What’s In A Name? - Sikhs and Immigration
July 26, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
The latest tempest in a teapot - Immigration officials asking Sikh immigrants using common surnames Kaur and Singh to change their names to avoid mixups.
You know, I really don’t care where you’re from, as long as you WANT to be Canadian. If you are going to raise a stink about a request that could actually SPEED UP your immigration process because then bureaucrats will not be as confused? Why not take it? And if you won’t, and your name is so important to you that you’ll raise a ruckus, then maybe Canada isn’t the country for you.
“Today, they have singled out Singh and Kaur. Tomorrow, they may dislike Mohammed, and how soon before names such as Lee or Smith are targeted?” he said.
I’m an Edwards. That’s pretty common. I hear in Wales every 5th person is named Edwards. I could care less if they asked me to change my name. My name doesn’t define me. Get over it.
I see the words ‘long standing’ as in policy, are now being dropped from reports.
Funny there was no outrage when Chretien/Martin were PMs….
Actually, that isn’t how immigration applications are processed. That is a common misconception of Canada’s immigration system, that there are fast tracks, but I promise you, there are not.They are processed in the order they are received, so no matter what you do to your application, it will not speed anything up. The more applications Canada gets in one year, the longer it takes. Couple that with the number of immigrants we let in each year, and the line can get pretty long. The last count was about 800,000 people in cue, and we let in between 250,000 - 260,000 a year.
These surnames are closely linked to their religions and customs, and you are advocating that they simply ‘get over it’ and change their names, so our bureaucrats can find their file more easily?
CIC has no right to ask these people to change their names, and they’ve acknowledged that. To suggest so smacks of arrogance and intolerance. Interestingly, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of a person’s application being held up, or even rejected, over this issue with the last name.
I knoew it wouldn’t take long for someone to attempt to silence discussion with the “intolerance” club.
You don’t even know for sure what it has to do with their religion, yet it “smacks”. I’ll bet you think the turban safety issue is an “intolerance” issue worthy of the attention of the Human Rights commission too, eh?
From here:
“But for those Sikhs who choose to be baptized, or initiated into the orthodox order of the faith, their previous surname is dropped for Singh or Kaur to symbolize unity and to remove names used to identify social standing within India’s caste system.”
It’s about separating themselves from Hindus. It’s about being different, and unity with their community. It has nothing to do with their religion, except with respect to differentiating themselves from Hindus - not really a pressing concern in Canada.
Shane - It’s about asking somebody to change their name arbitrarily.
Frankly, does it matter what the origins of that name are? No. As long as it is the person’s legal name, who the hell cares?
Fundamentally, this whole business boils down to a brain-damaged bit of policy with no valid roots beyond some bureaucrat trying to make their lives easier.
Asking someone to change their name on migration to Canada is purely insulting. Perhaps others have lesser attachments to their names and the history attached to them, but certainly I would find it very offensive to have someone demand I change my name in order to immigrate to another country.
You sir, have a very different perspective on what’s important than I do. Who really cares what your name is? You aren’t using your real name right now. Who is to say what your real identity is - Grog or Mike McCarthy? It doesn’t really matter, and it doesn’t change who you are.
Immigration has been fraught with name changes since time immemorial. Some as a result of clear policy, some as simple spelling mistakes. People have lived with it before, what makes any one people group so special? Count how many variations there are in spelling Chinese names, French names, German names, Russian names!
Your naysaying is getting boring, Grog.
Herman:
As I am sure you are aware (and you seem to acknowledge), family names and given names are important to a great many people. Surely, it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to change their legal name rather than having this imposed by the state via the immigration process?
Geez, I thought you were a libertarian . . ., or is this the kind of issue that helps to define you as a quasi-libertarian?
Quasi is right. I can’t call myself a complete libertarian, because I think the government does have a role in saving people from themselves (aka. securing public health and well-being). I just don’t think it’s a very big one.
You are losing sight of one important fact though. This was never something imposed. It was only suggested - maybe encouraged at worst. It’s not quite that bad yet…
You sir, have a very different perspective on what’s important than I do.
Yes, I do.
You aren’t using your real name right now. Who is to say what your real identity is - Grog or Mike McCarthy? It doesn’t really matter, and it doesn’t change who you are.
