In line with Duque de Bragança's thread on the French law banning face coverings (and his jabs at me about Quebec ;) ), what does Languish think of the Quebec rule banning turbans from soccer?
QuoteThe debate began earlier this month when the Quebec Soccer Federation, the association responsible for organized leagues of all ages, banned Sikh headwear from its competitions.
The association cited safety concerns as its rather dubious justification; no dangers are known and none proven.
QSF director Brigitte Frot followed up with the suggestion that players left on the sidelines for sporting the headwear could play among themselves in their own backyards, adding, somewhat officiously, without the assistance of any official referees.
The ruling was controversial and criticized for being senseless, ridiculous and, some argued, outright prejudiced. But none of those objections seemed to matter to Premier Marois and the Parti Québécois this week.
On Monday, the Canadian Soccer Association gave the Quebec federation a dose of its own medicine, and suspended the provincial body. Until further notice, Quebec leagues will not be allowed to compete in any national tournaments.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/12/f-vp-gagnon-quebec-soccer-turbans.html
It's not Quebec's ban it's FIFA's ban.
The Canadian Soccer Association is the one not respecting the rules.
Also, what Jab?
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:33:02 AM
It's not Quebec's ban it's FIFA's ban.
Wow!
Is that the spin this is getting in your Province. It is utter Bullshit. The FIFA rule gives refs the discretion to remove unsafe headgear. There is no FIFA ban on turbans. In fact once FIFA learned the Quebec association was using the FIFA rule as a justification this happened:
QuoteFIFA authorizes wearing of turbans at all levels of Canadian soccer
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/fifa-authorizes-wearing-of-turbans-at-all-levels-of-canadian-soccer/article12550476/
I understand the Quebec association has now backed down. The premier now looks really stupid for backing this right - or is that just when opposition parties try to protect minority rights :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:33:02 AM
It's not Quebec's ban it's FIFA's ban.
The Canadian Soccer Association is the one not respecting the rules.
Also, what Jab?
The article is about how the Quebec politicians are supporting the Quebec soccar federation on this.
The "jab" was him claiming I have massive problems with Quebec, or something, which I presumably need to get over before I can comment on the French veil thing. I decided I needed to do something to prove him right. :D
@CC She doesn't care about the rule. She cares that the Quebec Association gets to dictate the rules in the province & was pissed off at the Canadian association being a bunch of pussies about it.
I think it's a stupid ban from the FSQ & that the Canadian Association has no right to ban members.
FIFA approves turbans, the only requirement being that the colour match the team jersey.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:41:13 AM
I think it's a stupid ban from the FSQ & that the Canadian Association has no right to ban members.
Sure they can :huh:
When I was a kid one of the players on our soccer team was Sikh. He was also one of the best headers of the ball in the league so we attributed it to the magical power of his turban. :D
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 14, 2013, 01:06:56 PM
When I was a kid one of the players on our soccer team was Sikh. He was also one of the best headers of the ball in the league so we attributed it to the magical power of his turban. :D
They hide springs in there. Outta be outlawed. :mad:
I first read Sorcerer Federation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 12:14:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:41:13 AM
I think it's a stupid ban from the FSQ & that the Canadian Association has no right to ban members.
Sure they can :huh:
Bah, it's Bullshit, they totally overstep their mandate.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 01:29:21 PMBah, it's Bullshit, they totally overstep their mandate.
What's their mandate?
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2013, 01:12:11 PM
I first read Sorcerer Federation.
And you are at the controls of a nuclear facility :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 01:29:21 PMBah, it's Bullshit, they totally overstep their mandate.
What's their mandate?
Oversee Soccer in Canada. They don't get to pick their membership.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 01:29:21 PMBah, it's Bullshit, they totally overstep their mandate.
What's their mandate?
Oversee Soccer in Canada. They don't get to pick their membership.
If a member violates the terms of membership - say like commiting an act of discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code - then they certainly have the jurisdiction to sanction such a member. The sanction power includes the power to revoke membership.
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
Yes, they claimed the Turbans were unsafe. Hence FIFA's decision to expressly state they are permitted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
Yes, they claimed the Turbans were unsafe. Hence FIFA's decision to expressly state they are permitted.
Not quite - the stated reason was that they weren't allowed by FIFA. Although FIFA's actually policy didn't actually make it sound like they were banned, and then of course FIFA went out and explicitly stated they were not.
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2013, 02:12:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
Yes, they claimed the Turbans were unsafe. Hence FIFA's decision to expressly state they are permitted.
Not quite - the stated reason was that they weren't allowed by FIFA. Although FIFA's actually policy didn't actually make it sound like they were banned, and then of course FIFA went out and explicitly stated they were not.
Now that is getting pretty picky there BB. The reason given for being in violation of a FIFA rule was the headgear saftey issue I referred to earlier in the thread.
How that is "not quite" claiming the turbans are unsafe is a little beyond my ability of esoteric reasoning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
Yes, they claimed the Turbans were unsafe. Hence FIFA's decision to expressly state they are permitted.
