Muslim Barber Refuses to Cut Woman's Hair

[BabyFullOfSin]

I'm currently in a FB discussion about this - we're all Canadians and while I've convinced them that the barber shop is legally in error, the concerns seem to be that the woman is being petty, money-grabbing, and immoral in seeking a court case. I'm wondering if this is partly our cultural (ie., Canadians) tendency towards politeness and conflict-avoidance or speaks more to society's preference for women in particular to be quiet and avoid conflict.

[formergothardite]

Do you have short hair? Because with short hair 4.5 weeks can mean a lot of obvious hair growth that totally destroy any hair cut you have (and seeing how short her hair is I believe that).

They offered that after she started the legal procedures, it can't be that you offer a solution only if someone sues you. Her procedures clearly state that she wants to ensure that there is a permanent solution for women there. I don't think that there is necessarily bad faith from the shop, but you can't just have a customer, tell her no you're a woman, wait for her to sue you and then more than a month later say hey I've found someone else that could come.

Exactly. And I don't get why she is suddenly the bad guy because she walked into a business and expected that they would serve her and wouldn't use that she was an unrelated woman to refuse her service. I know plenty of women who get their hair cut at a barber shop. I've had my hair cut at a barber shop since I have a pretty simple hair cut, it is usually cheaper and faster than a salon. So I don't think she was crazy to go into a barber shop and expect that they would serve her.

Plus, it doesn't sound like they could do that legally in Canada anyway. She isn't being some horrible bitch for expecting a business to obey the law.

[Creaky Mom]

again, though, I dont know that these stories about pharmacists and birth control, or turning away gay people, are similar. In both these cases, the people are using their religious beliefs in an attempt to change others. In both those cases, the action the religious person would take wouldnt actually make them do something against their religion- they had to tolerate someone else doing something against their own religion. This barber, though, would have to personally violate his religious beliefs for his body by touching her. I dont think saying "the bible says homosexuality is wrong so we are going to spread that message by kicking gay people out of our establishment" is directly parallel. He isnt forcing his views on her in the way that pharmacists or hotel owners are by refusing to work with certain people or performing certain aspects of their job.

I'm thinking the law will see it as similar. Pharmacists refusing to dispense abortion meds, doctors refusing to prescribe birth control or give abortion referrals, nurses refusing to work on an active abortion ward or a Muslim refusing to cut an unrelated woman's hair - these are all examples of work issues violating one's conscience on a religious principle. And these people have every right to hold to those principles.

As to motive; did the person refuse service on account of religious conscience or because they are a bigoted jerk? If there is evidence of hate, then of course, charges of hate crimes can be invoked alongside the charges of unlawful discrimination. The law does not solely see people who refuse service as evidence of them trying to change others.

What the law of Canada says, is that we cannot practise our religious principles which are a matter of conscience, when in business if it adversely affects another person. If we are that doctor, pharmacist, nurse, barber, we must provide someone who can provide the service, if we cannot do that service ourself, or work in another area of business.

I think the woman could be picking a better fight elsewhere. We have it really good here in Canada.

[Deleted03]

I'm thinking the law will see it as similar. Pharmacists refusing to dispense abortion meds, doctors refusing to prescribe birth control or give abortion referrals, nurses refusing to work on an active abortion ward or a Muslim refusing to cut an unrelated woman's hair - these are all examples of work issues violating one's conscience on a religious principle. And these people have every right to hold to those principles.

As to motive; did the person refuse service on account of religious conscience or because they are a bigoted jerk? If there is evidence of hate, then of course, charges of hate crimes can be invoked alongside the charges of unlawful discrimination. The law does not solely see people who refuse service as evidence of them trying to change others.

What the law of Canada says, is that we cannot practise our religious principles which are a matter of conscience, when in business if it adversely affects another person. If we are that doctor, pharmacist, nurse, barber, we must provide someone who can provide the service, if we cannot do that service ourself, or work in another area of business.

I think the woman could be picking a better fight elsewhere. We have it really good here in Canada.

unless you're a first nation woman.

I don't think the "we have it really good here" stands. If she was paid 10c less than her male coworkers by a small business would you say too that she is in the wrong for suing for a right that is hers?

She is not looking for money!

Sometimes people make bad decisions (like not telling her wait a second I'll find someone who can and it might not be possible today to cut your hair but we can set up an appointment within a couple of days, but telling her I'm sorry my religion forbids me to touch a woman so we have decided to only cater to men even if we don't ask them to put their pants down and check their junk to be our customers). He had a bad call, and now he is in a pickle. It happens and I'm sure in the end he won't go to prison, nor pay a crazy amount (since she is not after money). It sucks but sometimes people say bad things.

[BlackHawk]

I'm really amazed at how quickly it jumped from "Muslim refuses to give woman a haircut" to "It's the same as doctors refusing abortions!"

