Long live Þórr
October 10, 2014 7:53 PM   Subscribe

In recent days, news stories have emerged about a wilderness expedition company, Amaruk, rejecting an applicant due to her religious beliefs and affiliation with a restrictive Christian evangelical school.

The emails between Amaruk and the job applicant can be found here, and the complaint made to the BC Human Rights Tribunal here. Amaruk denied being discriminatory, saying that the applicant was rejected due to her lack of qualifications and that any discussion of same-sex marriage was a "mere statement of opinion."

But now more questions are being raised: who the hell are Amaruk Wilderness?
posted by Lemurrhea (83 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
Wow. This is weird and unpleasant all over.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 8:03 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


Look, my name ends in en, which means I can claim to be of Norwegian ancestry. I could be wrong, but that's how I was raised. As a descendant of pagan rapers and pillagers, I for one welcome a Christian with rapers and pillagers as ancestors.

Let's make some Æbleskivers!
posted by cjorgensen at 8:08 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


She's not qualified. A biology school shouldn't be mixing religion (creationism) in with science like TWU do.
posted by Talez at 8:08 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


You're using the term "science" very loosely.
posted by i_have_a_computer at 8:13 PM on October 10, 2014


Yeech. It's hard to decide who comes off worse in this. Can I root against everybody involved?
posted by schmod at 8:13 PM on October 10, 2014 [11 favorites]


Um so basically everyone involved in this is yucky on some level?
posted by Hermione Granger at 8:14 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


There is a reason I tagged this with "whoeverwinswelose".

I would encourage people to read the emails, though! They have moments of hilarity! And one quote that I decided against putting as the Mefi title because it was a little too rough.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:17 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


She's not qualified. A biology school shouldn't be mixing religion (creationism) in with science like TWU do.

Okay, not to defend the institution in general, but they didn't reject her out of scientific qualifications, they rejected her because "you have beliefs about who people can and can't sleep with that we don't like". And that has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with science. A tourism company shouldn't be mixing sexual ethics beliefs with job applications.

Granted, in this case the particular job in question sounds sketchy as all fuck, but that just means that they don't need anyone to misrepresent the facts about what they said to make things even worse.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:17 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]


The very first thing they say to her is that they don't understand why she applied, because she does not meet their clearly outlined minimum requirements.
posted by Flunkie at 8:33 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


Apparently only men who wax should join their expeditions, if they even exist.

I wish ubiquitous chest waxing would just GO AWAY already.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:33 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


A tourism company shouldn't be mixing sexual ethics beliefs with job applications.

Nonsense. If I were running a tourism company, I'd want to know that my prospective employees weren't going to treat queer folk with hostility or contempt.

Wouldn't want to have a publishable email cat-fight about it, though.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:33 PM on October 10, 2014 [14 favorites]


If I were running a tourism company, I'd want to know that my prospective employees weren't going to treat queer folk with hostility or contempt.

But how do you know that they would, unless you a) ask them questions that really AREN'T supposed to be on a job application, or b) you're assuming they would based on some mental gymnastics stemming from where they went to university?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:38 PM on October 10, 2014 [11 favorites]


"We are very un-Canadian in the sense that we do not embrace mediocrity," one of the emails reads, apparently from Eric Teheiura, vice president South Pacific. "We are not about to hire just anybody to assist a CEO, consular official, and member of one of Europe's wealthiest families."

If only we could abandon mediocrity like all of the European countries have done. I feel shame.
posted by Hoopo at 8:45 PM on October 10, 2014 [6 favorites]


Is there any evidence that there is an actual tour company here? Seems like a moderately elaborate trolling operation.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:46 PM on October 10, 2014 [13 favorites]


Ezra Levant (Canada's equivalent to Anne Coulter) weighs in.
posted by dougzilla at 8:48 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


I sure hope this doesn't lead to a flood of new "applications" for employment at Amaruk, with some sort of "tumblr" dedicated to the rejection letters.
posted by uosuaq at 8:58 PM on October 10, 2014


olaf is a viking with a ph.d. in norse history, so, better watch out! ok, i'm a highlander with a law degree, so i'll take him on, as you know, there can only be one.

marrying a BC woman leads to emasculation? good to know this in advance!

bethany's quickie comparative religion course was cute, but she left out major faiths like the subgenius, where you're allowed to diddle one consenting adult after another until your unit shuts down for the day.

some universities are red flags all by themselves, liberty, bob jones...i'm not discriminating against your religion, i'm discriminating against your alma mater. remember, you're not being persecuted unless you're actually being fed to lions. i would feed all these people to lions.
posted by bruce at 9:04 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos: But how do you know that they would, unless you a) ask them questions that really AREN'T supposed to be on a job application, or b) you're assuming they would based on some mental gymnastics stemming from where they went to university?