In what way is a turban unsafe for playing soccer? I mean, most people don't wear anything on their head playing soccer.
Edit: I mean in what way is it claimed.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:24:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
Yes, they claimed the Turbans were unsafe. Hence FIFA's decision to expressly state they are permitted.
In what way is a turban unsafe for playing soccer? I mean, most people don't wear anything on their head playing soccer.
Edit: I mean in what way is it claimed.
That is just it. There was no substance to the claim. Just an assertion that turbans were a violation of the FIFA rule against unsafe headgear without any evidence there was any danger or risk at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 14, 2013, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 01:29:21 PMBah, it's Bullshit, they totally overstep their mandate.
What's their mandate?
Oversee Soccer in Canada. They don't get to pick their membership.
If a member violates the terms of membership - say like commiting an act of discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code - then they certainly have the jurisdiction to sanction such a member. The sanction power includes the power to revoke membership.
You cannot not be part of the CSA hence you can't be kicked out of it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 02:46:17 PMYou cannot not be part of the CSA hence you can't be kicked out of it.
I don't think that's how it works.
If they are not "part of it" why is your Premier so concerned their status was removed? :hmm:
I guess the argument can be made, not sure, that there might be a pin or something in the turban? Not sure. I know the girls can't play with pins in their hair or anything similar. Not defending this measure. It's obviously thinlly disguised racism at play.
I would be a bit more forgiving about this if turbans were some kind of new headgear being worn and the association had to make a decision without a good frame of reference. But turbans have been worn by soccer players without any incident in Canada, and I suspect the rest of the word, for a very long time.
What really sucks is that most of the turban-wearers would be Sikhs, who are rad.
Quote from: fahdiz on June 14, 2013, 06:38:30 PM
What really sucks is that most of the turban-wearers would be Sikhs, who are rad.
All actually - at least around these parts. We have a very large Sikh community which is indeed rad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 09:50:45 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on June 14, 2013, 06:38:30 PM
What really sucks is that most of the turban-wearers would be Sikhs, who are rad.
All actually - at least around these parts. We have a very large Sikh community which is indeed rad.
Yeah, good people. Universalists as regards salvation, opposed to both the caste structure of Hinduism and the exclusivity of Islam.
The orange is fetching.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 05:46:43 PM... turbans have been worn by soccer players without any incident in Canada, and I suspect the rest of the word, for a very long time.
I've watched and played literally thousands of games. I've never, ever seen anyone wearing headgear (unless you count protective masks for injured players or freezing temps). Then again I mostly watch competitive games and India sucks. Plus a turban seems to be a distinct disadvantage.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 14, 2013, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 05:46:43 PM... turbans have been worn by soccer players without any incident in Canada, and I suspect the rest of the word, for a very long time.
I've watched and played literally thousands of games. I've never, ever seen anyone wearing headgear (unless you count protective masks for injured players or freezing temps). Then again I mostly watch competitive games and India sucks. Plus a turban seems to be a distinct disadvantage.
I'm pretty sure there are more Sikhs in Canada than in all of continental Europe...
Why are stories in Quebec covered differently then they are in the rest of the world?
More Canadian multiculturalism motivated bullshit. They will wallow in it like so many pigs in their own shit. You may disregard.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on June 14, 2013, 11:00:08 PM
More Canadian multiculturalism motivated bullshit. They will wallow in it like so many pigs in their own shit. You may disregard.
You do realize you have only offered an
ad hominem argument, and have given no actual argument about why people who wear turbans should be prohibited from playing soccer...
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2013, 11:30:11 PM
Quote from: Grallon on June 14, 2013, 11:00:08 PM
More Canadian multiculturalism motivated bullshit. They will wallow in it like so many pigs in their own shit. You may disregard.
You do realize you have only offered an ad hominem argument, and have given no actual argument about why people who wear turbans should be prohibited from playing soccer...
He's using a Nazi statue as his avatar. Take a guess.
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2013, 11:30:11 PM
You do realize you have only offered an ad hominem argument, and have given no actual argument about why people who wear turbans should be prohibited from playing soccer...
The only argument that matters is that this wanton display of religious fervor offends the majority in Quebec.
It took us centuries to neutralize Catholic symbolism and influence. And now we should swallow more of this religious nonsense because Canadians - that is foreigners - tell us it's the 'right' thing to do?! Because accepting all the mores of those primitive cultures is a mark of civilization according to the 'multikulti' doctrine?
I don't think so.
G.
Now you see, if you guys let us win in 1775 or in the War of 1812 he'd be a civilized English speaking person. Of course he'd probably have lots of guns...
Quote from: Grallon on June 14, 2013, 11:58:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2013, 11:30:11 PM
You do realize you have only offered an ad hominem argument, and have given no actual argument about why people who wear turbans should be prohibited from playing soccer...
The only argument that matters is that this wanton display of religious fervor offends the majority in Quebec.
It took us centuries to neutralize Catholic symbolism and influence. And now we should swallow more of this religious nonsense because Canadians - that is foreigners - tell us it's the 'right' thing to do?! Because accepting all the mores of those primitive cultures is a mark of civilization according to the 'multikulti' doctrine?
