# Intolerance is alive and well in Quebec **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 12, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838 "2013-06-12T19:35:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/21 "2013-06-14T04:35:15Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The government of Quebec has no right to banish any citizen or permanent resident of Canada. Which is consistent with the [Charter](http://lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html): > [@](#): > > 1. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/22 "2013-06-14T04:37:28Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > _It’s [the Quebecois’] home as a people,_ and they owe nothing to Sikhs, Anglo-Americans or anybody else who may choose to travel to their country. I believe the word you’re looking for is “province.” ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/23 "2013-06-14T04:39:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Well, no. Immigration is primarily an area of federal jurisdiction. Once individuals lawfully immigrate to Canada, in compliance with federal law, they have the right to live anywhere in Canada, including Quebec. The government of Quebec has no right to banish any citizen or permanent resident of Canada. > > Because they have either been born in Quebec, moved to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada, or immigrated to Quebec from some other country, consistent with Canada’s federal immigration laws. Which doesn’t answer the question: Why is the federal government admitting them in the first place? Why are they even there? From whence comes this bizarre notion that Canada needs, or is morally obligated to accept, all this immigration in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/24 "2013-06-14T04:41:05Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > I believe the word you’re looking for is “province.” Actually, “homeland” would have been a better word, and you need to explain why the Québécois are not entitled to a homeland. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/25 "2013-06-14T04:43:49Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Sikhs may be a non-white minority in Quebec, but Québécois are a white minority in North America, and they have every right to do what they believe necessary to ensure their existence as a people. Anything? They can do anything to ensure their existence as a people? Like break the law? Also, please how being religiously tolerant is a threat to the existence of Québécois. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/26 "2013-06-14T04:58:37Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Well, if it’s a trivial issue, why shouldn’t the Sikhs be the ones to to concede? Obviously, it’s not trivial to the Sikhs. It is nontrivial to anyone who is not a Sikh. > [@](#): > > It was understood at the beginning that players were expected to wear very specific headgear. Say what? Since when do soccer players wear specific headgear? > [@](#): > > That being the case, Sikhs who weren’t willing to abide by that requirement had no business even applying for the teams in the first place. You seem to have missed that this is a _new_ policy. Sikhs have been playing soccer in turbans with no problem all along, until now. > [@](#): > > Your assumption seems to be that the Québécois have some kind of unquestionable obligation to accommodate the Sikhs, but this simply ignores the fact that Quebec is the homeland of the Québécois people. The idea that letting Sikhs wear turbans while playing soccer is any kind of an “accommodation” is absurd. Building a wheelchair ramp is an accommodation. Braille text on an ATM is an accommodation. Providing kosher meals is an accommodation. All of those require an expenditure of time, money, and effort to put into place. You know what you have to do when someone wants to wear a turban to a soccer game? _Nothing._ It doesn’t require you to provide any special equipment. It doesn’t require you to alter any of the rules of the game. It doesn’t require you to spend any money at all. On the other hand, making a rule that you can’t wear a turban at a game? That’s going to cost you. And I’m not talking lawsuits. Once you’ve created a rule, you’ve got to enforce it. You’ve got to have someone on hand to step in and remove a player in a turban from a game. That takes time. You’ve got to have some sort of disciplinary system in place to deal with players who refuse to take off their turbans. That takes money. And you’re going to have less of that than you used to, because I’m guessing that if there are Sikhs playing soccer, there are Sikhs watching soccer. Except, not so many of them now. And fewer non-Sikhs who disagree with the ban. > [@](#): > > The Sikhs chose to immigrate to a land which was clearly not their homeland, but the homeland of another people entirely, and yet they presume that their hosts–that is, the people who would have every right to banish the Sikhs from their home–should not expect Sikhs to accept and abide by the ways of Québécois. It doesn’t matter that the issue seems “trivial” in your eyes. What matters is that the Québécois have every right to insist that the Sikhs, being both recently arrived immigrants and a minority, have no business insisting that the Québécois accommodate them in this or any other matter–and the supposed triviality of the issue is irrelevant. I guess the Quebecois should have thought of that before they adopted a system of rights and charters that explicitly guaranteed freedom of religious expression, and then invited a bunch of Sikhs to move to their country and become citizens. > [@](#): > > And of course, your attitude begs the question: Why are the Sikhs even in Quebec in the first place? Why shouldn’t they be there? