[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

Though I bet they actually are succeeding despite their best efforts.

At what?

Assimilating their immigrants.

[crazy canuck]

Though I bet they actually are succeeding despite their best efforts.

At what?

Assimilating their immigrants.

Why do you think that?

Btw, I would hope we never assimilate immigrants here on the West coast.  I would hate to live in a city where everyone tries to act like the British founders.

[Malthus]

Yep.  That is why they fail.

Though I bet they actually are succeeding despite their best efforts.

Indeed - because despite these occasional outbursts of silliness Quebec is actually a really tolerant and open society. That's something that, in the heat of arguing threads, often isn't said, but should be kept in mind.

I believe I said 'Grallon' and not 'Malthus' in my post.

I misunderstood you as saying that I'd taken his post the wrong way.

[Admiral Yi]

The "ambiguity here is whether paragraph 1 or 2 applies to a hat without a function. If paragraph 1 applies, the better argument is that the only function such "equipment" may have is protective; a hat without any other function is okay as long as it is safe.

This was exactly Veep's point.  Sikhs wear headgear for a purpose other than protection.

If paragraph 2 applies, because a hat without  any actual function is "clothing", then it is allowed unless it is determined to be dangerous.

An odd interpretation given that the paragraph you are citing is found in a section labelled "Other Equipment."

[Valmy]

Why do you think that?

Because despite all the gnashing of teeth by nativists they usually do.

[Valmy]

I misunderstood you as saying that I'd taken his post the wrong way.

I was more expressing a hope that Grallon was only talking about immigrants there.

[Malthus]

This was exactly Veep's point.  Sikhs wear headgear for a purpose other than protection.

What Sikhs wear the hat for is not a functional purpose, which is the usual meaning of "equipment".

Equipment = stuff that has some use in the game of soccer.

An odd interpretation given that the paragraph you are citing is found in a section labelled "Other Equipment."

The paragraph clearly differentiates between "equipment" and "clothing", and supplies rules for both. Read para. 2 again.

All items of clothing or equipment other than the basic equipment must be
inspected by the referee and determined not to be dangerous.

What do you think is meant by "...clothing or equipment ..."?

[Malthus]

I misunderstood you as saying that I'd taken his post the wrong way.

I was more expressing a hope that Grallon was only talking about immigrants there.

I have no idea. Would Grallon etc. be okay with Native American kids wearing sacred medicine headbands playing soccer?  I really don't know.

[Admiral Yi]

What Sikhs wear the hat for is not a functional purpose, which is the usual meaning of "equipment".

Equipment = stuff that has some use in the game of soccer.

A reasonable point, but one that seemingly contradicts your your previous argument that Sikh headgear was allowable as either equipment or clothing.

The paragraph clearly differentiates between "equipment" and "clothing", and supplies rules for both. Read para. 2 again.

All items of clothing or equipment other than the basic equipment must be
inspected by the referee and determined not to be dangerous.

What do you think is meant by "...clothing or equipment ..."?

Well, I don't think the differentiation is all that clear (or obvious even), as the treatment is identical.  I think the writers of the rule recognized that there would always be ambiguity about the distinction (is a jockstrap clothing or equipment?) and lumped them together in a section labelled "Other Equipment."

[Barrister]

A turban does have a functional purpose by the way.  Observant sikhs are not supposed to cut their hair, and thus the turban helps keep all of that hair under control.

[Malthus]

A reasonable point, but one that seemingly contradicts your your previous argument that Sikh headgear was allowable as either equipment or clothing.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Either the object is a piece of "equipment" (which is a reasonable position, as a had *does* often have a functional purposes - at the least, shading one's head from the sun) or it is not.

If it is a piece of "equipment", there is only one allowable function it can have - and that is protection. It can't have any other use in the game of soccer - the example I've given is a hat that made headers easier. That would not be allowed.

If it is not defined as "equipment" because, by definition, it has no function at all (in that it makes no difference whatsoever to the game of soccer - doesn't protect you, doesn't make any difference to the play), then it is "clothing". Which is allowed as long as the ref says it is safe.

In short, under either paragraph, it is allowed.

Well, I don't think the differentiation is all that clear (or obvious even), as the treatment is identical.  I think the writers of the rule recognized that there would always be ambiguity about the distinction (is a jockstrap clothing or equipment?) and lumped them together in a section labelled "Other Equipment."

Seems pretty clear that they wanted to catch both "equipment" and "clothing". That is, after all, what they say, the plain meaning of the language they used. 

In summary, while the 'it has another purpose and so isn't allowed' position may appear, at first glance, to make sense, on actually thinking it through and reading the whole rule, it doesn't. 

[garbon]

Btw, I would hope we never assimilate immigrants here on the West coast.  I would hate to live in a city where everyone tries to act like the British founders.

I think that it is just in terms of degree. I don't think it is a problematic to say that there is a lot of assimilation that occurs in America, but that hardly makes, even among the assimilated, us all the same.

[Malthus]

A turban does have a functional purpose by the way.  Observant sikhs are not supposed to cut their hair, and thus the turban helps keep all of that hair under control.

If that is true, it makes even more sense that it would fall within the rule - if it acts as a kind of hairnet, to the extent it has a function, it is "protective".

[garbon]

Overall hatred of anything religious, no matter who = not prejudiced.

Telling minorities their only purpose should be to assimilate, and acting as if this was true = prejudiced.

Well actually both strike me is prejudiced. It's just that in the first, you aren't prejudiced against a specific religious group (as in this case, members of the Sikh faith) but all religious individuals.

[Malthus]

Btw, I would hope we never assimilate immigrants here on the West coast.  I would hate to live in a city where everyone tries to act like the British founders.

I think that it is just in terms of degree. I don't think it is a problematic to say that there is a lot of assimilation that occurs in America, but that hardly makes, even among the assimilated, us all the same.

Or that the "assimilation" necessarily all goes one way ...