Intolerance is alive and well in Quebec

[Northern_Piper]

In response Uzi’s long post:

You can run your club as you wish, as long as it is truly private. However, if you open your club to the public, inviting members of the public to join, you have to comply with human rights laws, notably the requirement that you can’t discriminate on religious, ethnic, or racial grounds.

So if you set up your open-to-the-public soccer club and say “No Sikhs may join,” you’re in breach oh human rights laws. If instead you say, “no turbans allowed”, that may seem a neutral rule but in fact it discriminates against those who wear turbans for religious reasons - ie - Sikhs.

And that would completely circumvent the prohibition on religious discrimination, so it is not allowed under human rights laws.

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

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.

I’m not keen on changing the Board software, but it’s posts like this that make me wish we had a “Like” function.
Well-said, RickJay!

[Miller]

@Uzi

Who’s the dick? The one asking that their rules be followed to participate in a entirely voluntary activity? Or the one asking the rules be changed because other voluntary rules they wish to follow could prevent them from participation if they wished to follow them fully? If you ask me to bend my rules so you can join my club, why is it not allowed to ask you to bend your own rules that are preventing you from doing so? Especially when both rules are entirely arbitrary.

The dick is the person instituting a new rule for the specific purpose of excluding a class of people they don’t like.

Frankly, if people keep letting the religious have an easy time of it, how will they prove to their deity that they actually suffered to follow his rules?

That presumes that religious observances exist to make their followers suffer, which I don’t think is accurate. And, at any rate, I don’t see how that line of logic justifies persecuting religious minorities. If their God wants them to suffer more, that’s between them and their God.

The other side of that coin is the adherents taking great satisfaction in getting those same heathens to bend over backwards to cater to their kookiness. Because if all they wanted to do was play soccer, then they’d take their silly headgear off (like many of their fellows do on a regular basis) and not fuss about it.

Playing soccer isn’t all they want to do - they want to play soccer and follow what they feel to be the dictates of their religion. Since letting them do both things costs no one else anything at all, why would you want to prevent them from doing that?

Or they’d get a group together of like minded people and play soccer by whatever rules they wished including a requirement that a person wear a turban. Would you say if they did the latter and someone who didn’t like the turban wanted to play, he should get his way and have them change the rules to cater to him?

Well, it depends. Was your hypothetical turban requirement adopted for the sole purpose of preventing a specific group of people participate? Because that would be every bit as wrong as the story in the OP.

If I want to create a club that requires the wearing of a tie, is it every appropriate for me to tell someone who doesn’t like ties and wants to join my club to get stuffed without being a dick? And if my club is for pilots, and you aren’t one? Or any number of other scenarios that result of someone not being allowed to participate for arbitrary reasons because their own arbitrary reasons prevent them? Why is it the former’s responsibility to cater to the later and if they don’t, why are they the dicks?

Well, one problem you have there is your odd insistence that his rule change was arbitrary. It was not. It was adopted for the specific purpose of excluding a minority. That’s not arbitrary at all - its deliberate, it’s unconscionable, and it’s illegal.

[Uzi]

@Miller

Well, one problem you have there is your odd insistence that his rule change was arbitrary. It was not. It was adopted for the specific purpose of excluding a minority. That’s not arbitrary at all - its deliberate, it’s unconscionable, and it’s illegal.

What minority? Sikhs, or Sikhs who wear turbans? Because any Sikh who wanted to play was allowed to play as long as they followed the rules. The problem is that many Sikhs (and others) want their cake and to eat it when it is perfectly obvious that being a Sikh doesn’t depend on wearing a turban because so many don’t.

[iiandyiiii]

@Uzi

What minority? Sikhs, or Sikhs who wear turbans? Because any Sikh who wanted to play was allowed to play as long as they followed the rules. The problem is that many Sikhs (and others) want their cake and to eat it when it is perfectly obvious that being a Sikh doesn’t depend on wearing a turban because so many don’t.

Do you really think ALL Sikhs feel the same way about the turban? You don’t buy that some actually do believe that their religion and/or identity depends on it?

[Miller]

@Uzi

What minority? Sikhs, or Sikhs who wear turbans? Because any Sikh who wanted to play was allowed to play as long as they followed the rules.

I’m pretty sure the target was Sikhs in general. The ones in turbans were just easier to identify. If you prefer, the target could be “religiously observant Sikhs,” or “traditionalist Sikhs.” I don’t see why that matters, though - again, the only purpose of adopting this new rule was to be a dick to people who weren’t hurting anyone. I don’t understand why you see that attitude as something that’s worthy of defending.