You don't have to ask in this case, they're telling you.

If I showed up to a job interview and busted into a rant about how I hated them lazy n*****s wouldn't you feel reasonable rejecting me as a bad fit? She's openly broadcasting her bigotry here.
posted by emptythought at 9:07 PM on October 10, 2014 [2 favorites]


I sure hope this doesn't lead to a flood of new "applications" for employment at Amaruk, with some sort of "tumblr" dedicated to the rejection letters.

are you kidding me that would be awesome

She's openly broadcasting her bigotry here.

How? Did you actually see the job application in question, and see a picture of her at a Westboro Baptist Church rally holding a "God hates F**s" sign? Or are you just assuming that because she went to a given school that she was going to be all militant about this as opposed to maybe being the kind of person that kept that to herself the way most people keep controversial opinions to themselves when they're at work?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:11 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]


Definitely going for the long troll here.
posted by edheil at 9:11 PM on October 10, 2014 [5 favorites]


But how do you know that they would, unless you a) ask them questions that really AREN'T supposed to be on a job application, or b) you're assuming they would based on some mental gymnastics stemming from where they went to university?

I'm certain they would say that holding the belief in the first place is synonymous with contempt, but I think that would be a a cop out and a convenient way of shutting down discourse or encouraging what can actually be a fine relationship between people who hold different beliefs on something. People do that all the time. Beliefs are in flux, people change, we hold them imperfectly. We should expect that people grow in what they believe, even if they are once wrong. The whole power move to disqualify is kind of the opposite of what we should expect from people who actually care about tolerance. The kind of tolerance I'm interested in these days are ones in which we can somehow create relationship through sometimes serious disagreement. I actually think it's our salvation, if we can somehow stomach it. We are often very interested in Othering our enemies because we are so mad, even rightly so at times. But I still like that as an ideal to somehow bridge that gap, treat people as fellow humans, and trust that relationships can bring change more than ideological fights.

True tolerance, I think, welcomes people into community who hold divergent views, even ones that we don't like, because 1) it is kind, and true kindness works; and 2) it is sociologically established that the best way to win someone over to a new viewpoint is through vital relationships that people care about. If this company really cares, they should care about winning people over in ways that are actually effective and not alienating. That works by opening the doors more, not less. I think this is just a lot of anger and a feeling of justified discrimination from experiencing similar things. The cycle has to be short-circuited somewhere, and it's not by running around alienating people who are often in process.

That being said as an ideal, though, if I were the company, I would worry about hiring someone on who would bring potential discord. If I were the woman, I would worry about hostility as well. I would probably walk away and just decide not to work there rather than make a big deal about it. However, the question of how to relate to fellow human beings through these issues is highlighted in this situation, and I'm pretty sure the lawsuit isn't the answer if one isn't willing to walk away.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:21 PM on October 10, 2014 [5 favorites]


I would never hire someone who went to a school like that, but I certainly wouldn't tell them that's the reason.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:28 PM on October 10, 2014 [17 favorites]


I've always wanted to set up a fake company web site and put out a few job ads just for the purpose of seeing what kinds of resumes I get and being able to improve my own job-getting skills. It sounds to me like someone else did this. And maybe took the charade a little too far.
posted by miyabo at 9:29 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]


That's all as may be, SpacemanStix, but what I'm not understanding is where you're getting the assumption that she even made a declaration as to her opinions on other people's sexuality on her job application, for the job to even make a ruling from. I mean, I'll grant that I haven't had a typical job-application experience in a while, but I don't recall "what is your opinion on same-sex encounters" being a typical question on a job application.

