Conference kaosws::canada

    RE: >> RCMP uniforms >>
    
    Also the women members are being allowed to wear pants instead of
    skirts. The color of the uniform is being changed to khaki-gray as well.
    All RCMP members/uniforms would have a badge on the shoulder that says:
    "POLICE.."
    
    RE: >> Changes...>
    
    CKBY (Radio in Ottawa) reported this afternoon that Francophones in
    Edmonton have finally won the right to control francophone schools.
    
    BTW: WHat's wrong with progressive changes ? 
    King Solomon once said: "There is a season for everything..."
    Once upon a time the land was occupied by just the buffaloes and others.
    Then came the first inhabitants from Asia thru' Siberia - 
    The indigenous people like Inuit, Abenaki, Cherokee, Pontiac..etc.
    
    Then came Samuel Champlain and his buddies from Euro-France.
    Then came the anglos from the queens/kings land.
    Then came the northern Euros. 
    THen came the southern Euros.
    Then came the eastern  Euros.
    Then came the people from the Orient and the West Indies..etc..
    Should the last person cut the draw bridge behind them ?
    Whoever made this land from the beginning is the ONE who owns it. 
    Not the first or the last to occupy it !

>>    BTW: WHat's wrong with progressive changes ? 

Define progressive.

What's wrong with keeping things traditional?  What's wrong with "new"
arrivals (in a country) assimilating themselves into their newly adopted
society instead of expecting everyone else to adapt to them?

If the RCMP uniform includes the hat that is presently being worn, why
change it just because someone else wears something else on his head??
Hey, I don't even *like* hats, but if I wanted to be in a regiment that
wore hats I'd better change my attitude instead of expecting them to
change their tradition.

my $.02

Cliff (who_always_wears_a_hard_hat_when_visiting_the_Grand_Canal_
       construction_site_no_matter_how_un-chic_it_may_be_to_be_seen_in_one)

This turban thing worries me too. Mounties have been with us since the early 
beginnings of this country. They kept peace in the Canadian west even before 
the railroad came.  I'm sure you all know they sat on horses and wore those
flat-top hats.  We still see them in their original clothing tradition in The
RCMP musical-ride. 

Can you imagine one of those guys wearing a turban, or being allowed to ride a 
donkey just because he was from Mexico?

I stongly favor bonds to ethnic origin (I'm a Dutch Immigrant), and have no 
objections to these as part of either community (China-town) or as part of 
state (Quebec). But there just seem to be some traditions that we should hold 
pure to, things that have been part of "canada" from the beginning.  That when 
you move here from Hong Kong or Amsterdam, you accept these as part of your 
New Land.

I was raised in Alberta tooo...so there the real truth is out!

Fred

    The turban is more than an ethnic tradition to Sikhs - it is worn as
    part of the celebration of their religion. It should not be bundled
    into the same category as ethnic clothing.
    
    If it is NOT treated as a religious item, then all mounties should also
    not be allowed to wear Crucifix or other similar jewelry (the wearing
    of which, by the way, is not as integral to the celebration of
    Christian religions, as the turban is to the Sikhs.)
    
    That the Sol. Gen. has allowed this is good, IMHO.
    
    Scooter

    I ask the following questions,
    
    Should we demand that our undercover RCMP wear the traditional Stetson?
    
    Should we demand that our undercover RCMP wear the traditional Uniform?
    
    Should we demand that our undercover RCMP wear their hair short
    and not long and shaggy?
    
    Let's get real folks, the Stetson is nice, but we are Canadians,
    we can and should compromise, in the promotion of harmony and equality
    amongst all CANADIANS.
    
    Regards, Richard who likes tradition too, but, when was the last
    time you wrote your grandmother to wish her a happy week?

    The RCMP have worn a total of five different hat styles including
    the stetson.  Women officers also wear different style of hat. 
    As already mentioned, the turban is not a cultural symbol it is
    a religious symbol.
    
    Sikhs have been members of the Canadian Armed Forces for a number
    of years, and have served in the British Army since 1914.  I have,
    in the past, worked with Sikh police officers in the UK, and found
    them to be excellent officers.  
    
    Good luck to our Canadian Sikhs - another barrier has been removed.
    
    -Gerry 

    Who want to start a religion whose symbol is the wearing of jeans and
    T-shirt?  let's see what your manager would say to THAT!
    
    Jean
    
    Oh, don't forget sneakers too!
     

