Meanwhile back at the perpetually offended tent/Infidel tattoo questions

[Jarnhamar]

So what did you think of the article?

 

[mariomike]

So what did you think of the article?

Like I said, Jarnhamar,

Reply #39 was news article regarding the Original Post.

It was posted without comment.

Why do reporters screw themselves when they make stupid comments like "tattoo in the shape of an AK47 Assault Rifle. These idiots wouldn't know an AK if someone butt stroke him.

If anyone has a bone to pick with the article in Reply #39 , the reporter's name and e-mail is at the top.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Once upon a time we had a round of discussions that ended with "let's not post articles without comment".  What happened to that?

 

[mariomike]

Once upon a time we had a round of discussions that ended with "let's not post articles without comment".  What happened to that?

Ok. If you feel that strongly about it.

Article removed.

Lots of articles get posted without comment - or complaint,
https://army.ca/forums/threads/130548/post-1573931/topicseen.html#new

Do you have a reference?

 

[brihard]

According to social media member was in Afghanistan in the Army and was involved in a IED attack that killed friends, apparently the tattoo was an attempt to deal with his PTSD sometime later CT'd to the navy. He regrets the tattoo.

I’ll buy that, and am a hell of a lot more sympathetic given those particulars. I hope he’s doing better these days, that’s some pretty awful crap to carry.

 

[Gimli]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the trendy infidel fashion thing come about by embracing insults?  Not factoring in how the word was used historically, these days some Muslims use it as a condemning word.  However some non Muslims now use it as a badge of honour. 

Similar to American Republicans embracing “Deplorable".  Black people taking ownership of the N word.  And if I’m not mistaken, “Christian" was originally used in a derogatory manner. 

For some reason this seems to be viewed differently.  I am contemplating why.

 

[brihard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the trendy infidel fashion thing come about by embracing insults?  Not factoring in how the word was used historically, these days some Muslims use it as a condemning word.  However some non Muslims now use it as a badge of honour. 

Similar to American Republicans embracing “Deplorable".  Black people taking ownership of the N word.  And if I’m not mistaken, “Christian" was originally used in a derogatory manner. 

For some reason this seems to be viewed differently.  I am contemplating why.

Quite likely. That notwithstanding, how would the CAF see it if a member of African descent had an N-bomb visibly tattooed on their arm, exposed while in uniform? I’m sure we can think of other slurs too that would fit analogous circumstances.

We’re speaking here within the limited context of the display, while in uniform, of tattoos that could potentially bring the CAF into disrepute. It’s not unreasonable for CAF to keep a grip on this just as any other employer can. It’s just one of many instances where the free expression of CAF member’s is subject to some limitations.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the trendy infidel fashion thing come about by embracing insults?  Not factoring in how the word was used historically, these days some Muslims use it as a condemning word.  However some non Muslims now use it as a badge of honour. 

Similar to American Republicans embracing “Deplorable".  Black people taking ownership of the N word.  And if I’m not mistaken, “Christian" was originally used in a derogatory manner. 

For some reason this seems to be viewed differently.  I am contemplating why.

You aren’t wrong. Many folks were wearing Infidels badges, hats, shirts, and apparently tattoos. We were often referred to as “Infidels”, by the very folks who wanted to kill us. I remember seeing baby onesies with “little Infidel” printed on them.

I’m sorry but I think this whole thing is stupid, one guy sees an opportunity to smear the military and he jumped all over it. We have to stop giving these assholes their 15 mins of fame.

 

[mariomike]

I figured you posted it because something there in caught your eye.

I posted it because it was relevant to the discussion.

I was genuinely curious about your thoughts in the article.

I don't know what I could possibly add. I don't have a tattoo. The meaning of the word "infidel" has already been explained by yourself and others. The last CAF rifle I fired was an FN.

The chain of command is investigating. I am sure someone will post the results - if they are made public.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sorry MM you caught me cross posting/editing.

I posted it because it was relevant to the discussion.