So therefore, you - and others - must be assuming that her beliefs on homosexuality would be "self-evident" because she happened to attend a particular university. I'm challenging that particular assumption specifically.

Granted, though, since the employer in question seems to be completely barking mad anyway, this is probably moot.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:31 PM on October 10, 2014 [12 favorites]


So, it's one thing for a weird, perhaps not-real company to say they won't hire someone because they went to this university (and make the correct assumption that the university reflects her own values in this case).

But some law firms apparently have the same opinion:
Prominent lawyers, law professors, students and LGBTQ groups across Canada have decried the program as inherently discriminatory. Some firms said they would be unlikely to take TWU law school graduates, potentially limiting their mobility. Prominent Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby called the decision by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to approve the school “cowardly nonsense.”
posted by el io at 10:07 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]


You know, a lot of these kids head off to ultra-Christian colleges when they're 18 and, crucially, their parents are paying for it. If they're bigots at 30 that's one thing. But 22-year-olds coming out of Bob Jones whose parents paid their way aren't necessarily bigots, they're just really sheltered kids whose education depended on continuing to agree with the only culture they've ever been exposed to. Exposing them to things outside their experience is a kindness and usually fixes the problem in fairly short order.

(Assuming they are otherwise qualified and the ultra-Christian school in question is handing out real degrees, of course.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:11 PM on October 10, 2014 [26 favorites]


Nonsense. If I were running a tourism company, I'd want to know that my prospective employees weren't going to treat queer folk with hostility or contempt.

There's a weird strain of claims of persecution due to gay people going around the wider Internet lately. Those claims have echoes of totalitarianism to them, to my ear, in much the same way that Jews and other minorities have been blamed for various social ills in decades and centuries past. Maybe this specific email exchange is just statistical noise, but it seems to pay to be wary around Christians who claim persecution by gays/Jews/Muslims/etc., generally speaking.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:26 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]


"Paquette wrote Amundsen back defending her faith, saying "your disagreement with Trinity Western University, simply because they do not support sex outside of marriage, can in fact be noted as discrimination of approximately 76 per cent of the world population!!! Wow, that's a lot of diverse people that you don't embrace." [emphasis mine but !! is sic]

She also wrote that the Norse people chose Christianity.

"I signed it God Bless, probably partially because I knew it would irritate them," Paquette said."

See, we are the discriminators, not her and her religion.
posted by marienbad at 10:32 PM on October 10, 2014 [13 favorites]


here's a weird strain of claims of persecution due to gay people going around the wider Internet lately. Those claims have echoes of totalitarianism to them, to my ear, in much the same way that Jews and other minorities have been blamed for various social ills in decades and centuries past. Maybe this specific email exchange is just statistical noise, but it seems to pay to be wary around Christians who claim persecution by gays/Jews/Muslims/etc., generally speaking.

No shit. Every time someone complains about the crocodile tears of some shithead baker that doesn't like a lesbian wedding, I tell them to replace "gay" with "black" and tell me it's not flaming racist. That usually shuts them up.
posted by Talez at 10:35 PM on October 10, 2014 [9 favorites]


She also wrote that the Norse people chose Christianity.

If by chose she means "forced on them by every means at the disposal of three kings up to and including the genocide of the pagan religious figures" then yes, I do believe the Norse people "chose" Christianity.
posted by Talez at 10:37 PM on October 10, 2014 [20 favorites]


It's clearly discrimination that is not permitted by Canadian law, applied to someone who happens to have repugnant beliefs, by someone who should never fucking forget the First Peoples beat his ancestors' asses all the way back to the fucking fjords when he guides people across their land.
posted by mobunited at 10:46 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]


Wait. Are we not talking about how this is almost certainly not a real company? That it's probably some kind of sham (or scam?) perpetrated by just this one guy, Christopher Fragassi?
posted by mhum at 10:50 PM on October 10, 2014 [9 favorites]


Yeah, this is a bit like getting upset that the Prince of Nigeria doesn't use the correct royal courtliness in his e-mails.
posted by Flashman at 11:00 PM on October 10, 2014 [17 favorites]


mhum: that seems unlikely (to me). They have a lot of things on their website, including PDF's talking about boring things... This seems pretty elaborate (perhaps some sort of tax-shelter or something weird like that) for one dude messing around.
posted by el io at 11:06 PM on October 10, 2014


First place for troll of the year, with only two months to go. I'm hoping this is a performance piece by Ragnar Kjartansson.
posted by furtive at 11:13 PM on October 10, 2014


I'm certain they would say that holding the belief in the first place is synonymous with contempt, but I think that would be a a cop out and a convenient way of shutting down discourse or encouraging what can actually be a fine relationship between people who hold different beliefs on something.