[Magiver]

@Miller

I’m pretty sure the target was Sikhs in general. The ones in turbans were just easier to identify. If you prefer, the target could be “religiously observant Sikhs,” or “traditionalist Sikhs.” I don’t see why that matters, though - again, the only purpose of adopting this new rule was to be a dick to people who weren’t hurting anyone. I don’t understand why you see that attitude as something that’s worthy of defending.

and your cite this was the only reason for it? I specified which type of headwear I would object to as a soccer player and which one would work well.

[Muffin]

There are times I am glad my family left Quebec. This is one of them.

Shame on the bigots.

[Miller]

@Magiver

and your cite this was the only reason for it? I specified which type of headwear I would object to as a soccer player and which one would work well.

Yes, but I wasn’t talking about why you banned turbans in Québécois soccer games.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Magiver

I specified which type of headwear I would object to as a soccer player and which one would work well.

Did it have anything to do with your belief that Muslims should be referred to as “towel heads”?

If so, I don’t see how it’s relevant because I doubt the organization was trying to ban Muslims and some poor Siks became collateral damage.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Uzi

What minority? Sikhs, or Sikhs who wear turbans? Because any Sikh who wanted to play was allowed to play as long as they followed the rules.

Any black person who wanted to get married in Virginia in 1960 was free to do so as long as they followed the rules. It was just the uppity ones who wanted to marry white people who ruined a perfectly good regulation.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Any black person who wanted to get married in Virginia in 1960 was free to do so as long as they followed the rules. It was just the uppity ones who wanted to marry white people who ruined a perfectly good regulation.

Agreed.

Also only a politically correct asshole who hates all white people would think Jews were being targeted if someone banned the wearing of yarmulkas.

After all, not all Jews wear yarmulkas.

[Uzi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Any black person who wanted to get married in Virginia in 1960 was free to do so as long as they followed the rules. It was just the uppity ones who wanted to marry white people who ruined a perfectly good regulation.

I have deliberately stayed away from things people have no choice on. You can’t do anything about what color skin you have. You can choose to wear a hat and how you act.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The really funny part (okay, possibly the only funny part) of all this is that I, a devout atheist, have spent the last two weeks vociferously defending Muslims and Sikhs on these boards. You know why? Not because I think they’re beautiful faiths which teach us about the world we live in and have inspired art, literature and science. I think they’re both goofy belief systems.

It’s because when Sikhs and Muslims are being persecuted, it’s a very short step to me.

ETA: Marriage isn’t a choice? Interesting theory. Look, if you want to distinguish between race and religion because one is innate, fine. You can’t get away from the fact, however, that in this country and Canada we make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. This particular accommodation is about the least onerous imaginable. There is no objective reason at all why anyone else should give a fuck about Sikhs wearing turbans on the pitch.

[Uzi]

@iiandyiiii

Do you really think ALL Sikhs feel the same way about the turban? You don’t buy that some actually do believe that their religion and/or identity depends on it?

Why the crap should I care whether they are required to follow some kooky religion’s rules? The requirements of their religion prevent them from doing many things. If one more of those is to not play soccer with people who don’t cater to their every whim then so be it. If that bothers them, then they should do something about it other than make others change their ways to let them fit in.

[Magiver]

@Ibn_Warraq

Did it have anything to do with your belief that Muslims should be referred to as “towel heads”?

I never said Muslims should be referred to as towel heads.

@Ibn_Warraq

If so, I don’t see how it’s relevant because I doubt the organization was trying to ban Muslims and some poor Siks became collateral damage.

It’s relevant if it adversely affects other players which is what I stated earlier.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Uzi

Why the crap should I care whether they are required to follow some kooky religion’s rules? The requirements of their religion prevent them from doing many things. If one more of those is to not play soccer with people who don’t cater to their every whim then so be it. If that bothers them, then they should do something about it other than make others change their ways to let them fit in.

Like… protest against a policy that was enacted last week solely to discriminate against them? I’ll pass along your words of support.

[Magiver]

@Miller

Yes, but I wasn’t talking about why you banned turbans in Québécois soccer games.

I asked for a cite for your assertion. Do you have one or did you randomly pull it from somewhere?

[Uzi]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

ETA: Marriage isn’t a choice?

No, skin color isn’t a choice. If that is a criteria in marriage, then it is wrong. Wearing a hat is a choice regardless of what a particular religion has to say about it.

Interesting theory. Look, if you want to distinguish between race and religion because one is innate, fine.

You brought it up. People make choices all the time. They shouldn’t be penalized for those times they have no choice, but where they do so, they have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

You can’t get away from the fact, however, that in this country and Canada we make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

And we shouldn’t.

This particular accommodation is about the least onerous imaginable. There is no objective reason at all why anyone else should give a fuck about Sikhs wearing turbans on the pitch.

And there is no reason for them not to comply to the wishes of the majority and take their headgear off, either. And if team building requires a common uniform, then there is a slightly more reason to comply than not to.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Do you not get that this rule was written just to penalize them?