It is not the same... seriously. There is a difference between denying someone a haircut and denying them a medical service. If you can't see that, perhaps you need to figure out what's wrong with you. A haircut will not change your life for the negative like a pregnancy can.

[congusto]

I heard her on AM640 (a Toronto talk radio station) yesterday. She stated she was going through the Human Rights Tribunal process solely because she wanted a decision on the books with regards to competing rights under the Charter. The incident took place at Yonge and Dundas, IIRC, where she would be able to get a haircut in about 40 other salons or barber shops by merely walking a block in any direction.

[Mustang Sally]

I'm currently in a FB discussion about this - we're all Canadians and while I've convinced them that the barber shop is legally in error, the concerns seem to be that the woman is being petty, money-grabbing, and immoral in seeking a court case. I'm wondering if this is partly our cultural (ie., Canadians) tendency towards politeness and conflict-avoidance or speaks more to society's preference for women in particular to be quiet and avoid conflict.

This is how I'm feeling about this. My very first instinct at the headline was "Oh, she's being ridiculous" and to side with the barber. But the more I think about it, and the law in Canada, the more it makes sense to say, if you want to be a barber while Muslim, you probably should keep one staff person on hand that can cut a woman's hair so that your business is not de facto discriminating against women. Sex is a protected class in Ontario, and people, businesses, and government agencies are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of it in certain areas:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/social_areas/g ... facilities

You have the right to be free from discrimination when you receive goods or services, or use facilities. For example, this right applies to:

• stores, restaurants and bars
  hospitals and health services
  schools, universities and colleges
  public places, amenities and utilities such as recreation centres, public washrooms, malls and parks
  services and programs provided by municipal and provincial governments, including social assistance and benefits, and public transit
  services provided by insurance companies
  classified advertisement space in a newspaper.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/code_grounds/sex

No one should be forced to breach their religious ethics of course, and no one here is suggesting that a Muslim barber should be forced to touch a woman's head. But should he be required to provide an alternative to ensure that no member of a protected class is being discriminated against by his business? Yes. We do the same for people with disabilities, in places where the law enforced access to businesses and facilities. This is along those same lines.

And I think the people wanting to complain about her money grubbing or attention grubbing or whatever -- myself included, at first -- are, sadly, following the cultural narrative of women who stand up for themselves to be seen as petty whiners. I actually think she has a case, though I do not at all want anyone's religious freedom infringed upon.

[valsa]

I'm really amazed at how quickly it jumped from "Muslim refuses to give woman a haircut" to "It's the same as doctors refusing abortions!"

It is not the same... seriously. There is a difference between denying someone a haircut and denying them a medical service. If you can't see that, perhaps you need to figure out what's wrong with you. A haircut will not change your life for the negative like a pregnancy can.

There's a difference in the degree of how much it affected her to be denied the service however there is no difference when it comes to the fact she was illegally denied service for a discriminatory reason.

[Deleted03]

I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me "I'm sorry I can't serve you, you are a woman".

[BlackHawk]

There's a difference in the degree of how much it affected her to be denied the service however there is no difference when it comes to the fact she was illegally denied service for a discriminatory reason.

I do not know Canada law, and honestly when I first responded I did not see it was Canadian until you pointed it out. Either way, she was denied, and if it was illegally, fine take it to legal court. But to even imply that being denied a haircut is anywhere close to be denied a medical procedure is just plain silly. It was a haircut, for fate's sake. A haircut that, while annoying to walk down to another shop, it will not negative impact or affect her life. It was not a life or death issue. It was a haircut. To compare abortions to haircuts is apples to oranges.

Now, if what the barber did is against the law in Canada, then he should be taken to court. Simple as that.

[Mustang Sally]

I do not know Canada law, and honestly when I first responded I did not see it was Canadian until you pointed it out. Either way, she was denied, and if it was illegally, fine take it to legal court. But to even imply that being denied a haircut is anywhere close to be denied a medical procedure is just plain silly. It was a haircut, for fate's sake. A haircut that, while annoying to walk down to another shop, it will not negative impact or affect her life. It was not a life or death issue. It was a haircut. To compare abortions to haircuts is apples to oranges.

Now, if what the barber did is against the law in Canada, then he should be taken to court. Simple as that.

I don't think anyone was literally comparing the two in importance. As valsa said, it is a matter of degree.

Also, important note: up until the 1960s in Toronto, certain businesses (notably bars) were segregated by sex. (This was a holdover from olde-timey sexism that assumed that women who went to bars without escorts were prostitutes and were therefore a risk to the men - http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcs ... d/982/1019) And no, going to a bar is not necessarily a human right or a life-or-death issue, but being treated as an equal member of society is a human rights issue, and having equal access to the activities of society is important, even down to the very small things.

