The word “uniform” has one meaning, and one meaning only. Does this require spelling out?
Seems Edmonton Police Service would do well checking out a dictionary or some basic thesaurus, available in any public library.
Why?
Apparently, in the name of cultural tolerance, it’s now looking at how to introduce hijab as an option to police uniform.
One wishes to have their issues. And Rothschild’s money, too.
So, here are the facts: those who say it’s all about cultural tolerance (multiculturalism, that is) are lying through their teeth beyond belief.
What we are talking about is a religious symbol. Indeed, religion is a matter of culture and tradition, but that doesn’t change the basics: hijab (and other such headgear) symbolizes a woman’s position in society as dictated by a religion.
A mild reminder: that religion was written by males, and that female position just happens to be subservient to male position.
The tragic thing is that more often than not, the crowd that vigorously supports multiculturalism happens to be the same crowd that fights (with similar vigour) for equality of sexes. Not realizing that you can’t have it all.
There should be one simple rule: if you are an officer of the law, you must keep your religion at home. In fact, that rule should extend to all public servants. The same holds true for crosses, stars of David, hijabs, turbans, Sikh knives and whatnot. None of it should be allowed as part of a police officer’s uniform. And neither has any of it any place in a government office, at any level. Period.
That Edmonton Police Service even has an Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit speaks volumes about its misguided approach. We have laws on the books that quite specifically say that we are all equal. To be organizing such hugely superfluous departments is an exercise in attempting to create more jobs, to put it very mildly. And never mind such minor diversions as that those who occupy those jobs keep using so-called static figures, not real-life statistics (numbers, that is, that are dynamic, meaning they change as life changes). The idea is to justify their existence. Using this kind of propaganda babble is an insult to the meanest intelligence.
An Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit representative, Natasha Goudar, is on the record as saying her group has been working with Muslim communities, including Imams, about what she termed were cultural implications and requirements.
An aside: define Imam, will you? A community leader, generally, and a religious authority, more specifically.
“One of the big concerns for them was an educational element to the introduction of the hijab. They didn’t want to just bring it in and have it sit on a shelf,” Goudar said.
Canada is a land of compromise, so, this is how it would look: the head scarf would be black in colour, and sit underneath the standard-issue Edmonton police hat.
It’s the same nonsense as allowing RCMP officers to wear turbans, as the federal government did in 1990.
It seems that Quebec is indeed a distinct society, judging at least by its proposed Quebec Charter of Values. It would forbid Quebec’s public employees from wearing visible religious symbols – including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes and larger-than-average crucifixes.
In this case, three cheers for Quebec and its distinctiveness.
We’ve stepped on a slippery slope here. So slippery, that an Edmonton Catholic Schools Board’s brochure features as one of its illustrations a girl wearing a hijab. Asked what that is supposed to mean, a board spokesthingie said this was to demonstrate the all-inclusive character of schools in its jurisdiction. Considering one of Islam’s publicly stated goals is to do away with Christianity (that happens to include Catholicism) and with Christians, this all-inclusiveness seems to be going one way only.
While not calling for Crusades or anything even similar to them, the basic rule of new citizenship should make a comeback, and fast. The rule is straightforward enough: you came to Canada, and it was your voluntary choice. Nobody forced you to come here, and nobody’s forcing you to stay.
Canada has been built on certain principles. Call them cultural, traditional, religious, whatever combination thereof, but here they are spelt out: they are Judeo-Christian (whatever THAT is supposed to mean).
If you want respect, you have to give respect, first. By trying to impose your preferences upon something that you had elected to join in the first place, you’re doing no such thing.
You want to practice your religion? By all means. But do not try to force it upon others.
Your young women can’t join a police force because they feel wearing hijab is a major responsibility? Fine: you simply can’t have it all. If your women still believe that hijab symbolizes something, and if they do not care that they are giving up their rights, that would be their problem.
Yes, some of them would have preferred to drop the hijab and live as they please. Alas, their own men (fathers, husbands, brothers, the lot) threaten their lives for such transgressions. Speaking of which: and when somebody mentions this strange state of affairs in advertisements on Edmonton’s city buses, a councillor sees fit to impose crude censorship on such ads and have them pulled.
Multiculturalism denies the truth that we’re all different in the name of equal rights for everybody.
We’re not all equal. And no, all cultures are NOT equal, either. Female circumcision, anybody? Honour killing, perhaps?
Edmonton Police Service should, first and foremost, rid itself of its Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit and spend the money thus saved on better policing.
And those who are cheering this of kind of multicultural nonsense on, should go straight back to school and learn the meaning of the word: uniform.
Questions, questions, questions ... 