Barber refuses haircut to woman on religious grounds

jas,

So you're suggesting just ending this entire conversation until the tribunal's ruling? I think it might take everyone else a little while to "catch up" with that concept too.

Refusing to serve a customer because she is a woman would seem to be a pretty clear breach of rules against discrimination; maybe the tribunal will find differently. But until they do, I'd say the principle is a valid one.

jas wrote:

Our Charter guarantees the freedom to practise one's religion. We either support that or we don't. If we don't, then we either take religion out of the Charter, or we qualify that right. I don't see any current qualifications that apply to this case.

NOTHING in the Charter applies to "this case", namely a barber shop serving the public, as has already been amply demonstrated. But the Charter DOES have a "qualification" that would apply, if the Charter applied at all. I already quoted it above. It's Section 28.

If freedom of religion really implied the possibility of segregation between men and women in lodging or public education or public commerce or provision of services, then I would be lobbying actively to remove such an obscenity from the Charter. Happily, I don't believe it means anything of the sort.

Quote:

If your example does not single out a particular race, then it is not discrimination, and therefore does not apply to what you want it to apply to.

So U.S. anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory? Or South African apartheid laws ("separate and equal development")? In South Africa, of course, coloured and Asian and black and white couldn't intermarry. No one was singled out. That's non-discriminatory in your book, is it?

Ok, let's agree to call them "fascist" instead. Either way, set aside the nomenclature, and let's join together to rid our society of any such poison. You'll have my support.

I have read all these threads, and it baffles my mind how some of the people can portray the barbers as helpless victims and the lady as a perpetrator. While most people are depicting her complaint as trivial and that she can go elsewhere, you fail to see how the barbers are acting trivial by blowing up the significance of a simple little haircut as a violation of the religious beliefs and that the whole refusal to cut her hair is not discrimination but an innocuous and harmless breach of their religious values.

And some of you are referring a HAIRCUT as being CLOSE PERSONAL CONTACT with a member OF THE OPPOSITE SEX?  OMG~! 

It's a HAIRCUT~!

These Muslim barbers say that they can cut the hair of their wives, their daughters, their nieces, their aunts, their grandmothers, but they cannot cut the hair of women in the general public.  What makes the hair of their immediate family so special that they cannot do the same to these other women?  Their women are at home where they belong.

Most Muslim men in their home countries expect their wives to wear burkas or hijabs when they are out in public, and in their native countries, women who want a haircut must be segregated from men in  separate rooms where they are able to remove their head gear without compromising their "modesty". Men do not have to cover their hair in public, but women do.

Muslim women who breach these "modesty" dress codes can find themselves in "modesty" prisons, or publicly stoned to death, or honour killed.

The Shafia girls were killed by their oldest brother, their father, and their mother here in Canada for simply loosening their familly`s strict dress codes, and for associating with people not approved by their family outside the home.

Faith McGregor did not ask the Muslim men to have sex with her.  She simply asked for a haircut.  

I don`t think many of you realize that if she was in a muslim country and walked in to a barber shop without wearing a hijab and asked for a haircut in a `male` arena, she would have been arrested and Sharia law would have decided on her method of punishment.

None of this is innocuous.  Many of the Muslim religious beliefs have nothing at all to do with religion, but have everything to do with the mysogynistic control of women by men in all facets of their lives. 

These barbers are trying to petpetuate the limited status women have in society, and that the only proper place for women is in the home, certainly not in the public, and certainly not in their barber shop.  

You folks here really need a head-pounding-against-the-wall smiley. 

Anyway. What to my wondering eyes doth a quick babble search reveal? Anti-oppression 101!  Started by Maysie! What a helpful resource for people who seem to be a bit ... confused ... about the difference between refusing service on prohibited grounds of discrimination, and a guy saying "oh, I don't mind if someone doesn't serve me because I'm a man, so it's okay if men don't serve women." Or the dazzling idea that race is a neutral thing in anti-miscegenation laws because they affect white people and black people just the same, dontcha know. Wow.

Babble, really, wow.

Here's the really, really simple formula to remember: "Racism = Prejudice + Power"

Or, let's try substituting a few words:

"Ablism = Prejudice + Power" ... so it's not the same saying as a person with reasonably strong eyesight that I should be able to bring my dog into a restaurant because someone else gets to bring a seeing-eye dog in.

"Homophobia = Prejudice + Power" ... so Jason Kenney saying gay and lesbian people do in fact have the right to marry (as long as it's to the opposite sex) is not the same as saying LGBT folks have the right to marry, oh, the people they love. [And for the record I am opposed to the SSM exemption for religious beliefs, but I know that it was politically expedient, a.k.a. pandering, at the time, since waaaay back in 2006, SSM was still something that some folks had their knickers in a twist about. More than now, anyway.]