I do not want "fine relationships" with people who think women are chattel, blacks are inferior, or gays are perverted sinners. Some different beliefs are, underscore, wrong.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:33 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]


As for the company: weird. Looks like it could be a sex tourism thing. Be a natural man with natural men out in nature, naturally, sort of thing. And some sort of BS online training scam/tax writeoff.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:36 PM on October 10, 2014


The weirdest part of this, and the part that makes me think it is very fake, is that a company actually responded to an applicant with a "No thanks."

This never happens.

Being ignored, sure. 98% of the time, that's what happens. The other 2%, you might get a little bit of legitimate interest.

But actually corresponding with someone you're not interested in hiring? No.

This never happens.
posted by yesster at 11:42 PM on October 10, 2014 [14 favorites]


Whoa - that is a lot of craziness on all sides
posted by mumimor at 11:43 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]


False flag, Epic Troll or he was going to eat them I reckon.
posted by fullerine at 12:32 AM on October 11, 2014 [3 favorites]


From the CBC article:
Amundsen then used an expletive to state that if he met God, he would have sex with him.
Best euphemistic description ever!
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:32 AM on October 11, 2014 [19 favorites]


Seems to me a lot of the trouble in this world comes from pre-emptive retaliation. X thinks, "Y looks like they'll be an asshole to me, so I'm going to be an asshole to them first!" thus depriving Y of the opportunity to not be an asshole, and reinforcing Y's negative opinion of X.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:49 AM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


"Weird and unpleasant all round" is right, wow.

On the topic of Ms Paquette's qualifications, I assume this is the ad she was responding to. These are the minimum qualifications:

• No Violation under any Wildlife Legislation
• Current Active/Inactive PAWGI Certified Assistant Guide (CAG) certification
• Backcountry Experience
• Legally entitled to work in region of operation
• Fluent in English
• Fluent in official language of country of employment (if not English)
• Meet AMARUK® minimum Fitness Standards

I agree that a biology degree from a university that pushes creationism isn't worth much, but as far as I can tell, she wasn't applying on the strength of her degree, but rather her qualifications and experience as a guide, whatever they might be.

Out of interest, I also note that the position of guide requires men to keep their hair short and unbraided, with this exception:
¹ These restrictions do not apply to individuals whom would have a traditional or cultural need to keep hair long and/or braided. This includes, for example, First Nation people who are free to keep their hair long, or individuals of Viking ancestry who are free to keep their beard braided.
posted by daisyk at 4:26 AM on October 11, 2014 [1 favorite]


I wish I had a beard. It would be such a pretty beard (despite my non-Viking heritage).
posted by daisyk at 4:27 AM on October 11, 2014


I'm wondering if Amaruk is a CIA front company.

(Then again, I guess the CIA wouldn't have a problem with religious applicants)
posted by ymgve at 4:38 AM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


If I showed up to a job interview and busted into a rant about how I hated them lazy n*****s wouldn't you feel reasonable rejecting me as a bad fit?

I dunno, here in the Milwaukee area you'd probably be considered for the job. Have any experience as a machinist? If so you could probably show up in full Klan regalia and get hired.
posted by MikeMc at 5:14 AM on October 11, 2014


She also wrote that the Norse people chose Christianity.