  RE:
    .4> The turban is more than an ethnic tradition to Sikhs - it is worn as
    .4> part of the celebration of their religion. It should not be bundled
    .4> into the same category as ethnic clothing.
    
    .4> If it is NOT treated as a religious item, then all mounties should also
    .4> not be allowed to wear Crucifix or other similar jewelry (the wearing
    .4> of which, by the way, is not as integral to the celebration of
    .4> Christian religions, as the turban is to the Sikhs.)
    
        Exactly ! I am in agreement.
    
    .4> That the Sol. Gen. has allowed this is good, IMHO.
    
    Sol. Gen. => Solicitor General ?
     
    I heard an RCMP official/spokesperson - on a CKBY Radio who said
    something like  "it's smart policing  - a smart move"  Or something to
    that effect. Was that the voice of the Sol. Gen. ? 
    In that same radio report someone from Calgary or so was moaning about
    the "changes". 
    

    RE:7
    
    >> ...new religion...let's see what your manager would say.
    
    Jean, I don't understand the point you are making.
    Can you elaborate a little bit ?

    Sol.Gen. does indeed = Solicitor General.
    
    Today, a spokesman for the First Nation Tribes that Indian Mounties
    should be allowed to wear their traditional braided hair - which is
    also a religious symbol.
    
    Scooter

    I have aprehension about this.  The government of Canada has permitted
    religious symbology to be introduced into an institution where it
    doesn't belong.  
    
    There is no longer prayer in schools, oaths are no longer taken with
    one hand on the bible, the closed-on-Sunday laws are under attack,
    and the crucifix symbol has been removed from the House of Parliament
    lobby.  I see these as progressive and positive.
    
    Permitting officers of the law of a country which has gone to great
    lengths to divorce itself of any religious preference to express their
    personal religion in their uniform is, to me, contradictory.  It would
    conjur the same concern if crucifixes, Stars of David, Hari Krishna
    pony tails or bowing to Mecca became permitted as forms of expressions
    for representatives and enforcers of our country's law while in
    uniform.
    
    Our government has become so paranoid of shadows of ghosts of rumours
    of whispers of racism or bigotry or sexism that it will patronize any
    cause in order to avoid the issues.  So we get Employment Equity, Human
    Rights Commissions, and interned Canadians of Japanese descent who
    receive cash payoffs.  None of it washes, none of it makes sense.
    
    If anyone out there can tie the proposed GST to minority rights
    supression, or seat belt laws to the exploitation of women, both
    would be dropped in one sitting of parliament.
    
    Kris
            

    re .7
    
>    Who want to start a religion whose symbol is the wearing of jeans and
>    T-shirt?  let's see what your manager would say to THAT!
    
    Ah, light dawns. Software engineering is a religion. That accounts for
    the weird garb you can see in ZKO. :-)
    
    Tony

    >> Permitting officers of the law of a country which has gone to great
        lengths to divorce itself of any religious preference to express
    their
        personal religion in their uniform is, to me, contradictory. 
    <<
    
    Their is a difference between allowing an individual to *celebrate*
    their religion and allowing an individual to *express* a preference.
    
    We allow our mounties to attend church services while in uniform. That
    is celebration. What some people do not understand is that wearing the
    sikh turbans or the First Nation braided hair is *celebration*, not
    *expression*.
    
    Secondly, what governments try to do is remove themselves *as a body,
    funded by taxpayers of many different religions*, from display of
    preference of any one or group of those religions.
    
    Allowing individuals to celebrate their religions IS NOT an endorsement
    of any single religion by the government.
    
    The only exceptions should be those celebrations which involve
    illegal practises (as opposed to simply "against policy").
    
    take for example school prayer: many Canadian schools have school
    prayer. such as those in the Ontario Seperate School system. The
    attendees are there by choice (or choice by parents which is the same
    thing legally), and if do not wish to participate in school prayer, are
    free to attend a school in the regular system. The choice is there.
    No one is forced to participate in prayer against their beliefs.
    
    And that's what it's all about - NOT FORCING religion onto a taxpayer
    or a taxpayer's children. Separation of Church and State is NOT about
    allowing individuals freedom of celebration.
    