100 %
I actually thought it was a great article to post which highlighted some underlying problems. Not so much about the ak47 comment but the subtle accusations of possible violence from the CAF member and accusations and assumptions of ignorance.

I don't know what I could possibly add. I don't have a tattoo. The meaning of the word "infidel" has already been explained by yourself and others. The last CAF rifle I fired was an FN.

Let's get you a tattoo and go shooting an AR-15. 

 

[mariomike]

Let's get you a tattoo and go shooting an AR-15.

I'll add that to my bucket list. 

Loved that branding iron scene in Jarhead.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why was post #39 edited? Now we've got half a page of discussion with no reference?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Lots of articles get posted without comment - or complaint,

The only one I saw at the direct link was from FJAG, but a quotation was extracted.

Policy here is to avoid copying-and-pasting large articles; a link with nothing to indicate any particular point of interest is the other extreme.  I - and probably many others - have not enough time in the day to read everything, and I doubt the articles which are linked are necessarily the most balanced or authoritative takes on a matter rather than whatever the poster has found that most reinforces one point of view.  If an article makes some relevant points, snip them out and past them with the link; or, add a couple of sentences describing what might be of interest or recapitulating what you believe the article adds to the discussion.

 

[mariomike]

; a link with nothing to indicate any particular point of interest is the other extreme. 

I felt the included title was descriptive enough,

Halifax mosque leader on infidel tattoo: ‘might be on his hand, it might not be in his heart’

Guess it wasn't. I had nothing to add.  So, I removed my post.

If an article makes some relevant points, snip them out and past them with the link;

ok. I usually do. I should have put more than just the title,

“Open arms, no problem,” Khan said. “We would host him in our mosque. We would sit and have dinner with him and see what’s happening and put things in perspective. Let bygones be bygones.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit more, from both the CAF & the original Twitter-er, shared under the usual caveats ...

The Royal Canadian Navy says it has confirmed the identity of a sailor who was singled out on social media for his tattoo featuring the word "infidel" in the shape of a rifle.

Maj. Mark Gough of Maritime Forces Atlantic said late Friday afternoon that as a result, "the chain of command is investigating the matter further." He provided no other details.

Earlier, he said the navy received word about the tattoo from a Forces member who noticed a tweet from a Halifax coffee shop customer Tuesday and sent it to his superiors.

A photo in the tweet shows only a man's arm with the tattoo as he waits in line to be served. The tweet identified the man as being in uniform and wearing an HMCS Fredericton ball cap.

Gough said the military is concerned by any action or behaviour by a Forces member that would demonstrate intolerance or disrespect and is obligated to look into the circumstances.

"Some folks were offended by the tattoo," he said. "In this case, because it could be interpreted as being offensive to a certain culture, then we obviously have to look into it."

Gough said the issue will at some point be sent to the military's legal branch to determine whether any possible repercussions are warranted.

The Canadian Armed Forces does have dress instructions related to body tattoos and piercing. "Members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears," the rules state.

"Additionally, members shall not acquire tattoos that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CAF."

The tweet by Rob Hutten, which was taken down Friday afternoon, said: "Saw a navy guy in Tim's today in uniform & HMCS Fredericton hat sporting a huge 'INFIDEL' tattoo on his right arm, stylized in the shape of a machine gun. The message is clear, and scary as hell."

Reached for comment Friday, Hutten said he was offended by the tattoo and felt he had to publicize it because it was on the arm of an Armed Forces member. Hutten said he didn't talk to the man, who was standing with a couple of his friends at the time.

He said he has since been told by two people on Twitter that the sailor was the victim of an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan and got the tattoo because he was angry at the time.

"I have no hard feelings about this guy if he's not an Islamaphobe," Hutten said. "I don't want him fired, but he shouldn't be wearing that tattoo in public."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"I have no hard feelings about this guy if he's not an Islamaphobe," Hutten said. "I don't want him fired, but he shouldn't be wearing that tattoo in public."

Says Mr Judge, Jury and Executioner.