It's an easy choice to make when there's a sword at your throat...
posted by MikeMc at 5:15 AM on October 11, 2014 [1 favorite]


Folks should definitely read the last link, or view this video. High probability of Shenanigans here.
posted by taz at 5:35 AM on October 11, 2014 [3 favorites]


Yeah, this buries the lede in a big way -- the last link makes it look like the whole thing is a scam or trolling operation, or at best some kind of performance art. The jobs don't appear to actually exist, but it's not so obvious what the "company" is actually doing or why they are posting the fake ads and getting into weird and inappropriate discussions with these women.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:41 AM on October 11, 2014


"Calls to several listed numbers reached no one, just a hold signal that played the song of loons down the phone line."
posted by jeather at 5:57 AM on October 11, 2014 [7 favorites]


the last link makes it look like the whole thing is a scam or trolling operation, or at best some kind of performance art

I'm not sure your best case is possible. Even if this started as a performance art project, it's one that has crossed over into trolling regardless of intent. It's a distinction without a difference at this point.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:59 AM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


MetaFilter: They have a lot of things on their website... This seems pretty elaborate (perhaps some sort of tax-shelter or something weird like that) for one dude messing around.
posted by oulipian at 6:24 AM on October 11, 2014 [7 favorites]


Yeah, that website is very weird: like an elaborate shop widow with no actual shop out the back. The only thing you actually seem able to purchase from the site are curiously oxymoronic online wilderness survival courses. "Bear safety: course and certification (ONLINE)." Hmmm. Seems legit. And even those are POA. The wilderness retreats (with oddly generic and presumably "borrowed" imagery) are described as being "fit for a head of state" and "by invitation only." So once you get past the stolen images, the content-that-isn't-really-content, and the inappropriate beefcake, the only way I can see this company possibly making money is by cold calling their one natural client, Vladimir Putin, and inviting him to come stay. Maybe it is a CIA front.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:28 AM on October 11, 2014 [11 favorites]


Shop window. Ahem.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:34 AM on October 11, 2014


Recreational Outdoor Skills • Hunting for Food (ONLINE) seems the most oxymoronic.
posted by maryr at 7:26 AM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


I really hope Module 4: Hunting Technique is some kind of Flash game.
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:31 AM on October 11, 2014 [1 favorite]


Their site would have fooled me. It's very thorough, and you can actually click through to find dates for their first aid course. But searching for "Amaruk tour reviews" brings up zilch on google, which is very suspicious.

The other weird thing about their site is that every single one of the pictures of people is a guy. There is not a single picture of a woman on that site. Also, literally half the men are shirtless, which seems odd for a company specializing in arctic adventures.
posted by geegollygosh at 7:36 AM on October 11, 2014 [5 favorites]


I really hope Module 4: Hunting Technique is some kind of Flash game.

It's actually just Oregon Trail.
posted by maryr at 7:50 AM on October 11, 2014 [9 favorites]


Heh. A couple of years ago the people on this forum site attempted to find out more about "PAWGI" ("Professional Association of Wilderness Guides and Instructors"), the certification company featured on the Amaruk training pages and get stonewalled plus threatened and insulted in what is beginning to seem like a very familiar way.

It's kind of a pain in the ass to follow, because people quote previous comments without any distinction between what is a quote and what is their own comment, but it's pretty funny / interesting. I can't link to specific comments, but here's one:
"Here is my summing up of it all based on the thread and my own investigations.

1. Amaruk and PAWGI are one in the same.
2. Amaruk / PAWGI are less than transparent and a prone to daft claims.
3. The qualifications that PAWGI offer while potentially viable for Canada are not worth anything internationally are worthless here in NZ and likely worthless in the UK as they are not recognised by any national body in NZ or the UK.
4. Bushcraft Expeditions are afilliated with PAWGI and may offer the PAWGI qualifications to interested parties in the UK.

I suppose Caveat Emptor applies."
An interesting longer comment in that thread relates an email sent to PAWGI asking for some info, and their reply, concluding basically with a threat to sue them if they talk about the company. To locate it, look for:
"Can we have that in the whole context of what you'd written to them as well please, just for fair clarity's sake.

Aye, I don't see why not, it's no different to what's already been mentioned in the thread"
And currently on The National Post:
A person identifying himself as PAWGI president Bruce Kenwood turned down an interview request Friday, via email. “I am aware Amaruk is in the news because media outlets such as yours are in need of ratings and would rather report trash than actual facts,” he wrote to the National Post. “I will not call, and following the trashing of Amaruk, it is unlikely that anybody sane within our industry will want to talk with the media.”