Using an alias online is not equivalent to changing my legal name. For many people, their legal names, especially their family name, is a connection to their cultural past.
Yes, mistakes happen that result in name changes during immigration. That doesn’t justify demanding someone change their name as a matter of bureaucratic policy.
Your naysaying is getting boring, Grog.
Deal with it - surely you aren’t so naive as to believe that your opinion is the only valid perspective.
Why would you want to force someone to change their name? A name is an identity. Also I suggest you do some more research into the Sikh religion, the Singh or Kaur (meaning lion or brave warrior lady) is quasi-religious in nature to them, and it’s important to them. I respect your opinion that your name is not important to you, but you must respect that someone else believes differently. And why should Canada not be a country for some one who does not want to change his name?
Shane, I did mention ‘religion and customs’, yet you chose to focus only on the religion. It is part of their culture and customs, as you yourself pointed out, and a bureaucrat has no right to demand a name change without a real reason. Making their job easier isn’t one.
Your own response to Grog shows an unwillingness to consider that what is important to others may count too:
You sir, have a very different perspective on what’s important than I do.
So? Why should I care if you wouldn’t mind changing your name to suit the fancy of some self-important government agency? I do care that someone minds.
And as for your last point, the implication was an encouragement to change their surname. That is far different from providing another name they may also use, which is a reasonable request. I have spoken with someone whose application was denied for exactly this reason, policy or no, so their outrage is justified.
“These surnames are closely linked to their religions and customs,”
—————————————————
OH FOR **FUX SAKE**!
What *ISN’T religous with the damned Sikhs?
They have be allowed to be break the RCMP uniform dress code because of their religion. The CF uniform code needs changing because of *THEIR* damned religion.
Their kids in school get to carry KNIVES because of their bullshit religion.
When the school asks if the knives can be plastic, nope they have to be REAL. BECAUSE of their fucking religion!
The school says “fine - real knives then. Would you please rivet them permanently in the sheath so they can’t be drawn?”
The answer “Of course not!” — Why? (are you ready??) Because of their asshole religion!
Fuk every time you turn around some Liberal appointed shit judge is sticking it to Christians, - - - But do we EVER DARE to say no to a Sikh? NEVER!!!
THEIR gawwdamned religion is untouchable. Anyone could tie up a Christian and piss on him in town square but not the whiny, asshole Sikhs noooooooo.
So what did the RCMP lose by allowing Sikh officers to wear their turbans?
What did the CF lose by accomodating minorities?
some Liberal appointed shit judge is sticking it to Christians
Interesting. Please provide some recent examples, dated and linked.
Anyone could tie up a Christian and piss on him in town square
Ditto.
An oh, the requirements about kirpans in schools are following.
A school can ask that the kirpan be blunt, limited in size, sheathed in sealed cases or clothing, and worn underneath clothing. Such restrictions are not banned by the Court, rather, the Court struck down the practice of issuing blanket bans on kirpans.
John, you need to see somebody about that anger problem.
Yes, Sikhs wear turbans and carry kirpans. Have the turbans ever harmed anyone? They modified, not broke, the uniforms of the RCMP and CF to accommodate these people. There’s still no confusing them with non-CF or non-RCMP people, which is the point of the uniform.
The kirpans are symbolic of their defense of their religion. Yes, some children must carry them to school. Any child who removes it from the sheath should be instantly punished. Just so you know, I don’t think anyone’s ever been hurt by a sheathed kirpan.
How exactly are judges ’sticking it to Christians’? I must have missed that one.
“…but certainly I would find it very offensive to have someone demand I change my name in order to immigrate to another country.”
Then don’t immigrate and avoid feeling offended.
John’s angry response was uncalled for but unfortunately understandable.
Abbatior & Mezba I hope you don’t mind but I’m going to explain my position without offerring links, examples & dates. (Please, I have too many other things to do :)
I believe John’s anger comes from a frustration at seeing Sikhs win ruling after ruling in favour of their religion and culture whenever it comes into conflict with what many would term “traditional Canadian culture”.
Whether you agree or not I can be confidant in stating that the traditional RCMP uniform with the Stetson and red tunic was a cultural Canadian icon.