"Religious discrimination = Prejudice + Power" ... hence in Canada, which let's face it is a largely Christian country still, we need to be more vigilent in protecting religious minorities with little power than protecting the big Christian denominations, which have plenty of power. [And for the record I am vehemently opposed to the Catholic separate school board system.]

Let's try one more.

"Sexism = Prejudice + Power" ... so when men refuse service to women because they are women, it is not the same as women refusing service to men because they are men. And for the record I'm not terribly in favour of the reverse, either, but I'm not kidding myself about which gender has power in this society. And yet again for the record reinforcing the gender binary can also be extremely harmful for trans folks.

So.

Prohibitions on women and men interacting are NOT neutral or equal or equivalent. That goes for "modesty" in dress code, and that goes for a whole host of other examples like women's gyms or pools not admitting men. Basically that goes for all of the so-clever attempts at equivalency on this thread. That goes for touching as well.

Listen: The people on this thread who are pointing this out are NOT saying dude has to violate his personal religious prohibitions about touching women, and saying that this woman is trying to force him to do so is absurd hyperbole, based on wild and unfounded speculation about her motives and goals.

We're saying that he can abide by his beliefs all he wants.

We're saying that him refusing service based on a prohibited grounds of discrimination is wrong.

And we're saying that if you want to run a business in Canada then it is imcumbant on you to ensure that you are not discriminating based on prohibited grounds. And that if you are, it is incumbant on you to find an acceptable solution to this.

For the umpteenth time, it's not rocket science.

I'd be interested in hearing from people defending this barber shop why they feel so personally invested in doing so.

I know why I'm posting on this thread: I'm not prepared to have my hard-fought right to be treated equally as a woman in this society eroded, regardless of how small the incident may appear to be.

What's your justification?

____

P.S. Catchfire:

____

Edited to add: Post above mine = sure sounds Islamophobic. See above regarding religious discrimination and power, and until all those hegemonic mainstream Christian churches take the sexist mote out of their eye, they shouldn't feel free to critique Islam for the same thing. And it pisses me off that this incident is a bandwagon for the trolls to jump on (just like a fair bit of the trans rights stuff around women's spaces is a bandwagon for antifeminists to jump on). I know that this may be complicated for out-and-out trolls to grasp, poor things.

Etited to add some more: I'm still wincing every time I see that thread title, it's pretty brutal, but hey, it sure catches the eye.

To Mr. Smith,

I don`t know why you jump to conclusions that I feel they need to leave the country, or that I would even want them to.

I would hope that people in todays day and age would not justify a barber saying that he is not going to cut a black man`s hair because it is personal to him and that his religious values prohibit him from doing so.  I think people could see through his argument quite easily, yet when it comes to women, it is ok for him to say no.

To Tehanu,

It is rather presumptuous of you to presume that I am Roman Catholic or belong to one of the mainstream Christian churces, or that I am Christian in the first place.  To help you out a little, I am not.

To Catchfire,

I am quite comfortable with you removing the the specific religion of the barbers, and my writings were not to promote any hatred against Muslims.  I have many friends who are Muslim, and some of them even agree with me on some issues, and if I hurt anybody with my overtly offensive opinions, I am truly sorry.

Scary non Christian is signing off.

Thanks for finally changing the title of this thread.  I always thought it was provocative.

The action of this barber was discriminatory full stop.  The next question is whether or not the discriminatory action is a breach of the OHR Code.     The Charter only comes into play if this barber says the Code itself is a breach of his Charter rights.

The Charter itself allows for discriminatory actions as long as politicians will pass the law Not Withstanding the fact that they are discriminatory.  As an aside the Not Withstanding Clause was one  Allan Blakeney's main demands and for him a deal breaker.  He would not back down from the great Scottish democratic tradition that said parliament is the final authority over all laws and no court or King can rule otherwise. 

Why would an individual compel another to do something they're uncomfortable with, simply to prove a point? It seems rather abusive, and certainly provocative.

[img]http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/images/sit-in.jpg[/...

Quite, VOTD. Abusive and provocative. Gosh darn I feel bad for those people who are uncomfortable!

Quote:

Sitting for Justice: Woolworth’s Lunch Counter

On February 1, 1960, four African American college students sat down at a lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, and politely asked for service. Their request was refused. When asked to leave, they remained in their seats. Their passive resistance and peaceful sit-down demand helped ignite a youth-led movement to challenge racial inequality throughout the South.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/freedom-struggle-2....

To me the reason why the comparison to womens only gyms is appropriate is because of the reason for the discrimination based on sex.  Women only gyms exist because for some working out is something they prefer not to do around the oppopsite sex.  they get sweaty and smelly, they're in funny positions, they wear funny clothes, they let it all hang out.  they don't want to be in a position to be judged by the opposite sex or have that interfere in their work out.  i can see that

Likewise, for men getting a haircut might feel similar,  your bald spot shows, you look funny, your wearing a cape, it reeks of barbicide, you have dandruff all over.  and they don't want to worry about being judged by the opposite sex.  i can see that too.

likewise consider the context.  It is happening in a society that does not allow gender exclusive business service beyond the odd thing like a gym or barbershop for the reasons stated above. 

it's in this context i don't agree with the complaint, even if in principle i hate discrimination based on sex. 

