New posts

are you kidding me

April 2, 2008, 8:28 p.m.
Posts: 320
Joined: Oct. 23, 2003

I'm not sure this argument entirely stands up anymore given that 1 in 6 people in Canada is a visible minority, including 1.3 million people from South Asia. And these numbers are climbing rapidly. Its not unreasonable to forecast that caucasians becoming a minority, especially in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, within the next 100 years.

So like it or not Canadian law needs to reflect the cultural and religious practices of these Canadians. They make up a large and growing segment of our population.

I personally don't have a big problem with workers opting out of hard hat regulations as long as they sign legally binding documents absolving the company of responsibility in respect to accidents involving head injuries. This won't seem hard to setup.

im a german immmigrant
i didnt come here to wear ledderhosen and eat brat wurst and sauerkraut.

Ha Ha! Made you look.

April 2, 2008, 8:51 p.m.
Posts: 193
Joined: Dec. 2, 2002

To use this topic to bring up a related point: Why do religious beliefs get special treatment? would anyone even debate it if the argument was for personal reasons: "I don't wear safety equipment because it irritates me and is uncomfortable ", or for cultural beliefs "in my culture no one wears safety equipment to do this exact task, so I'm not going to wear one here", or superstitious beliefs "my brother never wore a helmet for 10 years, then the first day we wore it he was hit in the head, so I don't dare wear one".

My personal opinion echos that of brownbear: it's fine to have religious (or any other) beliefs, but if it means you can't comply with the safety regulations of an activity, then don't do that activity at all.

April 2, 2008, 8:53 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov. 26, 2006

im a german immmigrant
i didnt come here to wear ledderhosen and eat brat wurst and sauerkraut.

But you are free to do any of those things here. Canadian law is shaped by a European cultural understanding of the world. The thing is Canada is fairly rapidly becoming a country that is home to people who are not from Europe and Canada's laws need to reflect that.

vegetarian: an ancient word for "likes to stay home with the ladies…"

April 2, 2008, 8:56 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov. 26, 2006

To use this topic to bring up a related point: Why do religious beliefs get special treatment? would anyone even debate it if the argument was for personal reasons: "I don't wear safety equipment because it irritates me and is uncomfortable ", or for cultural beliefs "in my culture no one wears safety equipment to do this exact task, so I'm not going to wear one here", or superstitious beliefs "my brother never wore a helmet for 10 years, then the first day we wore it he was hit in the head, so I don't dare wear one".

My personal opinion echos that of brownbear: it's fine to have religious (or any other) beliefs, but if it means you can't comply with the safety regulations of an activity, then don't do that activity at all.

I somewhat agree with this position but again who is making these rules? Would a hardhat law pass in India? These are rules set by a bunch of white people for whom they pose no serious problems. I still think that religious and cultural practice should have some room in Canadian laws and regulation as long as the accomidations don't violate basic charter rights.

vegetarian: an ancient word for "likes to stay home with the ladies…"

April 2, 2008, 9:09 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Feb. 2, 2005

I personally don't have a big problem with workers opting out of hard hat regulations as long as they sign legally binding documents absolving the company of responsibility in respect to accidents involving head injuries. This won't seem hard to setup.

This wouldn't work because precident would be set, and it would branch out to other areas. Here is a scenerio using my fall protection example.

I never had to use it when I started in the trade, so I feel I don't need it. I sign some legally binding document saying that my company and WCB aren't responsible if I fall and hurt myself…..okay sweet!! I don't have to wear a harness anymore. Because shit eventually happens, one day I fall off of where I was working, and I happen to land on someone else. I don't kill him, but I mess him up pretty bad. He'll probably never walk again. I am actually fine, I miss a week or so of work(out of my own pocket because I waived that right) I'll be alright, but what about this other guy? WCB has to put him on a pension(and maybe retraining), because he was wearing his hard hat, steel-toed boots, etc.

Now WCB is going to do an investigation, and find that this accident could have been prevented if I was wearing a rope and harness. So they are going to make a rule that you have to harness up when there is a chance that you could fall…..Not only for me the worker, in a fall arrest situation, but the worker that I landed on.

WCB is an insurance company so they will have to take care of the injured worker. Who are they going to go after for the losses? Your company isn't responsible if I fell, so I guess compo would have to sue me for ruining this other guy's life.

The rules are there to protect everyone.

April 2, 2008, 9:23 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Feb. 2, 2005

I somewhat agree with this position but again who is making these rules? Would a hardhat law pass in India? These are rules set by a bunch of white people for whom they pose no serious problems. I still think that religious and cultural practice should have some room in Canadian laws and regulation as long as the accomidations don't violate basic charter rights.

I'm going to guess that India doesn't have near the occupational health and safety programs that we have here in north america. Remember that WCB is an insurance company that covers EVERY employee in BC.

