I was on a flight from London to Philly yesterday, and when it was almost time for boarding, a group of Hindu priests were ushered very quickly through, as part of a special pre-boarding, before even the top status customers like myself were allowed to board. My curiosity got the better of me, so I asked one of the ground staff (who happened to be a British-Indian lady) what was going on, and she explained to me that this was pre-arranged, these priests must apparently not be in contact with women, so they arranged to be pre-boarded by male staff, and even arranged to only be served by male flight attendants. I had never heard of anything like this, so I googled it and found this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...s-travellers-to-avoid-female-guards-1.2730402 CBSA allowed religious travellers to avoid female guards Canada Border Services Agency managers at Toronto's Pearson airport allowed a small group of Hindu priests to avoid screening by female border guards to comply with their religious beliefs, CBC News has learned. A CBSA officer, outraged that such a request would be considered, spoke exclusively to CBC News about what happened at Pearson's Terminal 3 on the evening of Monday, July 28. Fearing she could be disciplined for speaking out, the officer spoke on the condition that her name and identity be withheld. The officer said she and her colleagues — whose job involves screening passengers for entry into Canada after they arrive on international flights — were told before their shift not to switch work stations with other officers without first asking a supervisor. "The reason given was that there were five individuals coming in who had requested only to be served by male officers," said the CBSA officer in an exclusive interview with CBC's Nil Koksal. The five male travellers who made the request to CBSA are Hindu priests, called sadhus. Sadhus follow a strict lifestyle that requires them to avoid any contact with women. When CBSA officers on shift that night asked their managers why the group's request was being accommodated, they were told the men were not allowed to have contact with women for religious reasons. The CBSA officer told CBC News that managers took steps to ensure the sadhus were processed separately and were only interviewed by male officers. 'Everybody is upset' CBSA officer says The officer said she and her colleagues are outraged such a request would be considered by CBSA management. "Everybody is upset that this request was even entertained by the CBSA," she said. "People are saying 'What is next? If white supremacists come through, do we move all non-white officers from the line?'" The officer said granting such a request could undermine border guards' efforts to prevent criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants from entering the country. "The nature of the request is offensive to me as a woman," she said. "You are a guest in my country. What do you mean you don't want to deal with me because I'm a woman? We are considered law enforcement officers. I can't imagine any police force entertaining something like that." Customs worker and local union president Mark Weber said he's received complaints from members across the country about the incident at Pearson. "This has turned into a big issue for a lot of people," he said. Weber also said he was personally involved in an almost identical incident four years ago. Weber said his union is considering making a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and wants a meeting with CBSA managers to clarify the policy regarding such requests. CBC News put questions about the incident to federal Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, whose office is responsible for CBSA. A spokesman for Blaney said "we expect the CBSA to apply the same rules to all persons seeking entry to Canada." The spokesman also said the minister "has asked the CBSA to investigate these allegations and act accordingly." The spokesman added that CBSA does not comment on how individual passengers are processed. The CBSA officer speaking out said many of her colleagues — both male and female — are angry about the incident but afraid to speak out. She said CBSA's code of conduct forbids officers from speaking to the media without approval from management. "People are very, very scared for their jobs," she said. "I had to think long and hard before I [came forward] because I hope to have a long career in front of me with many more years to go. I will not have one if they find out who I am."
It’s not only Hindu priests but many other devout religions have such rules including some Jewish sects, Buddhist sects and as you’re probably aware Muslim sects. As we know with Mike Pence some devout Christian forbid being alone with women who aren’t related. In Judo have had this issue with some orthodox Jewish and Muslim students. They said that there religion forbids them Touching or being touched by women who weren’t related to them. Since I taught a co-Ed Judo class this made it complicTed. Under University rules I couldn’t ban women and had to make reasonable accommodation for religious practices. The university wasn’t going to allow or give resources for separate gender Judo classes. So largely just had to keep those religious as far apart from the women.
