is that a tattoo that you gotten with the best of intentions at the time could very well come back to haunt you years later. Our ship just came back from Fleet Week in New York where a sizeable amount of our sailors got tattoos some free because it was part of a Fleet Week promotion. I wonder in 10 years time could some of these tattoos could be deemed offensive and come back to haunt them.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Meaning changes greatly when you drop the first part of the quote.
It said "that could be deemed to be offensive".
The "that could be" changes the whole meaning. Far more inclusive.
But for some reason you knew that.

Actually it doesn't change a thing....makes it even more ambiguous.  I could be a rock star,...I'm not, but "could be".  What???
Floating goal posts....so good when you'd rather "call for an investigation" rather then deal with it at your leadership level..

 

[Jarnhamar]

I personally think this incident is another example of someone looking for something "Islamophobic" to be offended about and start a witch hunt over.

 

[AbdullahD]

I personally think this incident is another example of someone looking for something "Islamophobic" to be offended about and start a witch hunt over.

Nah, this is a great post of idiocy on all sides.

People need to go live their lives not exist in them and these silly issues will not be a big deal.

This sailor didn't hurt anyone, we are all spending a lot of energy wondering his motives. Why not just ask him and leave it at that? And who cares if he is an islamophobe. We can draw our own personal conclusions what that will mean about him.

Instead we all pontificate (current favorite word lol) about this that and the next thing.

Abdullah

P.s not necessarily meaning members here, but in a general sense.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

People need to go live their lives not exist in them and these silly issues will not be a big deal.

Truly unfortunate, but that ship has sailed, aided by a more then willing media, since outrage sells.  200 people protest, top story, 200 million shrug their shoulders and go to work??    Crickets....

 

[FJAG]

Time out for this:

https://www.facebook.com/berkeleybreathed?fref=photo

;D

 

[Stoker]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5474416/navy-sailor-infidel-tattoo-cover-up/

Navy confirms sailor to cover up ‘infidel’ tattoo after investigating social media concerns



A military spokesman says a sailor who was singled out on social media for a tattoo that featured the word “infidel” in the shape of a rifle on his arm has acknowledged the concerns raised by the tattoo, but military officials say they’ve concluded there was “no ill intent on the sailor’s part.”

Maj. Mark Gough of Maritime Forces Atlantic says the Canadian Armed Forces were alerted on June 4 about the photo of the sailor with the tattoo circulating on social media.

The force investigated after concerns were raised online about the nature of the tattoo and whether it was Islamophobic. Gough says that after speaking with the sailor, his chain of command concluded there was no ill intent by the sailor.

However, Gough added, the sailor has acknowledged and understands the concerns raised by the tattoo.

“He will abide with the Canadian Armed Forces’ policy on tattoos and he plans to tattoo over this tattoo as soon as possible,” Gough said.

“As such, the chain of command considers the matter closed, and no further action is required.”

The military brought in regulations around tattoos seven years ago.

The regulations state: “Members shall not acquire tattoos that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design).”

The military has recently committed to dealing with the involvement of Canadian Armed Forces members in hate groups after an internal report found that members had been linked to six hate groups since 2013.

 

[mariomike]

he plans to tattoo over this tattoo as soon as possible,” Gough said.

Is that less painful than removal?

 

[Strike]

Is that less painful than removal?

It's certainly less expensive.

Maybe he can get on that "Tattoo Nightmares" show?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Is that less painful than removal?

For sure; know a few people that got removals and none of them enjoyed it (and some ended up with some minor scarring from the burns)

Coverups hurt as much as the original tattoo, but the arms don't hurt at all.  Some spots on your torso and some other areas can be pretty uncomfortable, but at least it's a one and done for a coverup (vice multiple trips for a removal).

This almost seems to be a common sense approach instead of a knee jerk response to the media; is it Bizarro Tuesday?

 

[cld617]

What a joke.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Just get a tattoo artist to turn the AR15 into an AK47.  Then it's fine

 

[kratz]

As long as we are suggesting cover ups for this tattoo:

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[Jarnhamar]

Has Rob Hutten (who tweeted about the tattoo) ever explained why he tagged #ANTIFA in his tweet?

What was his intention? Was it to try and doxx the sailor and sic a bunch of SJW on him?

 

[Stoker]

Has Rob Hutten (who tweeted about the tattoo) ever explained why he tagged #ANTIFA in his tweet?

What was his intention? Was it to try and doxx the sailor and sic a bunch of SJW on him?

He locked his twitter account until everything blew over as the backlash was great. Its back up again and he scrubbed everything about what he did before and no mention about the sailor that was cleared of any wrong doing. Personally I think that's exactly what he was doing, and it backfired on him.