[Creaky Mom]

There's a difference in the degree of how much it affected her to be denied the service however there is no difference when it comes to the fact she was illegally denied service for a discriminatory reason.

The law in Canada sees all these instances, I gave above, as equally discriminatory if an alternative solution is not provided to the one seeking the service.

Again, being denied a referral for abortion from a doctor, or a haircut from a Muslim, on account of the service provider exercising their religious conscience are viewed, here in Canada, as the same thing. We must comply with the law, give an alternative provider, or find another occupation. We cannot discriminate on account of gender.

(It also doesn't mean there is something wrong with the person who states the facts. :shifty: However, you didn't realize this is Canada we are discussing.)

(Agreed, native women have received very, very little from Canadian society.

Disagreed, that generally women don't have it good here in Canada, when compared to the bulk of female humanity elsewhere.)

[BlackHawk]

I don't think anyone was literally comparing the two in importance. As valsa said, it is a matter of degree.

Also, important note: up until the 1960s in Toronto, certain businesses (notably bars) were segregated by sex. This was a holdover from olde-timey sexism that assumed that women who went to bars without escorts were prostitutes and were therefore a risk to the men - http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcs ... d/982/1019 - and no, going to a bar is not necessarily a human right or a life-or-death issue, but being treated as an equal member of society is a human rights issue, and having equal access to the activities of society is important, even down to the very small things.

I am going to chalk this up to cultural differences... I don't think it's wrong for a private business to say no to people. I was raised in this culture and perhaps it's one aspect that I need to examine in myself, but I look at it no different than Curves (here in the states, it's a women only gym) saying no men can join because it's a women's only zone. It's not the only haircut place that could have granted her the same style and cut she wanted.

In regards to the study you linked, it sounds to me like it was a government edict... which makes it wrong because the government should not discriminate. The government policies should not put one class of people lower than the other, simple as that.

[Mustang Sally]

I am going to chalk this up to cultural differences... I don't think it's wrong for a private business to say no to people. I was raised in this culture and perhaps it's one aspect that I need to examine in myself, but I look at it no different than Curves (here in the states, it's a women only gym) saying no men can join because it's a women's only zone. It's not the only haircut place that could have granted her the same style and cut she wanted.

In regards to the study you linked, it sounds to me like it was a government edict... which makes it wrong because the government should not discriminate. The government policies should not put one class of people lower than the other, simple as that.

I do see this as a cultural difference - notably, one of Americans seeming to think that some form of blanket libertarian-free-market-juju applies to all situations, everywhere, despite Canada having pretty obvious and clear laws that this type of thing is not okay. I don't mean to come down on you like a load of bricks or anything. I'm actually American and Canadian, and it gets kind of tiring to hear Americans making arguments about Canadian issues and Canadian laws as though American ideas apply.

And we do have Curves in Canada. I don't know if it's women-only, or how that works with our laws. On the one hand, I disagree with discrimination based on sex, and on the other it is undeniable that women sometimes need safe spaces of their choosing, because women are marginalized in our society.

[Minerva]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/11/20121114-121445.html

I realize Sun News was one of the few networks reporting on the remembrance day story, but they are sooo unprofessional. Operation Medusa was controversial because it killed a lot of civilians, yet the writer of that story in no way acknowledges that and implies that the protesters were against it because it killed terrorists. Rabble published the protesters' own [link=http://rabble.ca/news/2012/11/real-story-behind-remembrance-day-protest]account[/link] of what happened, and it's just baffling how far-fetched the Sun writer's representation of their motives is. Never mind that he links their action to the vandalism. I just can't believe Sun media passes as journalism...

[Deleted03]

The law in Canada sees all these instances, I gave above, as equally discriminatory if an alternative solution is not provided to the one seeking the service.

Again, being denied a referral for abortion from a doctor, or a haircut from a Muslim, on account of the service provider exercising their religious conscience are viewed, here in Canada, as the same thing. We must comply with the law, give an alternative provider, or find another occupation. We cannot discriminate on account of gender.

(It also doesn't mean there is something wrong with the person who states the facts. :shifty: However, you didn't realize this is Canada we are discussing.)

(Agreed, native women have received very, very little from Canadian society.

Disagreed, that generally women don't have it good here in Canada, when compared to the bulk of female humanity elsewhere.)

I did not say that, I said it's not an argument to use to not fight injustices. that's all.

[keeperrox]

I do see this as a cultural difference - notably, one of Americans seeming to think that some form of blanket libertarian-free-market-juju applies to all situations, everywhere, despite Canada having pretty obvious and clear laws that this type of thing is not okay. I don't mean to come down on you like a load of bricks or anything. I'm actually American and Canadian, and it gets kind of tiring to hear Americans making arguments about Canadian issues and Canadian laws as though American ideas apply.

