Sikh cricketers who, with the modern game, need to wear helmets sometimes, tend to wear a very reduced turban, practically a do-rag. Like this. I’m sure soccer players are the same. So, this is just racists being racist. Or religious bigots, take your pick.
If they are expected to make a concession - to have their liberty curtailed - it is the responsibility of those demanding the concession to justify it. That is a fundamental principle of living in a pluralistic, liberal society. Nobody has ever even bothered to justify the turban ban.
Which they are, so what’s the problem?
For almost all the children involved, Quebec is their homeland. Not all Canadians are lily white European stock the way you wish they all were. Not all Quebecois are pur laine. You’re just going to have to live with it.
As to this irrelevant aside, let’s assume for the sake of argument - and you have shown no evidence, but whatever, that the Sikh “Homeland,” wherever you believe that is and I doubt you know, would not allow someone a degree of comparably harmless religious expression. Who gives a fuck? All that proves to me is that that country sucks. Canada is better, and should grant people freedom. Our standards for civilized, tolerant behaviour are higher than most places and as a Canadian I want it that way. If Butthumpistan doesn’t grant religious freedoms to French Catholics then to hell with them; I don’t want us copying them in some weird revenge fantasy against my fellow Canadians who happen to be descending from folks from there.
Because it is right.
Lonesome, this isn’t meant as an insult, but were you being serious?
I ask because much of what you wrote came across as a parody of a racist rant.
Beyond that, you keep talking about Quebec being “the homeland of the Québécois”.
Actually it’s land stolen by white people from Indians.
Now, since the Sikhs are themselves Indians, then logically isn’t this their land and shouldn’t the white people of Quebec be accommodating them?
Also, Lonesome, again I don’t know if this was intended as parody or not, but at one point you were railing about how people in India would never make such concessions to white people.
Actually, as anyone remotely familiar with India knows, they make all sorts of accommodations for religious and ethnic minorities.
For example, you be able to get steak and a hamburger there.
Is it not possible for an individual to be simultaneously Sikh and Quebecois?
Yeah, that caught me by surprise, too.
Anyway, lifelong Montrealer here. What is this crap - Quebecois trying to emulate France’s bonehead intolerances? Let them wear the damn turbans, what difference does it make? It certainly doesn’t offer an advantage in playing soccer (the contrary, if anything).
Well, that part’s easy: ethnic homelands are morally wrong, and shouldn’t exist as nation-states, or provinces. They are, by definition, based on bigotry and exclusion, based on inalienable human traits.
Just curious: Are Sikh youth effectively prevented from playing hockey, like normal Canadians? I presume youth leagues there have mandatory helmet rules.
Sikhs are normal Canadians.
However, to the best of my knowledge hockey helmets and faceguards are absolutely mandatory in all CHA leagues. Sikh players must wear them or not play. Of course, there legitimately is a safety issue there.
Young Sikh players (and come to that, any professional Sikh players, though I don’t know of any) must wear the league-mandated headgear, and according to the Punjabi broadcasters on Hockey Night in Canada,
There are also Sikh who are more liberal/less observant, and cut their hair or do not wear the turbans. Since as I understand it the main thing is that the hair must be covered, I have heard of junior/beer league players braiding or winding their hair in such a way that it can be easily and tightly covered with a small turban and then a helmet.
Dammit, now we have to build a wall on the Northern boarder, too. :rolleyes:
You mean, before *they *build one against us?
Only if they play hockey, eh?
Well, they seem to be nice people. The Band and Levon Helm for instance.
Perhaps we could build a couple of miles of it, and they could build a couple. You know, share and share alike.
But can we wear our kippas while pouring concrete?
Yes, Quebec is notorious for this. The “pur laine” Quebecois (“pure wool”), the white Catholic community, isn’t just feisty about preserving its own sense of identity. Many would agree wholeheartedly with Lonesome Polecat, and aren’t shy about saying so out loud. During the 1995 referendum there were several scandals involving prominent members of the PQ saying things like “our white catholic women need to make more babies, lest we be drowned in foreigners”. And famously, Jacques Parizeau blamed the loss of the referendum on “money and the ethnic vote” in his concession speech.
It’s not so much a skin colour thing as it is a pur laine thing. If you’re not white, Catholic, and descended from earlier white catholic settlers, you’re an outsider. For Sikhs to display an identifying symbol of their own is basically viewed as a challenge to the cultural hegemony of the old Francophone establishment.
Quebec was the only province that didn’t agree to the 1982 constitution that included the charter of rights and freedoms so it could be argued that they didn’t adopt any such system. That factual clarification should not be construed as implying that anything LonesomePolecat says is true.
On the other hand, they had a chance in 1995 to vote for independence, and decided to remain a part of Canada, and subject to the laws thereof.
Yes, but remember that referendum was only defeated due to “the ethnic vote.”
Heading the ball is an integral component of soccer. I don’t see why it’s necessarily bigotry to object to certain players wearing headgear which may give them an advantage. Not everyone has to be able to do everything and people make choices. If I choose to refuse to wear a tie–perhaps because of a divine revelation–then I am voluntarily forgoing eating in restaurants that require wearing ties. That’s my choice, not something a restaurant imposes on me. If players of Sikh descent were prohibited from playing soccer whether they complied with the rules or not, that would certainly be bigotry. But if Sikhs believe that God commands them to wear certain headgear, then they can choose whether obedience to their God or playing soccer is more important. They can play baseball, basketball, and most other sports.
Actually, I never said the issue was “trivial”. What I said was that the Sikhs, by wearing turbans, are not imposing their beliefs on anyone else. Wearing a turban, growing a beard, going clean shaven, letting your hair grow down to your butt, shaving your head, painting yourself blue–as long as you don’t force me to do those things, you haven’t in any way infringed upon my rights. It would be quite bizarre for me to claim to have a right to dictate someone else’s headgear.