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/27 "2013-06-14T05:09:28Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Actually, “homeland” would have been a better word, and you need to explain why the Québécois are not entitled to a homeland. You need to explain why one particular province of Canada, one of ten, is somehow entitled to tread on areas of federal responsibility as dictated by the constitution. Immigration (as far as immigration into Canada) is a federal responsibility as mandated by ss. 91(25) and 95 of the constitution; Quebec has taken things a step further and exercised its immigration rights under s. 95 of the constitution, wherein it decides whom it will allow to come into into Quebec from outside Canada. In other words, it would seem that in some cases (though not all), Quebec has allowed Sikhs to come from outside Canada into the province of Quebec. Of course, once landed legally as permanent residents anywhere in Canada (or being born or naturalized anywhere in Canada, as citizens), Sikhs can move to Quebec if they wish: Charter s. 6(2). The Quebec government can do nothing about this. Quebeckers are entitled to a homeland named “Quebec” if they wish one. However, that privilege currently comes with a caveat: today’s Quebec is one of ten provinces in a federated country (like the US or Australia); and as such, Quebec’s laws must accord with Canada’s federal constitution and Charter; and with its own _Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms_ (citation upthread). Quebec can no more dictate who lives in it than Texas or New South Wales can. Just as Texas and New South Wales must deal with their countries’ respective constitutions, and federal laws passed in Washington DC and Canberra (respectively), so must Quebec deal with the Canadian constitution and laws passed in Ottawa. You seem to be of the belief that Quebec has a lot more power than it does. That may be due to a misunderstanding of the separation of powers under Canada’s constitution. I would suggest that you review ss. 91 to 95 of the Canadian constitution to understand exactly what Quebec has (and doesn’t have) jurisdiction over; and I would further suggest that you review Quebec’s human rights legislation (cited upthread) for an additional understanding of the issues in this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/28 "2013-06-14T05:15:35Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Really? There’s no such thing as an intolerant minority? It’s impossible that a minority could have the political power to oppress the majority? In all human history, such things have never happened? No, the idiotic part was the idea that letting Sikhs wear turbans constituted any sort of an imposition on anyone else. > [@](#): > > You need to explain why Québécois are morally obligated to accept substantial populations of Sikhs–or anybody else–into their homeland in the first place, and you need to explain why non-Québécois, whatever their racial, cultural and ethnic origins, should not accept and respect the right of Québécois to their status as the demographic, political and cultural majority in Quebec. You need to explain how letting someone wear a sheet on their head is a threat to the demographic, political, or cultural majority of Quebec. > [@](#): > > Sikhs don’t like having to take off their turbans to play soccer in Quebec? Anglo-Americans don’t like the communication problems that will arise from not being able to speak French in Quebec, or the many Québécois who will simply refuse to have anything to do with them? Boo fucking hoo. _It’s their home as a people,_ and they owe nothing to Sikhs, Anglo-Americans or anybody else who may choose to travel to their country. Seems like you’re a big fan of majority rule. Well, here’s some bad news for you: the majority of people in Canada and the U.S. do not want to live in society where people can discriminate against racial, religious, or sexual minorities. It’s our home, as a people, and we say, “Come on over.” You don’t like it? Boo fucking hoo. You’re a minority in this culture, and we’ve decided that there are some things we don’t want to accommodate. > [@](#): > > Being in the minority does not mean that you are automatically in the right, nor does it mean that the majority owes you anything, no matter how trivial some specific issue may seem. You should take your own advice. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/29 "2013-06-14T05:17:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I guess the Quebecois should have thought of that before they adopted a system of rights and charters that explicitly guaranteed freedom of religious expression, and then invited a bunch of Sikhs to move to their country and become citizens. Excellent post, **Miller** , but a small nitpick: Quebec is not a country as is commonly understood in the world community. It is simply a province of Canada. As such, I would suggest a rewrite of part of your last quoted sentence as, “… and then invited a bunch of Sikhs to move to their _province_ and _become residents of Quebec; and perhaps at some point, Canadian_ citizens.” (Italics indicate my additions.) ---
**Author:** ![Ellen\_Cherry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellen_cherry/32/3600_2.png) [@Ellen\_Cherry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellen_Cherry)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/30 "2013-06-14T11:12:28Z")
Moving thread from MPSIMS to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/31 "2013-06-14T11:59:21Z")
Hey, it just might all be irrelevant if the CSC pays any attention to the [news about using one’s head while playing soccer](http://www.voanews.com/content/soccer-head-injures/1680739.html). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/32 "2013-06-14T12:01:44Z")
