# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/121 "2013-06-16T05:50:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Do you think Sikhs should carry knives while playing soccer? …not only should Sikh’s be allowed to carry knives: Usian’s should be allowed cigars and machine guns. If you arm one, you MUST ARM THEM ALL! ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/122 "2013-06-16T05:55:07Z")
I’m not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I don’t see a big issue with letting them wear their turbans, and it’s quite dickish if they are being specifically targeted. On the other, I don’t feel like it’s fair to allow special exceptions for religious reasons. If you are going to allow Sikhs to wear a turban, you should let everyone wear whatever they want on their head, without having to justify their reasons. I think that freedom of religion is superfluous - all the relevant benefits of that are better served by the more general freedom of expression. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/123 "2013-06-16T05:58:21Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I ask you again, are you stating that there is no head gear that would be inappropriate for soccer? I haven’t said anything in this thread to indicate to a reasonable person I believe anything like that. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Magiver > Do you think Sikhs should carry knives while playing soccer? No, but they should be allowed to carry shotguns. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/124 "2013-06-16T06:03:44Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I haven’t said anything in this thread to indicate to a reasonable person I believe anything like that. well then do you not think it possible that some of the Sikh headgear is completely out of bounds? > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > No, but they should be allowed to carry shotguns. well shotguns are not part of the Sikh faith. However [Kirpans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan)are. They are ceremonial knives to be carried at all times. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/125 "2013-06-16T06:10:37Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That isn’t how a free country works. If you want to prevent someone from dong something they want to do that harms no one, it’s up to YOU to provide a reason why. The reason is in the rule book. No headgear. Period. Do you want me to provide a reason why I can’t use my hands while playing soccer, too? Or wear the opposing team’s jersey? One’s as arbitrary as another. > [@](#): > > You’ve provided no reasons why, unsurprisingly. You should go work for the QSF. And they’ve provided no _valid_ reasons why they need to wear turbans. I have a simple solution: If their god requires it he can show up and explain his reasoning. Again, why should your desire trump mine when it doesn’t hurt you to comply. Don’t like it, then don’t play. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/126 "2013-06-16T06:14:51Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Stuff with Sikhs has come up before in Quebec. Could you expand on this please? > [@straight\_man](#): > > More to the point, if there were a valid reason for banning turbans, surely the QSF would have actually come up with one by now. I haven’t seen anything posted as a quote from the soccer league one way or another. The thread was started as a righteous pile-on without a firm basis of fact. If there is some strange falling out between French-Canadians and Sikhs that would lend something to the argument that they’re trying to keep them out of soccer leagues. Maybe I’m missing something but in my area the recognizable Sikhs all look like they stepped out of a royal Limousine. I don’t get where the animosity would be coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/127 "2013-06-16T06:28:02Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > The reason is in the rule book. No headgear. Period. Do you want me to provide a reason why I can’t use my hands while playing soccer, too? Or wear the opposing team’s jersey? One’s as arbitrary as another. > And they’ve provided no _valid_ reasons why they need to wear turbans. I have a simple solution: If their god requires it he can show up and explain his reasoning. Again, why should your desire trump mine when it doesn’t hurt you to comply. Don’t like it, then don’t play. Well here’s the rub. Not sure if it is the same in Canada but religion in the United States is protected just as being handicapped is protected. You can’t discriminate against someone on this basis. From a legal perspective that mean bending over backwards to some degree to accommodate someone if it doesn’t affect others “appreciably”. That’s one very wide and very gray area. If it’s noon on Sunday does Tebow get a free time-out so he can pray the ball 10 more yards? I mean technically that would mean an extra player on the field but lets not go there. Does he get an extra time out? No, it would adversely affect the other team. But if he want’s to tattoo Jesus on his ass and spank himself there’s not much the league can do if he declares it a religious event. ---