Regarding the situation with Canadian transit security I don’t know what Canadian rules are but my understanding is under US rules anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation laws would apply. In this case if they could go through security only dealing with male personnel that would be accommodated.
Would that include biological women who identify as men, and if not, do you consider that transphobic discrimination?
Yes, it seems like almost every religion has this very orthodox faction that has an issue with women. Religious incels, I guess.
You are. You are clearly so victimized by the mere thought of transgendered people that you somehow bring every discussion back to it. I feel bad for you that you’re struggling so much with this obsession.
You have nothing to add to the discussion than personal insults. As the article of the women working for the Canadian border services agency shows, when one starts making accommodations like avoiding women for one group of people (in this case Hindu priests), other groups of people (in this case women) feel offended (in my opinion, rightfully so). It's only a logical question: If someone says these accommodations should be made for religious groups, then what happens if they are made, but one of the people they encounter is a biological woman who identifies as a man? Who "gets priority"? One could argue that religious rights "win", or that gender identification "wins". I am almost sure that this will not remain a theoretical question only, and I am sure there are other "conflicts" between different (self-)victimized groups outside of religious people and transgender people. Why do you get so angry about a legitimate question? P.S.: And by the way, I would tell the religious guys to suck it up in this case. I even couldn't understand that they got pre-boarding and that their request to only be served by men was accommodated. Some people commented that they would call themselves a priest and demand to board first.
How did I insult you? I’m genuinely concerned for your mental health because you can’t not turn any discussion, even one’s you start, into how you’re clearly struggling with transphobia.
Again, my question is about how you would solve a conflict between two protected groups of people. You add nothing to the discussion except insults. Either you are intellectually too challenged to address the question or ideologically too blinded, or both. Forget the transgender aspect for a moment: Do you think these priests should be allowed to demand that they don't have to deal with women? My point is, if you allow this, you are already discriminating against women. And if you allow it, but there is someone who identifies as a man, but is biologically a woman, it gets even more complicated. Then, not only might you end up discriminating against women, but also against transgender people, all because you accommodated some fringe religious beliefs.
For me, the answer is that these priests should not have the right to demand that they only get served by people of a certain gender (including transgender people). I'm all for people having the right to believe in whatever they want, but once it infringes upon the rights of others, tough luck for the religious guys. Funny though how @leroy jumps to the wrong conclusion that my position here is anti-transgender lol.
I truly apologize, @AroundTheWorld, if you feel insulted by my sincere hope that you get the help you need to deal with your obsession. On the topic, I’m pretty anti-religion as it is so, no, I don’t think these priests should get such special accommodations. Doesn’t really matter what religion and/or how they identify.
I can see you’re switching subjects as we’re discussing religion and yes there are anti discrimination laws currently regarding religion. I don’t know if there currently are laws regarding the situation you describe.
Whom would you prioritize? You were the one who said the priests should be accommodated. Do you realize that accommodating their request infringes upon the rights of others? It seems ok with you if that affects just women. What if it affects transgender people?
This is the point of “reasonable accommodation” and religious freedom. Under the US view is that people should have free practice of religion. To the extant of a female TSA employee not being able to conduct a security check on a religious Hindu it’s not a violation of the TSA employees’s rights to not perform that task while it would be a violation of the Hindu’s exercise of their religion as long as it can be reasonably accommodated. Now if the Hindu demanded that TSA employee be fired and they did that would be unreasonable. Note this issue is a major hit button issue as there am have been several recent court cases airund religious accommodation such as if Christian’s who dont want to do business for LGBT or Christian pharmacists selling Plan B.
Also just to add that many of the issues that DeSantis and others have been pushing regarding exposure to LGBT content in schools and other context have to do with that is on the basis of religious grounds. That exposure to such material violates religious rights to not be exposed to things that may go against their religious sensibilities.
Except that such religious accommodation goes both ways as a religious gender separation would also mean that a male TSA employee can’t do a security check on a female Hindu or other. Would you consider that a violation of the right of the male employee?