April 2, 2008, 9:56 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: March 4, 2003

I personally don't have a big problem with workers opting out of hard hat regulations as long as they sign legally binding documents absolving the company of responsibility in respect to accidents involving head injuries. This won't seem hard to setup.

waivers mean nothing. any good lawyer will find a way around it.

the problem is Canada is too PC and will bend over backward for any/all minorities because they don't want to offend or upset even one person. another thing that is the problem is these minorities are so quick to use the race card when and where its beneficial to their situations. what do you think would happen if the situation was reversed and it was a white person trying to create special exemptions to the rules in india or china etc and then tried to say the company is screwing him because he is white?

Being an agoraphobic adrenaline junkie would be pretty convenient, because you could get your rush from just going to the store to get some milk instead of having to jump off a mountain or out of an airplane.

they also call me "balloon"

April 2, 2008, 10:02 p.m.
Posts: 1756
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

i don't have an issue with it at all.

however, if this individual sustains an injury as a direct result of not wearing the required safety gear, then he should not be entitled to any type of compensation for said injuries.

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity ~ Seneca

April 2, 2008, 10:39 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov. 26, 2006

waivers mean nothing. any good lawyer will find a way around it.

the problem is Canada is too PC and will bend over backward for any/all minorities because they don't want to offend or upset even one person. another thing that is the problem is these minorities are so quick to use the race card when and where its beneficial to their situations. what do you think would happen if the situation was reversed and it was a white person trying to create special exemptions to the rules in india or china etc and then tried to say the company is screwing him because he is white?

Too often debates like this get framed in language that basically says "we aren't going to bend over backwards for a couple of special cases. we aren't going to change for them and if they don't like it they can go back to where they came from".

My basic point is that Canada is increasingly none white. Wearing turbans is becoming less of a feature small minority groups and more of a feature of the average Canadian. We aren't there yet but we need to stop treating these as minority issues or that this is somehow and issue of 'us' accomidating 'them'. They are us. And in signifigant numbers. Its not a bad thing. Its just how things are.

vegetarian: an ancient word for "likes to stay home with the ladies…"

April 2, 2008, 10:46 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Dec. 12, 2007

waivers mean nothing. any good lawyer will find a way around it.

the problem is Canada is too PC and will bend over backward for any/all minorities because they don't want to offend or upset even one person. another thing that is the problem is these minorities are so quick to use the race card when and where its beneficial to their situations. what do you think would happen if the situation was reversed and it was a white person trying to create special exemptions to the rules in india or china etc and then tried to say the company is screwing him because he is white?

That's why I live in North America rather than India or China where the government is less likely to give a damn about a discrimination claim. We are talking about two Canadian Sikhs so it has nothing to do with China or India anyways.

If this sawmill was smarter they would have offered these two employees an adapted work situation in the first place rather than kicking them to the curb after 20 years. The employees would've likely been happy to stay employed and not considered a lawsuit.

I have a feeling that the lawyer in this case is seeing an opportunity for himself and is really driving the whole lawsuit. Consider that possibility before accusing minorities of pulling the race card.

April 2, 2008, 10:53 p.m.
Posts: 4498
Joined: March 8, 2003

Is it possible to wrap a turban around a hard hat? I understand it may be inconvenient, but rules are rules.

On a side note: what do Sikh welders do? fireproof turbans?

April 2, 2008, 11:02 p.m.
Posts: 320
Joined: Oct. 23, 2003

But you are free to do any of those things here. Canadian law is shaped by a European cultural understanding of the world. The thing is Canada is fairly rapidly becoming a country that is home to people who are not from Europe and Canada's laws need to reflect that.

That isn't really my point though, It's like going to japan only to eat at america town and stay at the airport hilton. or going to india and complain that there are no hardhat regulations.. Im sorry but this is for their own good and like its been said it doesn't affect me at all, but i'm just sick of all these people coming here and then complaining its not like their home country.

then again if they don't want to wear a hardhat cause of some religious beliefs by all means go ahead i believe its called natural selection

Ha Ha! Made you look.

April 2, 2008, 11:03 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Dec. 12, 2007

Is it possible to wrap a turban around a hard hat? I understand it may be inconvenient, but rules are rules.

On a side note: what do Sikh welders do? fireproof turbans?

It takes a long time to put on a turban so it wouldn't work because you'd have to wear it like that all day. Plus it'd look fucked up so nobody would do it.

I never knew any Sikh welders but it would be possible to wear a small turban and wear an oversized mask on top of it.

April 2, 2008, 11:24 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Aug. 5, 2003

people blame minorities because its the easiest thing to do.

April 2, 2008, 11:27 p.m.
Posts: 1756
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

i blame the greeks.

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity ~ Seneca

Forum jump: