New Dress Regs 🤣

[Jarnhamar]

I'm not bigoted against white cishet men; I am one myself after all.

I call this the "I'm not racist, my wife is black" defense.

It's not the being cis that's the problem; it's the only considering cis viewpoints when drafting policy that's the problem.

Look at this logically. Right now the government that 33% of Canadians voted for (our of the Canadians that actually voted), is drafting policy and calling the shots. They even lost the popular vote.

99.7% isn't a small ratio of the population to base policy and decisions from. That's almost our whole population.

I'll also be blunt: I think this viewpoint is a clear indication that you're just a terrible person.

I actually don't agree with Colin here but he does make valid points.

Part of the problem is that a certain side of the argument (bigger picture wise) reacts on pure emotion and can't look at things objectively. When they don't agree with someone that other person is automatically a bigot, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, a bad person. Colin isn't a terrible person at all, he's great. He just has a different opinion.

 

[Remius]

A member at a unit located in a metropolitan city with a strong LGBT culture gets an LGBT pride symbol tattooed on their face, as an outward expression of their identity. Their CoC at the time is supportive as it does not contravene the regulations on tattoos being affiliated with hate groups, etc, and there is no impact to the performance of their duties.

Three years later the member is posted to another city and unit, which will be deploying shortly on an operation in a country where homosexuality is illegal and there is a strong anti-LGBT sentiment based on religious and cultural norms. While a SOFA exists preventing the member from being prosecuted under the country's dubious legal system, there are concerns that the member may become the target of a capable adversary who would exploit their image to undermine the mission and sow distrust among the strongly conservative host nation forces.

Covering the member's face for six months is neither practical nor dignified. Based on the climate in the operating environment, there is no reasonable way to conceal the tattoo.

Not deploying the member, or forcing them to cover the tattoo while on deployment, could be seen as homophobic and could result in negative media attention being drawn to the mission. The issue in question isn't the member's identity or orientation, but rather how a permanent political and cultural symbol which is acceptable in Canada could result in operational tensions with host nation forces in theatre.

We face that with any posting to what we would call progressively challenged countries. Ukrainian Canadians that might have to interact with Russians a Black soldier deployed to an area where black people are seen as inferior or women. Women to the Middle East. Or any other thing you can think of,

Having a diverse force also means we can do a lot of things others can’t.

 

[btrudy]

Colin isn't a terrible person at all, he's great. He just has a different opinion.

I'm sorry, but whether or not certain people inherently deserve basic human rights and to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same opportunities as others is not "do they like pineapple on pizza". It's not a simple difference of opinion.

Bigotry does make someone a bad person.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Bigotry does make someone a bad person.

I have only ever met a handful of people around the world without a somewhat bigoted view of some group. In fact the group I find most pissed off at the Trans are gays. My guess that the group that you hang out with will be much faster to crucify you for wrongthink, than us "bigoted types".

 

[Thunderbug]

We face that with any posting to what we would call progressively challenged countries. Ukrainian Canadians that might have to interact with Russians a Black soldier deployed to an area where black people are seen as inferior or women. Women to the Middle East. Or any other thing you can think of,

Having a diverse force also means we can do a lot of things others can’t.

I would argue the difference is that nobody chooses to be black or female. That's a condition of your birth, and discrimination on the basis of race or sex is prohibited in Canada.

Getting a face tattoo is a choice you make as an adult, and is both long-lasting and difficult to reverse. It's not a question of diversity, it's a question of people making body modifications which are not medically necessary and can't be easily removed.

 

[Winds]

I'm sorry, but whether or not certain people inherently deserve basic human rights and to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same opportunities as others is not "do they like pineapple on pizza". It's not a simple difference of opinion.

Bigotry does make someone a bad person.

btrudy, are you suggesting that basic human rights should be denied to certain people? Or are you suggesting that someone else in this forum has made such an argument?

 

[Remius]

I would argue the difference is that nobody chooses to be black or female. That's a condition of your birth, and discrimination on the basis of race or sex prohibited in Canada.

Getting a face tattoo is a choice you make as an adult, and is both long-lasting and difficult to reverse.

Being gay isn’t a choice either. Your example is a posting in another country so they won’t care what is prohibited in Canada. Countries that are anti homosexual won’t care tatoo or not. Choice or not.

We should manage our strengths like any other modern organisations and we shouldn’t develop policies based on how other countries view things. If they don’t like racial minorities, women that work or homosexuals to effing bad for them.

 

[btrudy]

btrudy, are you suggesting that basic human rights should be denied to certain people? Or are you suggesting that someone else in this forum has made such an argument?

The latter.

I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.

 

[Kilted]

I don't get why people need to be able to dye their hair in unnatural colours? If I was doing a job interview and someone came in with pink hair, I wouldn't hire them. It's a personal choice and isn't protected under the Charter or Human Rights legislation.

 

[btrudy]

I don't get why people need to be able to dye their hair in unnatural colours? If I was doing a job interview and someone came in with pink hair, I wouldn't hire them. It's a personal choice and isn't protected under the Charter or Human Rights legislation.

It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.

 

[Thunderbug]

Being gay isn’t a choice either. Your example is a posting in another country so they won’t care what is prohibited in Canada. Countries that are anti homosexual won’t care tatoo or not. Choice or not.

We should manage our strengths like any other modern organisations and we shouldn’t develop policies based on how other countries view things. If they don’t like racial minorities, women that work or homosexuals to effing bad for them.

I'm not saying that being LGBT is a choice. I am saying getting a face tattoo is a choice. Not all LGBT members have face tattoos.

The question I'm raising isn't whether some who is LGBT should be deployed, it's a question of whether there should be reasonable limits on what permanent body modifications someone can make to their face, as such modifications could have unforeseen or unintended consequences on how they are perceived. There are many examples of culturally sensitive images which do not promote hate but could be used to undermine our credibility if they were tattooed on somebody's face.

 

[Kilted]

It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.

Which I suppose could potentially effect government hiring (which I think is a bit of a long shot), but it would have no bearing on the private sector who are not subject to the charter.

 

[Winds]

The latter.

Got it, I am still unsure which "basic human rights" you are suggesting trans individuals would be denied by Colin's recommendation that the CAF not spend time and resources in "actively recruiting" them. Active recruitment of trans individuals would mean that the CAF spends resources (time, money) on recruitment efforts that actively target them as a subset of the population. The CAF doesn't do much in the way of active recruitment for the majority of identifiable groups of people, not even when it comes to actively recruiting for under strength trades (such as college students in computer networking programs to become signallers). Are you suggesting that this amounts to denial of their basic human rights. Is it a basic human right to have the fighting force of one's country spend money on ads that specifically target one's demographic? ...which right is that exactly?

For the record, I am for the new changes to the Dress Regs, in general, and believe that it is a much superior policy to a system where accommodation must be formally sought. I also look forward to being able to where my toque sans gloves, specifically.

 

[Thunderbug]

It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.

Sweet, when are we ditching uniforms?

 

[Kilted]

A member at a unit located in a metropolitan city with a strong LGBT culture gets an LGBT pride symbol tattooed on their face, as an outward expression of their identity. Their CoC at the time is supportive as it does not contravene the regulations on tattoos being affiliated with hate groups, etc, and there is no impact to the performance of their duties.

Three years later the member is posted to another city and unit, which will be deploying shortly on an operation in a country where homosexuality is illegal and there is a strong anti-LGBT sentiment based on religious and cultural norms. While a SOFA exists preventing the member from being prosecuted under the country's dubious legal system, there are concerns that the member may become the target of a capable adversary who would exploit their image to undermine the mission and sow distrust among the strongly conservative host nation forces.

Covering the member's face for six months is neither practical nor dignified. Based on the climate in the operating environment, there is no reasonable way to conceal the tattoo.

Not deploying the member, or forcing them to cover the tattoo while on deployment, could be seen as homophobic and could result in negative media attention being drawn to the mission. The issue in question isn't the member's identity or orientation, but rather how a permanent political and cultural symbol which is acceptable in Canada could result in operational tensions with host nation forces in theatre.

I think in that case, regardless of how bad it would look, the CAF would have a responsibility not to deploy that person, not only for their safety but for the safety of those that they are working with.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Basic human rights seems to be subjective and thrown around a lot. For example the United Nations say that broadband access is a basic human right

The CAF takes away basic human rights by not giving recruits broadband internet in their room, or take when they take students phones away.

 

[mariomike]

Interesting discussion. I admit I had to look up a few terms I was unfamiliar with, because I was afraid to ask.

Only question the old army doc asked me along those lines was, "Do you like girls?"

Plenty of "How to dress for the interview" threads.

I wonder if this "New Dress regs" discussion will, or will not, influence how, going forward, applicants ( who read it ) will dress and groom themselves for "The Interview"?

Or, how members who release to interview for the RCMP, or other "public facing" careers will dress and groom?

It's rather old-fashioned to say this, but I believe first impressions are important when serving the public.

I read it only takes 7 seconds to form a first impression.

 

[Kilted]

Sweet, when are we ditching uniforms?

Our own logistic system will do that before long on its own without outside interference.

 

[Kilted]

Got it, I am still unsure which "basic human rights" you are suggesting trans individuals would be denied by Colin's recommendation that the CAF not spend time and resources in "actively recruiting" them. Active recruitment of trans individuals would mean that the CAF spends resources (time, money) on recruitment efforts that actively target them as a subset of the population. The CAF doesn't do much in the way of active recruitment for the majority of identifiable groups of people, not even when it comes to actively recruiting for under strength trades (such as college students in computer networking programs to become signallers). Are you suggesting that this amounts to denial of their basic human rights. Is it a basic human right to have the fighting force of one's country spend money on ads that specifically target one's demographic? ...which right is that exactly?

For the record, I am for the new changes to the Dress Regs, in general, and believe that it is a much superior policy to a system where accommodation must be formally sought. I also look forward to being able to where my toque sans gloves, specifically.

Do we have that many transgender people actively seeking enrollment in the CAF, and would that number actually go up with specific advertising? And how many of those people that the CAF would be targeting would actually be suitable for service? For example, unless it's changed, persons in the transition stages are not allowed to join, plus all of the other issues that may prevent your average person from joining?

 

[Winds]

It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.

While I'm all for allowing CAF members to have dyed hair, I don't believe that personal appearance is covered under Freedom of Expression.

If you're going to expand the legal definition of free expression that far, then you could also argue that any physical act that you take could be considered a basic human right... As Thunderbug suggested, the same argument could be made for going nude in public.