    >>>   conjur the same concern if crucifixes, Stars of David, Hari
    Krishna
        pony tails or bowing to Mecca became permitted as forms of
    expressions
        for representatives and enforcers of our country's law while in
        uniform.
    <<<
    
    Crucifixes & Star of David are already allowed. I don't think that Hari
    Krishna requires pony tails (the church down the road has many devotees
    that don't have pony tails, in fact, most that I've seen don't).
    As for bowing towards Mecca - if a catholic mountie can say Hail Marys
    during break time (and I have a cousin who is a Superindendant and
    does), why can't a Muslim mountie ?
    
    If, in order to satisfy misplaced concern over religion in government
    we must control an individuals freedom to celbrate their religion, then
    we haven't advanced at all, have we ? Instead of forcing everybody to
    be, say protestant or RC or what have you, we end up forcing them all
    to be atheistic, ar at the very least, lapsed.
    
    That may be the American way - it sure as hell ain't the Canadian way.
    
    Scooter                                 
    
    

    Re -a few back,
    
    	I was just trying to make light of the subject, without ever
    mentionning the Grand Canal.
    
    	Acceptance of difference is what immigrants are seeking, and at the
    same time they are blending in to our society, sometimes it takes a
    couple of generations for that to happen.  Now I don't mind the
    mounties wearing stetsons, flat-tops or turbans, as long as they uphold
    the law.
    
    	Now just try to go on the other side of the fence, and see if you
    can make a Sick (sp??) speak french (coming from a british colony, they
    speak english as well as their dialect), they will denounce this as
    much as little old ladies from Alberta denounce the wearing of turbans
    in the RCMP!
    
    Jean
    

>        We allow our mounties to attend church services while in uniform. That
>    is celebration. What some people do not understand is that wearing the
>    sikh turbans or the First Nation braided hair is *celebration*, not
>    *expression*.
    
    You're pointing the way to a semantic rat-hole.  I see the wearing or
    displaying of turbans, yarmulke, cerimonial daggers, crucifixes
    or tonsorial hairstyles as an expression of religious preference.
    
>        If, in order to satisfy misplaced concern over religion in government
>    we must control an individuals freedom to celbrate their religion, then
>    we haven't advanced at all, have we ? Instead of forcing everybody to
>    be, say protestant or RC or what have you, we end up forcing them all
>    to be atheistic, ar at the very least, lapsed.
    
    1) Why do you consider it a misplaced concern?
    2) Expression of religion should not be displayed by members of
    a policing organization in a country un-aligned with any religion.
    3) A religiously neutral organization does not force any religion
    or atheism upon anybody.
    
>   That may be the American way - it sure as hell ain't the Canadian
    way.
    
    Why is that the American way?  The concept of religious freedom
    in North America was born in the United States, not in Canada.
    
    Kris
    
    

 

    re. .15

    	To say that religious freedom was born in the United States and not
    in Canada is an egocentric statement typical of Americans.

    	Today religious freedom in the U.S. means you better not be caught
    by state officials having a Bible study on a high school campus. It
    also means state legislators putting padlocks on the doors of Church
    run schools because Christianity is part of the curriculum.

    	In Canada, a student is allowed to hold a Bible study on his/her
    high school campus without fear of incarceration! That's religious
    freedom in my opinion!
    
    Glenn

    >>>    You're pointing the way to a semantic rat-hole.  I see the
    wearing or
        displaying of turbans, yarmulke, cerimonial daggers, crucifixes
        or tonsorial hairstyles as an expression of religious preference.
    <<<.
    
    This is *exactly* the "problem". You see it as semantics. It is not.
    
    "celebration" of a religion is not the same as "expression".
    
    One can be a devout <insert religion here> without having to express
    to other non-<insert religion here>s the precepts of one's religion.
    
    One cannot be devout without celebration.
    
    Scooter
    

.14>   Now just try to go on the other side of the fence, and see if you
.14>   can make a Sick (sp??) speak french (coming from a british colony, they
	 
    That's a helluva joke, their guy. Hey did you see what they're doing
    down in Calgary: pins, calenders, all kinds of things, real funny,
    like. Sick. That beats 'em all. Jees, I tell ya, I'm laughing like a 
    hyena or what, eh?

    Whoa there! The way the Sikhs themselves pronounce `Sikh' is very close
    to `sick' - and if you don't know how it's spelled, you may very well
    render it that way. Jean admitted that he was unsure of the spelling.
    
    ...laura

    Speaking of multiculturalism - what about multi-phonetic 
    pronounciations like: sique, sic, seek ?  Rather than l'autre .

