Is it time for gendered hair standards to go?

[hunter22]

Alright Matlock, you're 100% right and all the rest are wrong.

I wish I were Matlock. Such flowing white locks.

 

[George Wallace]

That is clearly the legal intent. The CF does not have a 'dress code.' It has dress regulations made pursuant to statutory law (ie. dress regulations have the force of law). I am sorry if that does not fit with your view of the words above, but that is my lawyer's interpretation.

I could be legally subjected to fines or detention for doing something that a woman can do, with no legally defensible reason for the difference.

So?  Women can legally wear a skirt as part of their DEU.  Does this now mean that your next query will be whether or not it is gender discrimination that males can not wear a skirt with their DEUs
?.  (Do not think that a kilt for a highland regiment is a skirt.)  Where do you really want to stop on this "gender equality"?  You are grasping at straws that have no weight in any serious argument. 

There are gender differences and those are taken into account.  As a male you are not likely going to become pregnant, breast feed, etc.  These differences exist and no gender equality argument will make the genders equal. 

If you seriously think that you should have hair that conforms to the "Female Dress Standards" of the CF, and have an ear stud, are you also going to progress to the stage that you wax and shave your limbs and upper lip?

Seriously now.  Why are you wasting time with a lawyer over such a matter?  Do we really need this in the courts?

 

[MedCorps]

It might be how we are defining 'hardship.' I don't think we should get too hung up on words, but understand that I see the difference as significant, and upholding values that aren't morally or legally right anymore.

The ball is totally in your court. If you feel really strongly about this challenge the system and force the issue to be properly examined. Stop getting your hair cut and let it grow in whatever style you think should be acceptable for the new CF.  Be prepared to be charged and defend your case in a court of law. It might end up going "all the way" to the highest courts in the land (or the military) and you can be satisfied that you made the system change when (if) you win.

Make sure the initial charge is not a NDA 129 (ideally a NDA 83, I suggest would work - "no sir, I refuse to get my hair cut to the current standard") in so that you have the right to elect a Court Martial and this thing does not end up in a summary trial with your CO, or worse, a delegated officer who then needs to deal with you then making a charter claim. It just saves everyone a lot of effort if this thing goes right to CM. 

Good luck.  Look forward to reading about it on the CMJ CM proceedings.

MC

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Go read Chapter 1 of CFP 265, you will quickly see who has authority to produce and authorize our dress regs and where that authority is granted.

You are challenging that authority.  Best know what it is. 

Arguing the PM doesn't have a military regulation haircut proves what?  That as the PM he isn't part of the CF.  Wow.  Neither is my mom. 

 

[NavalMoose]

Richard Bonce

 

[vonGarvin]

I wish I were Matlock. Such flowing white locks.

Laughed out loud at this.  Nice Matlock reference.

 

[brihard]

It absolutely does make it different. Air Canada cannot throw their members in prison for breaking the dress code, the Canadian Forces can.

No. People get thrown in the clink by the CF for failing to obey lawful orders; not merely for having long hair.

You need to recognize that there is long jurisprudential recognition of the very unique nature of the military, and of the demonstrable operation need for our commanders to be able to impose with full force of law conditions that ARE arbitrary, that ARE NOT questionable. It is recognized that as a volunteer military we make the informed decision to subject ourself to rules and regulations stricter than that found in the civilian world as part of our conditions of service/ This is not imposed on you capriciously; you need only elect not to put your John Hancock on a CF444 and you will never have to trouble yourself with the little inconveniences of military service. I would be slightly surprised if your lawyer is well versed in the legal pecularities surrounding the special distinction given to military law and regulation in our justice system.

Legally, you would not be embarking on a matter of Charter law here. That is not how the Charter applies. The Charter is invoked typically (at the level of an individual) either in a request for injunction filed in court against some government entity, or as defence to a criminal charge or in subsequent appellate proceedings. So get the Charter out of your head, because you're barking up the wrong legal tree.

The course of action you would take them would be to attempt to invoke the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in rendering a decision based on the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 7(b). You would have to contend that the C.F., "(b) in the course of employment, [differentiated] adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination." (sex).

Note, 'to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee'. You will have to be prepared to demonstrate some form of tangible adversity that you face as a result of this; not merely that you dislike that your volunteering to serve compels you to keep your hair in a manner that is deemed professional within the military, mirroring standards that exist more broadly in society at large.

I do not believe you will be successful. I do not believe it will be found that it is ultra vires the conventional authority of the military to regulate grooming standards for reasons of professional appearance, or that any such actions within the scope of what the military regulates offend the CHRA. I do not wish you luck either, because invariably you're going to end up some legal officer's time and consequently the taxpayers' money.