This has nothing to do with lunch counters or fast food chains. It's about whether one can empathize with some little guy who seems to have had the misfortune of being picked on, as a test case, to further a political agenda. Ironically, he has the support of Ezra Levant, and the populist media. This incident may yet indeed prove to be seminal.

Quote:

Women only gyms exist because for some working out is something they prefer not to do around the oppopsite sex.  they get sweaty and smelly, they're in funny positions, they wear funny clothes, they let it all hang out.  they don't want to be in a position to be judged by the opposite sex or have that interfere in their work out.  i can see that

Well, they exist for other reasons. Which include:

- Women growing up in this society often (almost always) have various levels of body image issues.

- Women are used to being objectified and judged by men for their physical attributes. Constantly and endlessly. Including, and perhaps even more extensively than on the street, at gyms.

- Women whose bodies don't match up to some magical ideal can be very self-conscious about exercising. Women who experience bullying or persecution because of their weight, particularly if they are fat, are likely to be acutely self-conscious, especially as there is further judgement attached to them exercising. 

- As you've acknowledged, people can feel vulnerable when exercising. Women who have been sexually or physically assaulted may feel particularly vulnerable. Among other things, I've been around men who are exercising (if I go to a gym it's co-ed) and there's a lot of almost sexualized grunting and panting which could easily be triggering.

- And yes, there are women who won't exercise around men because of religious reasons! See my above post about Prejudice + Power. Let's add in privilege.

Yes, dear babblers, again we have to justify and explain why it's not equal or equivalent to compare the treatment of women to the treatment of men.

___

Anyway, as I said above, I'm not an unqualified advocate of women-only spaces although I'm a strong advocate for them under specific circumstances (related to safety and/or political action). Gyms are borderline for me personally, but certainly not for all women, and I respect that.

[I'm sad that my epic Profound Pontification on anti-oppression got derailed, oh well!]

I'd prefer gyms that had a specific mandate of being supportive of a range of individuals, including trans people, people with disabilities, people who'd been assaulted, etc. Basically with a mandate to provide a safe space for folks who've been marginalized to exercise.

ETA:

Quote:

This has nothing to do with lunch counters or fast food chains. It's about whether one can empathize with some little guy who seems to have had the misfortune of being picked on, as a test case, to further a political agenda.

Well, lunch counters and the desegregation thereof was related to racial discrimination. Women are not discriminated against? Fighting discrimination is furthering a political agenda? Interesting to hear this on a progressive discussion board.

Quote:

Ironically, he has the support of Ezra Levant

Perhaps that tells us something.

This is sure to provoke discussion in various constituencies throughout Ontario. I wonder what the candidates will say about it, when they're put on the spot?

The odd thing is, this isn't even an issue of progressive social change. This is something that is already the law of the land. It's about as middle-of-the-road as it gets.

(edit)

And Tea,

Please let's not start that. It's like Christians (and more than a few anti-religious types) who assume that there is only one monolithic christianity and they are the final word on what it is and is not. We all know it is a little bit more multi-faceted than that./

Mr.Tea wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Just for the information of everyone, the Jewish faith (in Montréal, at any rate) has come a long way from ancient ways that Mr.Tea describes as "our beliefs":

If having a Jewish family and remaining a part of the Jewish community are not important to you, that's certainly your own perogative and I won't try to dissuade you. You're free to live you're own life as you see fit (Baruch Hashem). But don't try to persuade others that marrying out and having a non-Jewish marriage is in any way consistent with "our beliefs" (that you have, evidently, long ago abandoned).

HAHA, poor Mr.Tea, visibly upset at the photo of two married lesbian rabbis, one of whom now presides over a major Montréal congregation! And the other is a Christian convert to Judaism!! What the hell is this world coming to, eh?

Try the Catholic Church, Tea. They still understand where a woman's place is. We Jews have moved on and ain't never looking back. Thank Allah Jews never had a Pope to tell us what was right and what was wrong.

Oh, and by the way, my Judaism is better than your Judaism - because it embraces all of humanity. Difficult concept, but don't stop trying. You'll get it eventually.

Jim Crow does not apply here. Those who insist that it does, trivialize those who struggle daily with oppression. Sometimes, it's simply someone with a chip on their shoulder looking for a bone to pick.

autoworker wrote:

Jim Crow does not apply here. Those who insist that it does, trivialize those who struggle daily with oppression.

Okay, that one made me gasp. I'm just going to sit back and wait for it.

I'm probably asking an ignorant question, but hasn't Judaism (the various strains thereof) changed just a bit in the last 2,500 years.... or for that matter, the last 400 years?