**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 16, 2013, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/128 "2013-06-16T06:47:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I asked for a cite for your assertion. Do you have one or did you randomly pull it from somewhere? No, I’m just stating the blatantly obvious. Why do _you_ think the rule against wearing turbans was suddenly adopted last week? The soccer association’s excuse doesn’t make any sense. Your explanations, which were not offered by the association, don’t hold up either - players can easily be identified by the giant number on their shirt, turbans do not appreciably block someone’s view, particularly given that you’re trying to _kick_ the ball, and they could wear turbans in their team colors if that’s important. But, again, none of those excuses have actually been put forward by the people who adopted this rule. So, again - why do you think they adopted this rule last week? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/129 "2013-06-16T07:21:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I haven’t seen anything posted as a quote from the soccer league one way or another. The thread was started as a righteous pile-on without a firm basis of fact. If there is some strange falling out between French-Canadians and Sikhs that would lend something to the argument that they’re trying to keep them out of soccer leagues. Maybe I’m missing something but in my area the recognizable Sikhs all look like they stepped out of a royal Limousine. I don’t get where the animosity would be coming from. If you can read French, [the press release is available online](http://www.scribd.com/doc/145977565/Soccer-letter-pdf). Basic summary: they said it was to be in compliance with FIFA’s Law 4. On the face of it, it sounds like a plausible reason — the FIFA rules only _specifically_ exempt hijabs — but it’s ultimately pretty dumb. Nobody else (including FIFA) thinks Law 4 bans turbans, and anyway, “a foreign organization made me do it” is not a valid justification for discrimination. > [@Magiver](#): > > Could you expand on this please? Sure. There was a minor fuss a couple years ago about [whether kirpans would be allowed in the National Assembly](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sikh-community-speaks-out-against-quebec-kirpan-ban/article565758/) (read: Quebec’s legislature). Kirpans are allowed in Parliament, IIRC, but obviously it’s not unreasonable to keep weapons out of a legislature… except, claimed the PQ, the legislation was actually about how multiculturalism doesn’t belong in Quebec. This all happened around the same time that anti-niqab legislation was being drafted. Religious accommodation has been a hot topic in Quebec intermittently since… well, really since the brutal repression of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 50’s. These days, animosity against the religious, or at least the non-Catholic religious, is pretty constant. I do understand that, as an American, you wouldn’t have any reason to keep up with Quebec’s cultural divisions, but yes, they’re real. > [@Uzi](#): > > And they’ve provided no _valid_ reasons why they need to wear turbans. I have a simple solution: If their god requires it he can show up and explain his reasoning. Again, why should your desire trump mine when it doesn’t hurt you to comply. Don’t like it, then don’t play. If you demand a justification of someone’s religious beliefs, what does that imply? If the explanation fails to satisfy you, can you then exclude the person because of their beliefs? How far do we go with that? Can you make eating bacon part of registering to vote, then demand that Jews and Muslims justify their proscription against eating bacon in order to vote? Demanding justification from the religious in order to access social goods implies that religious beliefs should be subject to society’s whims —it destroys the whole purpose of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination. > [@jackdavinci](#): > > On the other, I don’t feel like it’s fair to allow special exceptions for religious reasons. If you are going to allow Sikhs to wear a turban, you should let everyone wear whatever they want on their head, without having to justify their reasons. I think that freedom of religion is superfluous - all the relevant benefits of that are better served by the more general freedom of expression. Again, needs to be known: people’s deep-seated ethical beliefs are largely protected regardless of whether they are religious or not. > [@Magiver](#): > > Not sure if it is the same in Canada but religion in the United States is protected just as being handicapped is protected. You can’t discriminate against someone on this basis. From a legal perspective that mean bending over backwards to some degree to accommodate someone if it doesn’t affect others “appreciably”. Care to share an example of “bending over backwards”? ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/130 "2013-06-16T07:23:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If there is some strange falling out between French-Canadians and Sikhs… I don’t think a lot of “French-Canadians” have a problem; “French-Canadians” being defined as Canadians who speak French as a first language. You might think Quebec has a monopoly on being “French-Canadian,” but that is not the case; French-Canadian communities exist in New Brunswick, Ontario, and Manitoba, in addition to other provinces though much smaller (e.g. Beaumont, Alberta). Interestingly, neither French-Canadian nor English-Canadian communities in any province (other than Quebec) seem to have a problem with Sikhs playing soccer in turbans. It has been suggested in op-eds in the English-Canadian media, that this is yet another attempt by Quebec to divest itself of non-French-speaking immigrants. Jacques Parizeau blamed the loss of the 1995 referendum on “money and the ethnic vote.” ([Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Parizeau#Quotes), paraphrased.) So, if Quebec institutions, such as the QSF make things uncomfortable for those immigrants in Quebec who do not speak French as a first language, and if Sikh immigrants (many of whom know English from growing up in India) make an easy target, then so be it. After all, if Sikh children can’t participate in local sports and activities, then their parents may move to a province where Sikhs are more welcome. The upshot is fewer non-French immigrants in Quebec, and fewer “ethnic votes” in the next referendum. I’m unsure if I agree with this assessment, but it certainly is worth discussing. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/131 "2013-06-16T07:36:44Z")
Miller, with regard to your timing point, the aggression against religious, linguistic and cultural minorities in Quebec has been growing over decades. In 1995 the Parti Québécois Premier lost a vote to have Quebec separate from Canada. He [blamed the loss on the ethnic vote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_and_the_ethnic_vote). As far as timing goes, part of promoting francophone culture in Quebec has included putting pressure on linguistic and cultural minorities to assimilate and give up their languages and cultures. (A fairly recent example is an attempted prohibition on “pasta” on an Italian restaurant menu.) This runs contrary to the promotion of a cultural mosaic in the rest of Canada. Considerable concern has been raised in Quebec over religious headgear. For example, in soccer in the mid-2000s, [hijabs were banned in Quebec soccer despite not being prohibited by FIFA](http://www.vigile.net/Quebec-federation-stands-firm-on). Last year Sikh turbans were banned by a number of local soccer associations in Quebec. Last April, the Canadian Soccer Association advised the Quebec Soccer Association to stop this nonsense, but the Quebec Soccer Association responded by making a province wide ban. But it is not just soccer. In 2010, a[top Muslim female student was tossed out of a French language course for wearing a niqab](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-muslim-woman-ordered-to-unveil-or-leave-french-course/article4314554/). This was at the same time that the Quebec government was considering legislation to [refuse government services to women wearing niqabs](http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/03/25/quebec_niqab_bill_would_make_muslim_women_unveil.html). Since that time, a much more aggressively separatist government has been elected (the same one that blamed once blamed losing a separation referendum on the minority vote), so it is no surprise that the assault on minority religious freedoms is still being supported by the Quebec government, including it’s Premier, who’s party is putting forward a Charter of Values this fall. I am curious to see what this charter includes and excludes, given the pathetic actions of the Quebec government in general, and the Parti Québécois in particular, with respect to cultural minorities in Quebec. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/132 "2013-06-16T07:46:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well here’s the rub. Not sure if it is the same in Canada but religion in the United States is protected just as being handicapped is protected. Religion and physical handicaps are both protected grounds under all Canadian and provincial legislation. Review our Constitution ss. 91-95 to understand our division of powers, and when the feds have jurisdiction, and when the provinces do. Now. You also have to understand our Human Rights legislation and “accommodation.” Ideally, all entities (governments, private enterprises, etc.) accommodate to the point of “undue hardship.” If it costs Mom and Pop Corner Store $50,000 to put in a wheelchair ramp (on annual revenues of, say $100K), that’s undue hardship. If it costs Bigcorp Inc. $50,000 to put in a wheelchair ramp (on annual revenues of, say, $10,000,000), then it is not an undue hardship. It all depends, and it is always determined on a fact-by-fact basis. ---
**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 16, 2013, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/133 "2013-06-16T08:09:19Z")
Missed the edit window: Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited at both the federal and provincial levels. Unsure why you, **Magiver** , might think that a modern, free, first-world nation such as Canada would allow discrimination (you did say, after all, “Not sure if it is the same in Canada but religion in the United States is protected”). Just curious: did you really think that it wasn’t in Canada? At any rate, I can assure you that religion in Canada is protected by our Charter s. 2(a). ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/134 "2013-06-16T09:10:02Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > If you demand a justification of someone’s religious beliefs, what does that imply? If the explanation fails to satisfy you, can you then exclude the person because of their beliefs? I don’t care about their explanation. It isn’t important. For whatever reason they want to wear a funny hat and the rules don’t allow it. That they claim it is for religious reasons is really beside the point, imho. I can make up bullshit as well as anyone to justify the things I do or want others to do, I guess if I say it is because of some religion then it becomes more valid and others should comply. Bullshit is bullshit regardless. > [@](#): > > How far do we go with that? Can you make eating bacon part of registering to vote, then demand that Jews and Muslims justify their proscription against eating bacon in order to vote? What does preventing someone from exercising a right have to do with a purely voluntary activity? If I create a nude volleyball league that is open to the public, you think you should have the right to wear your special underwear just because your god says you must? It is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Demanding justification from the religious in order to access social goods implies that religious beliefs should be subject to society’s whims —it destroys the whole purpose of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination. Social good? Playing soccer is voluntary. What good are they loosing out on by not being allowed to play? No one is stopping anyone from starting their own turban league, nor is anyone stopping anyone from playing soccer if they follow the rules that well over 99% of the people are willing to follow, nor is someone stopping them from buying their own soccer ball and kicking it around in their back yard or other public area where it is allowed to do so. Again, why does one person’s requirement based upon their own made up rules trump anyone else’s made up rules? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/135 "2013-06-16T12:39:02Z")
Freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/136 "2013-06-16T12:51:17Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Again, why does one person’s requirement based upon their own made up rules trump anyone else’s made up rules? Because, in Canada, society has decided that we value the ability to hold to arbitrary religious rules and still be able to participate as fully as possible in society enough that we have decided to protect the right to do so. This results in a higher burden on those who wish to implement rules that impact arbitrary religious rules than on rules that don’t. But you knew that already. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/137 "2013-06-16T14:06:48Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I don’t care about their explanation. It isn’t important. For whatever reason they want to wear a funny hat and the rules don’t allow it. That they claim it is for religious reasons is really beside the point, imho. I can make up bullshit as well as anyone to justify the things I do or want others to do, I guess if I say it is because of some religion then it becomes more valid and others should comply. Bullshit is bullshit regardless. So you’re now claiming that Sikhs are _lying_ about their religious obligation to wear a turban? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/138 "2013-06-16T14:26:17Z")
I think Uzi is saying that he doesn’t give a shit how important your religious beliefs are to you, they’re voluntary beliefs, and no voluntary belief on your part is worth any accommodation on his. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/139 "2013-06-16T14:49:43Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > I think Uzi is saying that he doesn’t give a shit how important your religious beliefs are to you, they’re voluntary beliefs, Bingo. And as they are beliefs based upon fantasy they deserve to be challenged, not catered to. > [@](#): > > and no voluntary belief on your part is worth any accommodation on his. Unless I choose freely to do so. If the soccer association wants to make a change to their rules, then it should be their prerogative to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838/140 "2013-06-16T14:58:42Z")
So **Uzi** , just to be clear, do you think s. 2(a) of the Charter, which protects freedom of religion, and it’s equivalents in provincial human rights laws, should be repealed? It seems to me that’s the logical outcome of your position, but I’d be interested to hear your views. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-is-alive-and-well-in-quebec/660838.md?page=8)