Individual Sikhs had the choice. Wear the uniform or don’t join the force. They refused to make that choice and demanded that a traditional Canadian cultural icon change for them. (Mezba, with respect to your opinion, It was changed). You say “modified”. Modification is change.
It was changed because a Sikh refused to wear the uniform as it was accepted by (basically all) Canadians. He refused because of his religion. Where was this famous division of church and state that the left are so keen on then? They certainly grasp that straw when it comes to limiting the percieved influence of Christianity but when it comes to eastern religions they are silent.
It could also be a bit upsetting because many of the Sikhs who cry bigotry are recent arrivals to Canada. It may be wrong but I can’t help thinking if Canadian customs upset you so and run so contrary to your own beliefs then perhaps you should have chosen somewhere else to immigrate to. You certainly thought Canda was fine when you you were in the line up to enter but once you get in you wail about how unfair you are treated and how hard done by you are.
John migh also is a bit resentful because of court decision in recent years in relation to gay lobbyists vs. Christion groups. —-(Maybe who knows, my guess)—- The Delwin Vreind school teacher decision comes to mind. One can only wonder what the result would have been if Mr. Vreind hadn’t been a teacher at a Christion school but - say, a janitor or support worker at an Islamic or Sikh admistered organization.
Sure, absolutely you can argue that these are completely different issues and you’d be right. But none the less one could easily percieve that the courts consider Christian religious rights to be negotiable wihile others are ironclad and must not be interfered with.
My 2 cents. Have a good night.
Derek,
Your arguments are well thought-out and presented clearly. I thank you for that.
The Stetsons and red tunics are still the traditional dress uniform of the Mounties. The vast majority of officers would still wear this uniform - except, of course, the Commisioner :). I see no reason to object to a small minority being allowed to wear a turban instead of the Stetson. Now, if everyone had been forced to wear turbans…
Division of church and state exists to protect the citizens from a government-encouraged religion, not to isolate the state from religion. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be allowed to have any nun teachers, or minister MPs. Allowing a group to wear their turbans is not tantamount to encouraging the religion, so that argument is a red herring.
You raise an interesting hypothetical with the homosexual employee of a non-Catholic religious school, but it is just a hypothetical. Anything less than equivalent treatment would be hypocritcal in the extreme.
I would argue that our society must continue to adapt to a high presence of minorities, at the expense of our prior Christian-focused society. It is too late to do otherwise - it would only create a potentially dangerous situation where minorities would be increasingly on the outside looking in, and that isn’t working so well elsewhere (i.e. French riots)
The religious rights of individual Christians remain as strong as those of non-Christians.
Well, Captain Kesur Singh was one of the first Sikhs to arrive in Canada under Queen Victoria’s army, and he served in full “British” uniform in Canada which included a turban. This was way back in 1897. So their descendants are part of a group that has been in Canada for a 100 years, and as such had full rights to demand the right to wear a turban in the RCMP.
And it’s not right to say to immigrants well if you don’t like it go back. They came here, they made their home, and now parts of their new home need to accommodate their beliefs. It’s not that Canada can sustain itself without immigrants - decades of StatsCan research shows immigration keeps this country ahead.
And why should Canada have a particular job where immigrants should be excluded from (such as the Mounties minus turbans prior to 1990)? It’s not true integration if we tell immigrants “come here but don’t work here, here and here.”
Anyways, this was my 0.02, and thank you Derek for presenting your arguments in a clear and non-hostile manner.
[...] to me. i mean, isn’t it to everyone? that was a stupid and discriminatory policy. but then i read things like this and i choke a little. people can be so …. textbook sometimes that i am surprised they don’t trip [...]
Shane,
I have never seen anything as discrimatory as having someone change his or her name for administrative purposes, it bothers on intolerance and ignorance. Yes, Canadians are embroigloed in ignorance about other races and other cultures. Soon they will ask the natural owners of the land (the native indians) to change their names so as to suit the “john’s and mary’s of canada. I wonder how they will feel if the Indians now asked them to change their name when they possessed their land in times past.
I consider the request “utter rubbish” and rude.
Why do East Indians in general stink so bad? Everytime I am in line behind them we all gag at the B.O. smell. This is the majority as far as I can tell. Do they not use deodorant for religious reasons?