The only way that a Sikh can use a turban “to bully and dominate the majority” is if uses it to headbutt people for being unbelievers. Turban tyranny is one of the sillier arguments I’ve ever heard for discrimination, and I’ve seen a lot of silly argument over the years. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/33 "2013-06-14T12:25:24Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > The Québécois people wish to preserve their own culture and ethnicity, which they can only do if Quebec is recognized as their rightful homeland; that is to say, a land where Québécois are the demographic, political and cultural majority. Non-Québécois who chose to live in Quebec should accept the fact the Québécois are not morally or legally obligated to accommodate them (and, yes, that includes Anglo-Americans of both Canada and the United States). > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Sikhs may be a non-white minority in Quebec, but Québécois are a white minority in North America, and they have every right to do what they believe necessary to ensure their existence as a people. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And of course, your attitude begs the question: Why are the Sikhs even in Quebec in the first place? > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You need to explain why Québécois are morally obligated to accept substantial populations of Sikhs–or anybody else–into their homeland in the first place Wow. Whatever you intend to be conveying, you’re veering dangerously close to **ethnic cleansing** with this line of argument. Seriously, “they have every right to do what they believe necessary to ensure their existence as a people?” We’ve heard that argument all-too-often before. ---
**Author:** ![Spud](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spud/32/347_2.png) [@Spud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spud)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/34 "2013-06-14T12:42:43Z")
Tolerance really isn’t the issue here… the real issue is with cheating. Some Sikh players have been caught hiding springs in their turbans. This causing the ball to “launch” a significant distance when being headed. Some are going almost the full distance of the pitch. To help you remember the true reason for this rule, say the following out loud five times as fast as you can and it will be impressed in your memory: Some sneaky soccer Sikhs secret springs ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/35 "2013-06-14T15:15:20Z")
> [@Spud](#): > > Tolerance really isn’t the issue here… the real issue is with cheating. Some Sikh players have been caught hiding springs in their turbans. This causing the ball to “launch” a significant distance when being headed. Some are going almost the full distance of the pitch. > > To help you remember the true reason for this rule, say the following out loud five times as fast as you can and it will be impressed in your memory: > > Some sneaky soccer Sikhs secret springs That’s what I like about those Sikhs. They’re always ready to spring into action! More on topic, FIFA says [Turbans are allowed](http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/fifa-says-turbans-are-allowed-in-soccer-games-1.1325456). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/36 "2013-06-14T15:25:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, because the idea is inherently idiotic. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Really? Yes, really. [QUOTE=L. Sprague deCamp, “Lest Darkness Fall”] “You don’t like the Goths?” “No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!” “Persecution?” “Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.” “I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.” “That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/37 "2013-06-14T15:26:54Z")
Ah, another **Lonesome Polecat** “fuck the darkies” thread. Is Quebec actually notorious for this sort of thing? I’d never heard of any race relations issues there other than the whole language thing. In case anyone was wondering, such regulations [are not prohibited](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=35626123694962282&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/38 "2013-06-14T16:03:33Z")
We went on a French immersion trip to Quebec City back in the mid-90s. Our traveling companions were other students and two instructors, both Africans. There were some tense moments while there, including a standoff with a couple of real assholes who were determined to start something, for no other reason than the men were black. It’s not a new thing there. Quebec City was the whitest town I’ve ever visited. ---
**Author:** ![apollonia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2bfe46/32.png) [@apollonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/apollonia)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/39 "2013-06-14T16:48:46Z")
It gets worse the further you are away from cities. My husband is Vietnamese and I am white–we have never gotten so many stares as when we walked into a Tim Horton’s in the Gaspe region of Quebec somewhere. The place was quite crowded and went nearly silent when we walked in. We have been all over Canada and never had an experience quite like that–not even in rural Alberta or wherever. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/40 "2013-06-14T17:17:08Z")
If I’m not mistaken, Sikh men don’t cut their hair so they have to have something to hold it all in. Turbans can be pretty big, so I’m having a hard time picturing someone heading a ball in one, or keeping it from falling off. Still, different players was different things to keep their locks out of the way in a game. The British army allows turbans and they look pretty badass. [Sikh soldiers](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sikhmuseum.com/buckam/popups/SikhGuardSwords1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sikhmuseum.com/buckam/flanders.html&h=600&w=654&sz=134&tbnid=0DOABWG1j0O_wM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=98&zoom=1&usg=__BMaDmVtpVuUp3F48UC-BgeFv_P0=&docid=0eBhpT5knEITYM&sa=X&ei=z067UaLxJsfD4AOF8IDYAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAg&dur=375) I think they can handle a little soccer action. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838.md?page=3)