It's not like Canadians ever have opinions about American politics using their Canadian viewpoint. Ever. :roll:

[Minerva]

It's not like Canadians ever have opinions about American politics using their Canadian viewpoint. Ever. :roll:

I rather like commenting on American politics - I think it's helpful when people with different reference points comment. I also don't think all American FJers are big on the free market juju...

[Creaky Mom]

Yes, Sun is tabloidish. However,that does not negate that the protest happened and the video they show. And, that CBC, the government network is silent, so far as I've been able to find.

[keeperrox]

I rather like commenting on American politics - I think it's helpful when people with different reference points comment. I also don't think all American FJers are big on the free market juju...

I agree. I welcome different viewpoints and fully accept that people come into discussions with very different life experiences and backgrounds that will color their opinions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that or that it makes a viewpoint less legitimate. But apparently other people do.

[Minerva]

Yes, Sun is tabloidish. However,that does not negate that the protest happened and the video they show. And, that CBC, the government network is silent, so far as I've been able to find.

Sun News is right-wing and tabloidish. Makes for some facepalm-y coverage, at times. Fact is that most 2 person protests don't get coverage no matter how outlandish their tactics. You can illegally drop a controversial banner and not get a peep from the media. You can be dragged kicking and screaming from a lawmaker's office after barricading yourself in it and no one will know. You have to really try to get a 20 person protest covered. 2 people, especially when you don't have journalist contacts? You're on your own.

[Mustang Sally]

I agree. I welcome different viewpoints and fully accept that people come into discussions with very different life experiences and backgrounds that will color their opinions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that or that it makes a viewpoint less legitimate. But apparently other people do.

People on this thread repeatedly expressed ideas about what private businesses should be allowed to do in the free market re: discrimination (namely, that they should be able to discriminate against protected classes of people because other businesses could provide competing services to those people) when Canadian laws on human rights have already established that we do something different here. And no, this is not a common FJ sentiment, which is why it dismayed me.

You really put me in my place. Good job.

[BlackHawk]

I do see this as a cultural difference - notably, one of Americans seeming to think that some form of blanket libertarian-free-market-juju applies to all situations, everywhere, despite Canada having pretty obvious and clear laws that this type of thing is not okay. I don't mean to come down on you like a load of bricks or anything. I'm actually American and Canadian, and it gets kind of tiring to hear Americans making arguments about Canadian issues and Canadian laws as though American ideas apply.

And we do have Curves in Canada. I don't know if it's women-only, or how that works with our laws. On the one hand, I disagree with discrimination based on sex, and on the other it is undeniable that women sometimes need safe spaces of their choosing, because women are marginalized in our society.

Wow... You actually made me laugh. Thank you. I am allowed to have an opinion that is different from yours based on ideas that I am used to. So I expect when someone will talk about things going on in their country (notably not the US or Canada since you claim both) that you will refrain from commenting period? We all have ideas on issues based on our country of origin. Not that big a deal really.

As for Curves, sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow everyone to have "safe spaces" based on things like gender, or you allow no one. It's a double standard otherwise. As a gay man, who is a marginalized member of society, can I have a gay man's only club?

[keeperrox]

People on this thread repeatedly expressed ideas about what private businesses should be allowed to do in the free market re: discrimination (namely, that they should be able to discriminate against protected classes of people because other businesses could provide competing services to those people) when Canadian laws on human rights have already established that we do something different here. And no, this is not a common FJ sentiment, which is why it dismayed me.

You really put me in my place. Good job.

You basically said that Americans don't get to have an opinion on Canadian matters, which is full on bullshit. If you think expressing differing opinions is trying to put someone in their place, then that's on you.

[Mustang Sally]

Wow... You actually made me laugh. Thank you. I am allowed to have an opinion that is different from yours based on ideas that I am used to. So I expect when someone will talk about things going on in their country (notably not the US or Canada since you claim both) that you will refrain from commenting period? We all have ideas on issues based on our country of origin. Not that big a deal really.

As for Curves, sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you allow everyone to have "safe spaces" based on things like gender, or you allow no one. It's a double standard otherwise. As a gay man, who is a marginalized member of society, can I have a gay man's only club?

I never said you couldn't have your opinion. I did say that it gets tiresome to hear on the internet, repeatedly, Americans opining about things going on in countries with different laws. I never said no one could comment about a country not their own - but I do think people on this thread were talking in a way that seemed to elide the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation with very explicit laws about this kind of thing.

I do actually think gay men should be entitled to safe spaces, but as I said in my original comment, I am not sure if Curves here is women-only, nor do I know how it interacts with our laws.

I am not feeling good about this conversation and I am not engaging with you anymore.