How have we reached the spot where a single individual can ruin a career and become an internet celebrity, by doxxing someone because of a tattoo that hurt his feelings and he went off half cocked without knowing the background, use or origin.? :facepalm:

Not including all the wasted time and manpower in the CoC, DJAG, press, etc investigating this.

Another word wiped from language and use, because it's deemed offensive by a single individual.

 

[FJAG]

Says Mr Judge, Jury and Executioner.

How have we reached the spot where a single individual can ruin a career and become an internet celebrity, by doxxing someone because of a tattoo that hurt his feelings and he went off half cocked without knowing the background, use or origin.? :facepalm:

Not including all the wasted time and manpower in the CoC, DJAG, press, etc investigating this.

Another word wiped from language and use, because it's deemed offensive by a single individual.

With respect--and at the risk of becoming embroiled in a thread I wanted no part of--I think that you are missing the target here.

It's not so much whether one person was offended or not but what is the person with the tattoo trying to say. I firmly believe in freedom of expression but with that freedom comes the countervailing fact that when you are expressing yourself then you are sending a message that you want others to receive. So my question is: what message is this sailor trying to convey by virtue of dedicating a fairly large patch of publicly viewable skin to a permanent marking that says "Infidel" in the shape of an automatic rifle?

No matter which way you cut it, he's either being subtlety or blatantly intolerant of something or just plain immature. The fact that some people might be offended by this is hardly surprising; neither is the fact that there are some people who would fight to the death to support his right to express himself this way. And it probably surprises no one that I stand in the middle: I'm neither outraged by nor supportive of the tattoo, however, I think that anyone who has one like this should not be surprised in the least by the fact that the chain of command will want to investigate his motives and level of common sense and make their own determination of whether or not he's what the military is about in this day and age.

:2c:

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=FJAG]So my question is: what message is this sailor trying to convey by virtue of dedicating a fairly large patch of publicly viewable skin to a permanent marking that says "Infidel" in the shape of an automatic rifle?
[/quote]
Well, he IS an infidel who carried an AR15.

 

[Cloud Cover]

It's actually what is the person intending to communicate, and whether that communication violates some established rules based order that is lawful. Any civilian can have that tattoo. Since a person's skin is not owned by the CAF, the tattoo is not an adornment on a uniform. It is not part of the uniform. It appears to be part of a "creed",  the interpretation of which is subjective and not necessarily designed or intended  to be offensive, racist, intimidating or blasphemous.  It may be all of those things to some people, but that's just too bad for them if the creed is bona fide. In the same manner the CF must accommodate religion with uniforms  and gender (and gender choice) with requested accommodations, they must accommodate creed. It isn't optional.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

 

[mariomike]

Any civilian can have that tattoo.

Where I worked, before I retired, ALL tattoos had to be covered.

Long-sleeve shirts in July and August.

Now, departmental policy is, "Tattoos depicting nudity, obscenity, racial, sexual, political or social bias must be covered."

That's with a union. AFTER you get hired. After you are off probation.

In our business, it doesn't matter how well we do our job; if a member of the public feels our self-expression comes off as offensive, we are of no use to them.

The barometer was pretty simple.  How would people, especially senior citizens, feel with us coming into their homes.

For Dispatchers, it was less of a concern.

Canada: Can An Employer Prohibit Tattoos And Piercings?

The answer on hiring is simple and straightforward – an employer can legally choose not to hire based on any (visible) tattoos or piercings. There would be no violation of the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not relevant. This simple statement applies whether it is a unionized workplace or a union free workplace
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/460616/employee+rights+labour+relations/Can+An+Employer+Prohibit+Tattoos+And+Piercings
The situation is more complicated after an employee has been hired. Here the employer's rights differ greatly depending on whether it is a unionized workplace or a non-union workplace.

As noted, the rules differ once an individual is hired depending upon whether it is a unionized workplace or not.

Best bet is to wait until AFTER you get your union card.

Edit for spelling.