Two outdoor guides told the National Post that as far as they are aware, PAWGI is not a recognized association in their industry, and they cast doubt on its purported technical committee membership.
posted by taz at 7:55 AM on October 11, 2014 [4 favorites]


Nonsense. If I were running a tourism company, I'd want to know that my prospective employees weren't going to treat queer folk with hostility or contempt.

That's reasonable. However, asking people anything in a job interview that comes under protected status in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is flat-out illegal. Which includes personal religious beliefs. (And, for that matter, criminal history. Employers are not permitted to ask.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:04 AM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


I do not want "fine relationships" with people who think women are chattel, blacks are inferior, or gays are perverted sinners. Some different beliefs are, underscore, wrong.

That's fine, and I would respect that. But I strongly believe that the world doesn't change best by standing at a distance and pointing these things out. It changes most genuinely by entering into community with people and having meaningful discussions over the realities of living life together, even if it's uncomfortable. If there's no gap to be bridged here in any meaningful social way, then we may have to be content with the fact that change may not happen, or it will happen less effectively, and we'll stay in our separate corners being mad at each other, fully cognizant of the fact that these separate communities will continue to breed the very thing that we hope to change. Perhaps we can legislate some behavioral issues, but this doesn't always affect the hearts of people effectively.
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:06 AM on October 11, 2014 [4 favorites]


and we'll stay in our separate corners being mad at each other

I am perfectly fine standing in my corner being mad at people who consider me less than human, yep. I don't need to change; they do. People are free to think what they like, they're just not allowed to behave in certain ways. And feelings do in fact follow behaviour--that's the entire basis behind CBT, for one. By disallowing people from acting on discriminatory impulses, you force the very social interaction you're talking about, and change happens. See also the entire history of civil rights. One assumes you would not suggest that people of colour should have attempted to have a meaningful dialogue with slavers, and yet that is more or less what you are saying should happen. The world cannot be allowed to work that way.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:14 AM on October 11, 2014 [7 favorites]


"Perhaps we can legislate changes"? No perhaps about it: we can and do. The number of racist bigots was markedly reduced when the US legislated equality rights. After legalizing gay marriage, Canada's a much less gay-hateful country, TWU excepted.

Legislation turns bigots into dinosaurs. Assholes like Bethany are on their way to extinction.

the only way I can see this company possibly making money is by cold calling their one natural client, Vladimir Putin, and inviting him to come stay. Maybe it is a CIA front.

It's a honeypot! Alas, Prime Minister Herper is angry at Putin/rallying his base, and won't let Putin into Canada. This CIA's entrapment plan will fail.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:21 AM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


So I loved this - even though it was rude and obnoxious.

I have a feeling that many of you have not met many Norwegians. While sweeping generalizations are generally wrong, I still have the strong impression that many Norwegians value "saying what you mean" highly.

> I would never hire someone who went to a school like that, but I certainly wouldn't tell them that's the reason.

That's probably true for me too - but I also think that "saying what you mean" is a virtue and one that we need more of.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:09 AM on October 11, 2014


There's a weird strain of claims of persecution due to gay people going around the wider Internet lately.

It's been going around a long while. Three of the sexual harassment complaints I've had to deal with among employees over the past two decades - 50% of the total - turned out to be nothing more than "conservative Christian doesn't like openly gay man."

But these Norwegian Viking lawyer/river rafting guides sound likes such tools. I wanted to admire them, too.
posted by kanewai at 10:34 AM on October 11, 2014


If someone is applying for a job using a qualifying degree from an institution that discriminates, then it is logical to suggest that they are unqualified as a team addition if the company does not discriminate, and the applicant still personally ascribes to their institution's discrimination. Hiring would simply require the applicant to denounce the discrimination policy.
posted by Brian B. at 10:36 AM on October 11, 2014


Sounds like they just discriminate against different sets of people. "conceived by a whore"? marrying a BC woman = emasculation? really? Ugh.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:15 AM on October 11, 2014 [3 favorites]


Sounds like they just discriminate against different sets of people.