 

[cupper]

The hardship I am suffering is a clearly discriminatory standard between men and women for hair standards.

That is not a hardship. What harm has been done to you as a result of the difference in standards between men and women?
(Hint: The existence of the difference itself is not an answer that would be acceptable to the commission, or the courts)

There is no legally defensible reason this difference exists. No one has offered any reason that would stand up in a court.

Societal norms are sufficient grounds to implement differing standards for dress and deportment. The Supreme Court has based many of it's decisions on what is acceptable within society. It is accepted that there are differences between Men and Women (assuming that what my parents told me in the birds and bees speech is true), and as such allowances are made for those differences. But to claim that some harm has been done to you because women are allowed to wear hair long, and you are limited to short length hair cannot be substantiated.

I would also point out that religious arguments for not cutting hair actually strengthen my argument - not weaken it. The prohibited grounds for discrimination are equal - that is to say, a religious argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards would be as strong as a sex-based argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards.

The arguments are not equal. Requiring a member to wear hair short in violation of the member's religious convictions puts direct harm on the member, in that it places a restriction on the member's ability to practice his religion freely. A clear harm is being done. And as for immunity to regulations, there is none being conferred. It is a matter that the standards are modified to address the requirements of one's religion, or address differences in appearance standards for one's gender.

 

[Shamrock]

Anyone else giggling at the thought of OP having his case successful and the CF responding with, "Clippers for all!"

 

[secondchance]

Short hair of man and long hair of woman have their own historical background.Learn it before.

P.S.. Is there any army in the world with long hair for men and without religion reason ?

 

[MJP]

Short hair of man and long hair of woman have their own historical background.Learn it before.

P.S.. Is there any army in the world with long hair for men and without religion reason ?

Yes several, including one example already given in the thread.

 

[cupper]

Anyone else giggling at the thought of OP having his case successful and the CF responding with, "Clippers for all!"

And "We're all Highlanders now!"

 

[brihard]

The ball is totally in your court. If you feel really strongly about this challenge the system and force the issue to be properly examined. Stop getting your hair cut and let it grow in whatever style you think should be acceptable for the new CF.  Be prepared to be charged and defend your case in a court of law. It might end up going "all the way" to the highest courts in the land (or the military) and you can be satisfied that you made the system change when (if) you win.

Make sure the initial charge is not a NDA 129 (ideally a NDA 83, I suggest would work - "no sir, I refuse to get my hair cut to the current standard") in so that you have the right to elect a Court Martial and this thing does not end up in a summary trial with your CO, or worse, a delegated officer who then needs to deal with you then making a charter claim. It just saves everyone a lot of effort if this thing goes right to CM. 

Good luck.  Look forward to reading about it on the CMJ CM proceedings.

MC

Medcorps- Nope, such a charge wouldn't even look at the issue of the constitutionality of our dress regs. He would be charged entirely on the grounds of disobeying a lawful command. The burden of proof on the defendant in such cases is to demonstrate that the command is manifestly unlawful (R.v. Liwyj, 2010 Court Martial Appeals Court). That is to say, if there is deemed to be some ambiguity about whether our dress and grooming standards might be in contravention of some higher point of law, so long as there is reasonable uncertainty a command to cut his hair would remain a lawful order. He would be charged and convicted on that ground alone; the issue of whether the grooming standards somehow violate the CHRA would be correctly viewed as a question for a different legal proceeding.

 

[my72jeep]

Short hair of man and long hair of woman have their own historical background.Learn it before.

P.S.. Is there any army in the world with long hair for men and without religion reason ?

Danish conscrips don't need to cut their hair.

 

[mariomike]

I would also point out that religious arguments for not cutting hair actually strengthen my argument - not weaken it.

Have you read this?

Dress Code Policies – Short Hair – Exemptions – Discrimination
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Reports_AR_2004_3.html#part12

 

[hunter22]

Go read Chapter 1 of CFP 265, you will quickly see who has authority to produce and authorize our dress regs and where that authority is granted.

You are challenging that authority.  Best know what it is. 

Arguing the PM doesn't have a military regulation haircut proves what?  That as the PM he isn't part of the CF.  Wow.  Neither is my mom.

I was pointing out that social norms have changed. I understand that Stephen Harper is not subject to the CF Dress Regulations.

 

[NavalMoose]

You are though.

 

[hunter22]

Have you read this?

Dress Code Policies – Short Hair – Exemptions – Discrimination
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Reports_AR_2004_3.html#part12

Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:

 

[cupper]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:

I think you missed the point. :facepalm:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was pointing out that social norms have changed. I understand that Stephen Harper is not subject to the CF Dress Regulations.

Social norms does not = CF realities / norms.