Again, I ask you why their position is not similar to the Sikh kids who wanted to play soccer. They were told the rules, and they insisted they were special, albeit for no reason even as coherent as “my god wants me to wear a turban.”
But of course, according to the QSF, they should just go play in their backyards away from real Quebecois kids. That’s what this was all about.
This is especially true as apparently
Uzi, thanks for giving a clear answer to my question - helps me to understand where you’re coming from on this issue.
May I ask a follow-up question: what if the Quebec Soccer Federation announced a policy of “No Sikhs may be members of QSF teams.”
Would you oppose that, or would you say it’s up to the Federation to set its own membership rules, and Sikhs who want to play soccer should just set up their own teams?
What groups people belong to legally outside of when they are following the rules of the sport (or whatever group they wish to participate within) has nothing to do with that sport. When they are playing the sport they have to take their hat off if that is the rule, when they leave the field no one has the right to stop them putting it back on.
You’re dodging the question. Should the QSF be allowed to deny admittance to a particular religious group, and specifically, Sikhs?
Terminology clarification while Uzi is marshaling his thoughts: AFAICT, the type of Sikh headcovering we’re talking about here is the patka or keski. As other posters have noted, these are simple tightly-fitting head wraps resembling a do-rag or bandana. If the wearer’s hair is long, you can see the topknot protruding on top of the head.
The long elaborately wrapped (and much bulkier) turban that you almost invariably see on older or formally dressed Sikh men, with pleated folds often revealing a triangle of contrasting-color patka underneath, is generally called the dastar or pagri.
I’ve never seen anybody trying to do seriously active athletics in a dastar, except maybe a Sikh polo team. There is absolutely no reason to ban the more sports-friendly patka style of head wrap that wouldn’t also apply to the sorts of do-rag or bandana or beanie worn by many non-Sikh players.
The problem is that there wasn’t a blanket ban on headgear until the QSF made one. The only justification they could give was that there wasn’t a FIFA rule specifically sanctioning them. As I pointed out though it’s clear that there was no such FIFA ban on headgear like turbans worn by Sikh players, because professional players at much higher levels than the QSF (the higher the level the more stringent the rules) wear what is essentially identical headgear. The specific example I gave was Efe Sodje who wore his bandana in the 2002 World Cup and still contiunes to wear it as a professional football player in England; another player known for wearing a bandana is the late Miguel Calderon (he died last year shortly after he retired as a player), who played in the Mexican Liga MX and for the Columbian national team and, like a number of other goalkeepers, he also occasionally wore a baseball cap.
The only purpose of this ban was to exclude Sikh players who quite reasonably wished to wear their turbans. If Sikh players had insisted on wearing full-size kirpans (swords) whilst playing soccer that would’ve been an issue, but quite frankly allowing the wearing if these kind of head-coverings is not even an accommodation as they have no effect on the safety of players or their ability to play the game.
Thank you for the information, Kimstu - very helpful.
So, if your boss finds out your an atheist, and fires you for it, you’d be okay with that? You don’t think you should have any sort of legal protection against that?
Do I believe that my activities outside of work should used as a basis for my continued employment or lack thereof? No. The law should say that, not what type of activity equals discrimination.
So, to be a little clearer: If my boss doesn’t like Chess players, then he shouldn’t be able to fire me because I play chess. If I am a Sikh, he can’t fire me because of that, either. If either activity interferes with my job, then he has a case to let me go.
So, what do you think should happen when someone decides that certain apparel, say a jersey with long sleeves, should not be worn because of “safety issues,” but when queried as to how said jersey is unsafe, the person/group that decided it’s unsafe cannot cite any examples of safety issues regarding the jersey nor even suggest a potential safety concern?
Uzi,
Did I misremember or are you the guy who raged about Muslims “brainwashing” their children?
Now, you claim to be an atheist who despises all religions, but do you also feel the same about Christians and Jews or are we the only ones who “brainwash” our children.
Also, weren’t you the guy who claimed he’d lived for years in a Mudlim country but thought that “Sahih Bukhari” was a person nit a collection of writings?
I ask because I want to make sure I don’t misremember and I remember laughing my ass off at the idea that Simeon lived for years in a Muslim country who thought “Sahih Bukhari” was a human.
That’s more than a little like some who’d lived for years in the UK who thought “Encyclopedia Brittanica” was a person.
I’d say that they have made a stupid statement to justify their decision. It doesn’t make it any less their decision to make, though.
And did I ever imply that the QSF’s motivation wasn’t racist? It did come out of Quebec. Quebecers have the ability of making the most redneck racist in the backwoods of Alberta feel ashamed.
How does wearing a turban interfer with their jobs?
In the context of that discussion, yes.
An interview with Richard Dawkins He refers to religion and not a specific religion in this particular interview. I’m willing to say that Islam, at this point in time and based upon experience, is a worse offender. All are offensive. You make the same mistake that many do, even in this thread, that just because we are talking about Sikhs that I have anything against Sikhs rather than their particular practices that they wish others to cater to.
Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari collected the Sahih al-Bukhari. You think that in the heat of a discussion someone can make a mistake? Hey, you can’t even spell ‘Muslim’, should I assume you don’t know what one is and can speak yea or nay for them?
I never said it did.
Sorry got timed out after realizing I essentially did say that.
I never said it did. But if an employer doesn’t want someone wearing hats on the job, then that is their business.
Up to the point of reasonable accommodation, it is his obligation to try to be flexible.
Someone running an electronics factory would be obliged to serve something other than ham and cheese sandwiches in his lunch-room, if a Jewish employee asked for this. Someone running a pork-slaughtering stockyards, on the other hand, is not going to be able to guarantee a pork-free environment.
An employer, in the U.S., who had a no-hats rule in most environments – manufacturing, sales, accounts, purchasing, etc. – would be required by law to make exceptions for turbans, yarmulkes, and other religious garb.
In other milieux, not so much. The performance of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony is not going to pause for a few minutes while the Tenor unrolls his mat to pray.
Hi, Uzi,
Still wondering if you’re planning on answering my question: do you think there is a problem with the QSF just saying, “No Sikhs may play in the league.” (Legalities aside; I’m wondering what your position is, and whether you think the law as currently drafted makes sense.)
You seem to be of the view that whoever is the organizer gets to set all the rules, even purely arbitrary ones:
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
If that is so, do you have a problem with the QSF having an admittedly arbitrary rule that Sikhs can’t play, meaning that Sikhs who want to play soccer just have to set up their own leagues?
Note: I am trying very hard not to put words in your mouth; I’m genuinely curious how you view this issue.
Missed the Edit window: Note as well when I ask this question, I’m using Sikhs in the religious sense, not as shorthand for skin colour, since religion is something that could be varied by the individual, which I think Uzi puts value on.
For the purposes of this question, I could just as easily use Anglicans or Presbyterians as the group being excluded.