The policy is about non-discrimination, therefore certain discriminators will be the targets. It would hypocritical to not discriminate against discriminators, if that is the purpose. More to the point, a so-called hater learns the effects of a selective discrimination policy, but only targeting their hate beliefs (not their genes or orientation), while limiting the reach of their hate doctrine at the same time.
posted by Brian B. at 12:24 PM on October 11, 2014


They seem to have a problem with women, (if you read my examples).
posted by small_ruminant at 12:45 PM on October 11, 2014 [3 favorites]


taz: "It's kind of a pain in the ass to follow, because people quote previous comments without any distinction"

Here's a link to the non-archive version of that thread that's easier to read. There are a few pretty obvious shills in that thread, although I don't think Andy Wood (Woody) is necessarily one; his reputation appears to solid. He may simply have been suckered by PAWGI's marketing and sales pitch.
posted by mhum at 1:01 PM on October 11, 2014


We're sure it's not just an exclusionary faux-Viking manly-man wilderness fantasy for the bear/muscle stud community, and maybe it'll just be a front til someone bites, pays for their tour, and then they'll buy the plane?

Regardless, this is pretty popcorn.gif.
posted by gusandrews at 2:23 PM on October 11, 2014 [1 favorite]


This all just goes deeper and deeper, it's amazing.
posted by angerbot at 3:08 PM on October 11, 2014


Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out that the people running Amaruk were actually deposed Nigerian nobility.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:01 PM on October 11, 2014


Wow. You are all still acting as if this were real. Wow.
posted by yesster at 8:01 PM on October 11, 2014 [1 favorite]


Hiring would simply require the applicant to denounce the discrimination policy.

Except that personal religious beliefs are protected from discrimination in Canada, and it is flat out illegal for an employer except in very specific and very limited circumstances to even ask that question, let alone require some kind of denunciation as a condition of employment.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:53 PM on October 11, 2014 [1 favorite]


I have a feeling that many of you have not met many Norwegians.

If "Christopher Fragassi-Bjørnsen" and "Dwayne Kenwood-Bjørnsen" sound like Norwegian names to you, chances are that you haven't met that many either...
posted by effbot at 9:00 PM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


LOL I love this comment:

"Wanted: Outdoor Guide/Trained Special Forces Operator

Must be willing/capable to pass a selection tougher than the Delta/SAS/JTF2 combined. Successful applicant will attain "00" status.

Seal Team Six members need not apply.

Please forward resume with full-frontal selfie attached to: batshitcrazy@norsefetish .com"
posted by small_ruminant at 9:03 PM on October 11, 2014


I watched Trollhunter, so I think I know exactly what is going on here. It's really for her own safety, trolls can smell a Christian's blood from like a mile away.
posted by ckape at 9:51 PM on October 11, 2014 [2 favorites]


Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out that the people running Amaruk were actually Alanis Morissette
posted by oulipian at 5:55 AM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]


No, that would just be an odd coincidence.
posted by Flashman at 9:25 AM on October 12, 2014 [5 favorites]


But how do you know that they would, unless you a) ask them questions that really AREN'T supposed to be on a job application, or b) you're assuming they would based on some mental gymnastics stemming from where they went to university?

The rules for admission to her university make (at least) two things clear. One is their position on homosexuality, and two, that it's okay to discriminate against any who don't agree with that position. The policy of the university where she earned her degree opens the door to this inquiry. In this instance it also may be proper for a wilderness outfitter to inquire about the prospective employee's views about creationism.

If they don't like the sauce being poured over their goose, they shouldn't try to pour it over someone else's gander.
posted by mule98J at 1:01 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]


From their website:

Notice

Three Canadian female applicants have recently reported that they felt "attacked" during the first stage of our recruiting process (online application submission). Applicants who cannot handle being challenged during a job application are kindly advised that the demanding career of a guide with our company may not be the best fit for them.


Lots of fun here. That's a lot of work for a trolling expedition, though. Can't wait to hear more on this.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:29 AM on October 13, 2014


I appreciate the dedication of whoever set this up.

Also, seems like a lot of fellow MeFites want to bring back the Jewish/not-Jewish firm split but with a different religion. That's not right, but, okay. Just keep in mind you already work with Christians and don't realize it because they're the same as you.
posted by michaelh at 10:14 AM on October 13, 2014


« Older Pylon of the Month   |   A New Golden Age of Falconry Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments