Which is consistent with the Charter:
I believe the word you’re looking for is “province.”
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?
Actually, “homeland” would have been a better word, and you need to explain why the Québécois are not entitled to a homeland.
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.
Obviously, it’s not trivial to the Sikhs. It is nontrivial to anyone who is not a Sikh.
Say what? Since when do soccer players wear specific headgear?
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.
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.
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.
Why shouldn’t they be there?
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.
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 how letting someone wear a sheet on their head is a threat to the demographic, political, or cultural majority of Quebec.
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.
You should take your own advice.
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.)
Moving thread from MPSIMS to Great Debates.
Hey, it just might all be irrelevant if the CSC pays any attention to the news about using one’s head while playing soccer.
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.
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.
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.
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 in the US.
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.
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.
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 I think they can handle a little soccer action.