I Popped the Question (Kilt at Work)

[Big Homestead]

Kilt banning is funny. If the Indians of the east can wear a turban in the Canadian RCMP, then kilts should be allowed any where.
Just my 2 cents.

Cheers

[Archangel]

Kilt banning is funny. If the Indians of the east can wear a turban in the Canadian RCMP, then kilts should be allowed any where.
Just my 2 cents.

Cheers

Let's not go too far into this but here's the basic justification and difference.

A turban is a religious requirement. The wearer faces the equivalent of Hell or his own social ostracism for not wearing it. (In a simplistic way, only one religion has an adult choice, in nearly all others the follower is born into it. This is not the forum to discuss that.)

The next thing is that what does wearing it or not have to do with policing? It's only our perception of the uniform but that restricts and causes a perception of bias. (Let's not go to that, please.This is not the forum for that either.)

So, the kilt is out of this kind of discussion since it is neither a religious requirement nor does it have any other national, ethnic, etc., right attached to it. It is not, and never was, worn by every man in Scotland. It is a choice, a good one I might add. (In Canada, you could push the gender issue, if a woman can wear a skirt, so can you. Talk to your lawyer.)

So, kilts and turbans are apples and oranges, as are religious requirements and personal choices.

Be aware that the mods are very reluctant to have this kind of discussion take place. I respect that. I'm purposely keeping my response short and simple but (Canadian) Human Rights Representation is what I do.

[Big Homestead]

Let's not go too far into this but here's the basic justification and difference.

A turban is a religious requirement. The wearer faces the equivalent of Hell or his own social ostracism for not wearing it. (In a simplistic way, only one religion has an adult choice, in nearly all others the follower is born into it. This is not the forum to discuss that.)

The next thing is that what does wearing it or not have to do with policing? It's only our perception of the uniform but that restricts and causes a perception of bias. (Let's not go to that, please.This is not the forum for that either.)

So, the kilt is out of this kind of discussion since it is neither a religious requirement nor does it have any other national, ethnic, etc., right attached to it. It is not, and never was, worn by every man in Scotland. It is a choice, a good one I might add. (In Canada, you could push the gender issue, if a woman can wear a skirt, so can you. Talk to your lawyer.)

So, kilts and turbans are apples and oranges, as are religious requirements and personal choices.

Be aware that the mods are very reluctant to have this kind of discussion take place. I respect that. I'm purposely keeping my response short and simple but (Canadian) Human Rights Representation is what I do.

Your right, a debate for another place and time.

But on that thought, the history of the turban is very interesting. I'd encourage people to look at it. It's not the history you'd think it is, and learning about dress from different cultures is just fun to do.

Cheers

[ncof300d]

Well, it is Saturday morning. I am at the office right now as the current load necessitates my being here. By the way I am wearing a kilt. On coworker asked me about what I was wearing. He was pretty cool about it.
(slowly chipping away at the wall to wear a kilt)

[Freedomlover]

So, the kilt is out of this kind of discussion since it is neither a religious requirement nor does it have any other national, ethnic, etc., right attached to it. It is not, and never was, worn by every man in Scotland. It is a choice, a good one I might add. (In Canada, you could push the gender issue, if a woman can wear a skirt, so can you. Talk to your lawyer.)

But the kilt IS a religious requirement! If I failed to wear it I would be unfaithful to my beliefs, i.e. that a man is a man for all 'o that, and must by reason, logic, and faith, do that which nature requires.

[Archangel]

But the kilt IS a religious requirement! If I failed to wear it I would be unfaithful to my beliefs, i.e. that a man is a man for all 'o that, and must by reason, logic, and faith, do that which nature requires.

I'm going to assume that this is still being light-hearted and nobody's going to go on a tear on this discussion.

Generally, for a defense of religion you would need to demonstrate belonging to an established church which has wearing a kilt as a strong and established doctrine and that not doing so would compromise your relationship with your Diety. You would also have to a member for a significant period of time. So, for example, using Canadian examples, a group of Pentecostal Christians were able to avoid using biometric measures ("mark of the Beast"). A group, protesting joining a union, tried to have their dues shifted. They hadn't been church members long enough and failed.

Your actual argument is gender, a reflection on your manhood. You're basically saying your idea of the perfect man is one who wears a kilt. You'd have two issues with that: that's not a common enough position (outside of this forum); and the "ideal man" as a reference point is one that Human Rights is basically trying to deconstruct. (Before anybody goes on a tear, take time to understand what that really says, please.) Actually, if you applied the argument to deconstructing the stereotypical male model, which it does, you might have a better chance.

The other thing is that you need to have the basic law already in place. Canada does, the US doesn't really, but it's making some progress.

[Freedomlover]

I'm going to assume that this is still being light-hearted and nobody's going to go on a tear on this discussion.

My comments were mainly tongue in cheek, though a genuine defense of that position would be a simple matter.

[taxdragon]

I have asked to wear my kilts to work and I was told no. I asked on what grounds and was told a kilt was not professional. I then brought up that the female employees were allowed to wear a skirt so what was the difference? They did not really have an answer but still said no. I could fight it through the union and equal employment dept. but not sure I need that kind of hassle right now. So now is all week in pants and weekends in kilts.

[Archangel]

I have asked to wear my kilts to work and I was told no. I asked on what grounds and was told a kilt was not professional. I then brought up that the female employees were allowed to wear a skirt so what was the difference? They did not really have an answer but still said no. I could fight it through the union and equal employment dept. but not sure I need that kind of hassle right now. So now is all week in pants and weekends in kilts.

Yes, very important point, almost every Human Rights victory means that somebody was out of work for a very long time. And it took a number of weak cases (more people out of work) before there was a case strong enough to proceed on.
So, while you may right, it may be years in court before you get your job back. (I was just reading a case, not kilts, that first came to court in 1982, the guy actually won in 2001 but they are still arguing over his pay entitlement and costs.) Not a great picture but principles cost. Compared to many other issues, is wearing a kilt at work worth that kind of fight?

Of course, if you have a supporting union, you could file a grievance and not have to force the issue directly. If there is a Human Rights Representative (me), they're being paid to deal with that for you.

[taxdragon]

I think before I fight that battle I better have another job. Any openings for a railroad guy/computer repairman in London, Ontario?