    I was not implying any relation to a desease, I was totaly wrong in the
    spelling of the word, and I have seen the calendars they are selling
    (on TV) and I think THAT is sick (right spelling now).  Now I'd like to
    see some of you guys write correctly ALL the time in a foreign
    language!
    
    Jean
    

    re: Note 278.21 by MQOFS::DESROSIERS "Lets procrastinate....tomorrow" >

�    ... Now I'd like to see some of you guys write correctly ALL the 
�    time in a foreign language!
                       

    What "foreign" language?    :-)

    	All will be well once the Grand Canal has been 'entrenched' in
    Canadian society.....

    
    Glenn

    The base note was posing the questions directed towards "the changing
    milieu of Canadian society." The large sense I'm getting is the
    one that we'd like to "celebrate the differences." 
    
    But what do we make of the reactions of those Albertans? That they are 
    racially motivated, to me, seems an easy way out. 
    
    Are they reacting to a larger need or symptom that this largerly
    non-white, multi-cultural change is bringing to Canada?

    Three cheers for the Rocky Mountains...I suspect the main reason us
    B.C. people don't share Alberta's passionate hatred of All Things
    Eastern is that B.C. people tend to view the East as irrelevant and
    alien. Sorta like happenings on Mars...Additionally, although we too
    get shafted by Ottawa from time to time, the Polar 8 doesn't hold a
    candle to the National Energy Program.
    
    The larger problem, I think, is that we don't have a positive
    definition of `Canadian' - not, repeat, *not* American is about all
    most Canadians ever come up with. And since we don't have a good
    definition to start with, people get rattled when our ill-defined
    society changes.
    
    ...laura

    
    In regards to allowing new immigrants to continue with their
    traditions, I think it is ok as long as those traditions are not
    forced upon others.
               
    I like Canada very much, and instead of making people adapt to our
    traditions, my wife and I try to learn and understand the local
    ones. And I think we have adopted many so far.
    
    Oh, by the way, Mexicans don't ride donkeys. That is just a stereotype
    created by Hollywood. (yet one of the many, many misconceptions
    about my country of origin).
                                        
    ART
    

    When my sister moved to Canada, her eldest son was about 8 and had
    had 3 years schooling in the UK (Wales to be precise).
    She got a bit annoyed when his 'what I did at the weekend' type
    report got returned with all the 'mum' words crossed out and replaced
    with 'mom'. She argued (unsuccesfully..) that he didnt call her
    'mom' but 'mum', which is the way in most of the UK....however in
    Wales it is quite common to say 'mam' and spell it this way.
    Another cultural difference is the N American handwriting style....
    Compared to the UK where there is more leeway in handwriting style
    all the loops and rounded letters make for more similarities than
    differences in handwritten notes. It never ceases to amaze me when
    I get letters from N American friends and all the handwriting is
    so similar....its like they all had the same teacher.
    
    Anyone else notice this ?
    
    In one sense it is emminently sensible so that everyone has a good
    chance of being able to read other people's handwriting, but don't
    most formal report have to be typed, for school, college etc ?

    re .23
    
    I only started to learn english in the 5th grade, and one period per
    week at that.  I had as much english as most "Canadians" had french,
    yet I can read/write/speak it while most of my compatiots of english
    mother toungue can't do the the same.  Is it due to the fact that I HAD
    to know that much to get a job in the early '70s, you tell me.
    
    Jean
    

    RE: -1
    
    Ahem ... thats compatriots, Jean. With an "r". Compatriots of english..

RE: -.1
    <and allophone - immigrants>

Who's editing was this?

At what age does one normally become allophobic?

Cliff

    re:-.1 
    
    The stone age!

                  ...and now this...    
    
    [ It was a picture worth a thousand speeches, and it did more to ruin
    the image of Canada in the minds of millions of Francophones 
    <non-anglo, non-franco immigrants> THAN all the Sharon Carstairs, and Clyde
    Wells could ever say, together, in their crusades...
    
      The image of <devious racist bigots> Anti-French Militants, using the 
    Quebec flag as a Doormat, wiping their feet on the Fleur-de-lis before
    entering a Meeting of the Alliance For The Protection Of English Canada,
    which occured in the Ontario Bible-Belt-Town of Brockville, was beamed
    into hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of French Quebec homes
    earlier this month (April).
    
    The footage was part of a 30-minute documentary produced by
    Radio-Canada and aired on Le Point...
    
                             There ! Now let's hear from the b.bs.