The Quebec Soccer Federation's Ban on Turbans

[Valmy]

I never would have thought that Canadian politics is so toxic.

How long have you been reading the threads on this forum?

Yeah and he has participated in those threads several times...

[Grallon]

... Oh, the horror...

That you 're willing to tolerate crooks and vermin - out of your detestation for unions - is certainly disturbing.  But not surprising.  As for this fucking turban thing, it simply adds up to all the other acommodations nobody is man enough to put a stop to.  One day day though, one can only hope, there will be a real backlash.  And I want to be there for it. 



G.

[viper37]

... Oh, the horror...

That you 're willing to tolerate crooks and vermin - out of your detestation for unions - is certainly disturbing.  But not surprising.  As for this fucking turban thing, it simply adds up to all the other acommodations nobody is man enough to put a stop to.  One day day though, one can only hope, there will be a real backlash.  And I want to be there for it. 



G.

That's the problem with PQ supporters: selective memory.

For instance, you easily forgot that Tony Accurso was created by Louis Laberge (FTQ), an ally of the PQ for all referendum.  You conveniently forget that Jocelyn Dupuis was a crook in his own right, yet working for the FTQ.  You forget the condos built by FTQ-backed entrepreneurs, paid by the FSFTQ to house mafiosi and unionists.  You forgot that the Sûreté du Québec abruptly cancelled an investigation on an union leader with mafia ties after he complained to the Premier.  Yet, this is totally acceptable for people like you.

See, it's all in the small and not so small details your problem.  The PQ is willing tolerate the worst scum of the Earth if it gives it a chance to win the election and a referendum.  In this, it is really no different than the PLQ, only with a different clientele. 

[viper37]

The only thing that keeps it going is you and grallon going on about how English Canada is prejudiced against Quebec,

Wich is true.  The facts are there to be seen.  If you refuse to open your eyes, I can not do it for you my friend.

But yeah... if you want to take a line of "yeah, it was a silly mistake but it got corrected quickly; all is it should be" then I'm happy to subscribe to that. What's giving the story more life is inserting it into a larger national political debate and insisting that the call wasn't a mistake to begin with.

It was a silly mistake in the way they put it ("they can play in their own backyard").  I still believe having religious symbols on a sport field is a bad idea.  I still find it silly that an entire team would be forced to pray before a game, I find it a sign of disrespect, as well as a prayer held before a city council meeting.

Imho, some visual Chrisitan symbols that have been there for generations (crosses, for example), could stay there, but no more.  Religion is part of a person private's life, and it should stay there.

[Razgovory]

I've been in the mental hospital a lot, and I've learned something:  If the whole country is persecuting you and nobody else knows they are doing it, there's is a possibility that you are in fact insane.

[Malthus]

I've been in the mental hospital a lot, and I've learned something:  If the whole country is persecuting you and nobody else knows they are doing it, there's is a possibility that you are in fact insane.

I gotta admit, you win the thread. 

[crazy canuck]

I've been in the mental hospital a lot, and I've learned something:  If the whole country is persecuting you and nobody else knows they are doing it, there's is a possibility that you are in fact insane.

[Barrister]

Religion is part of a person private's life, and it should stay there.

Again this sounds like "freedom of religion is fine as long as it doesn't impact me in any way".

Most religious people would disagree with you - their religion is very much a part of their public life.  They want to announce to the world their religion.  They want to show themselves as living a religious lifestyle.

[Valmy]

Thank you for not saying 'freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion' BB.

[Iormlund]

Religion is part of a person private's life, and it should stay there.

Again this sounds like "freedom of religion is fine as long as it doesn't impact me in any way".

Most religious people would disagree with you - their religion is very much a part of their public life.  They want to announce to the world their religion.  They want to show themselves as living a religious lifestyle.

You don't get it. I'm fine with Sikhs wearing turbans in public, they can announce to every passer by their religion that way. But if I'm a contractor at a construction site and said Sikh won't don a hard hat instead of that turban, he's not welcome in my team anymore.

There's a very big difference between the two scenarios.

[Jacob]

I don't think they were building anything on those soccer fields, Iorm.

[The Brain]

Then why did they need the turbans?

[Iormlund]

I don't think they were building anything on those soccer fields, Iorm.

I'm not agaisnt Turbans in football. I think it's silly and detrimental to one's gameplay, but shouldn't be banned.

[Malthus]

I think you guys are misunderstanding the type of "turban" under discussion. In reality, it is more of a headcloth, not the full formal dress turban. It would not really have much impact on the play of the game.

[Barrister]

Religion is part of a person private's life, and it should stay there.

Again this sounds like "freedom of religion is fine as long as it doesn't impact me in any way".

Most religious people would disagree with you - their religion is very much a part of their public life.  They want to announce to the world their religion.  They want to show themselves as living a religious lifestyle.

You don't get it. I'm fine with Sikhs wearing turbans in public, they can announce to every passer by their religion that way. But if I'm a contractor at a construction site and said Sikh won't don a hard hat instead of that turban, he's not welcome in my team anymore.

There's a very big difference between the two scenarios.

Don't tell me "I don't get it".  I get it fine.

The question has always been one of "reasonable accomodation", not absolute accomodation.  Allowing a sikh to wear a turban is a trivially simple accomodation to make - it does nothing to affect the game being played.  So of course it should be allowed.

Wearing a hart hat on a construction site is a different situation entirely.  Now, maybe they should still be allowed to wear a turban on a worksite (I think they are in Canada) but it's a much tougher decision to make.