I don't think so.
And if I said that speaking French offended the majority in Canada (it doesn't, by the way)? Or that having gay sex offended the majority?
Majority rule is indeed a powerful argument, but it certainly can not be the only factor...
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 12:12:11 AM
...
Majority rule is indeed a powerful argument, but it certainly can not be the only factor...
I said it above - religion - the presence of religion - the influence of religion - is a touchy subject in Quebec.
As a people we have endured this for a great many years - until we finally got rid of it 50 years ago. And now, under the aegis of the vile Canadian 'multikulti' doctrine we should allow all this to come haunting us back!? No way!
You people can do as you will in your own country - and we should do as we please in our own!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on June 15, 2013, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 12:12:11 AM
...
Majority rule is indeed a powerful argument, but it certainly can not be the only factor...
I said it above - religion - the presence of religion - the influence of religion - is a touchy subject in Quebec.
As a people we have endured this for a great many years - until we finally got rid of it 50 years ago. And now, under the aegis of the vile Canadian 'multikulti' doctrine we should allow all this to come haunting us back!? No way!
You people can do as you will in your own country - and we should do as we please in our own!
Sorry to be the one to tell you this G, but after two referendums, you and I do in fact live in the same country... :console:
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 12:45:24 AM
Sorry to be the one to tell you this G, but after two referendums, you and I do in fact live in the same country...
No we don't. And therein lies the Canadian problem.
But then again I've been saying this for years - Canada as a country is a fraud - founded on denial. The anglophone majority willfully denies that the francophone majority in Quebec is anything more than a minority. I understand the psychological mechanisms behind it all. It doesn't make it any less illegitimate though.
And the results of the previous referendums doesnt invalidate my point. The question was never 'Are Quebecers a separate people?'; we know we are a separate people - the question was: 'Should this separate people' remove itself from the 'Canadian Federation' ?
G.
I'm curious on turbans. Surely the could lead to a slight unfair advantage? Made of certain material it could aid with heading the ball, if its big enough it will give you extra reach for knock ons, etc...
In the days of the old heavy ball wearing a turban might have been an advantage for taking headers :hmm:
I can imagine a ban on hard head coverings being legit as they might assist headers; the standard Sikh turban would surely be a disadvantage though, making it more difficult to head the ball effectively.
Quote from: Grallon on June 15, 2013, 01:05:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 12:45:24 AM
Sorry to be the one to tell you this G, but after two referendums, you and I do in fact live in the same country...
No we don't. And therein lies the Canadian problem.
But then again I've been saying this for years - Canada as a country is a fraud - founded on denial. The anglophone majority willfully denies that the francophone majority in Quebec is anything more than a minority. I understand the psychological mechanisms behind it all. It doesn't make it any less illegitimate though.
And the results of the previous referendums doesnt invalidate my point. The question was never 'Are Quebecers a separate people?'; we know we are a separate people - the question was: 'Should this separate people' remove itself from the 'Canadian Federation' ?
Cut the crap, G. I didn't say anything about 'peoples', 'nations', 'societies', or 'cultures'.
I said we live in the same country. And we do. A point which is so obviously true I don't even know how to argue it.
A turban might also make heat dissipation harder, which is a pretty big disadvantage as most competitive tourneys are held during Summer.
In any case a quick search of Youtube shows most players in a couple Sikh tournaments wearing nothing on their heads. A few wear a simple scarf covering their hair and that's it. So this seems a pretty stupid controversy. The motorcycle/helmet issue had a lot more meat.
PS. I can actually understand where Grallon is coming from. But that's probably a matter of perspective. It wasn't that long ago that what the Church said was law. And even now they affect everyone's lives (Populares are about to turn the clock back 40 years on abortion for example). So I am uncomfortable, to say the least, with bending laws/rules to placate any religion.
Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2013, 02:59:05 AM
I'm curious on turbans. Surely the could lead to a slight unfair advantage? Made of certain material it could aid with heading the ball, if its big enough it will give you extra reach for knock ons, etc...
No more than an afro. :huh: It's not made of leather you know.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 15, 2013, 08:14:01 AM
A turban might also make heat dissipation harder, which is a pretty big disadvantage as most competitive tourneys are held during Summer.
In any case a quick search of Youtube shows most players in a couple Sikh tournaments wearing nothing on their heads. A few wear a simple scarf covering their hair and that's it. So this seems a pretty stupid controversy. The motorcycle/helmet issue had a lot more meat.
A quick search of Youtube shows that most Christians dont attend church every week.
Not sure what, if anything, that proves other than there are varying degrees to which religious doctrine is observed in any faith. For those who believe that wearing a turban is an integral part of their faith it is indeed stupid that a soccer federation would require them to take off the turban to play.
What abut the other Ks? Bracelets are probably banned, hair-combs I don't know. Knives without question. Why is then the turban so important? Observant Sikhs won't be able to play anyway.
Why are we still having this discussion? FIFA clarified the rule and Quebec backed down. And we all know why Quebec, and only Quebec interpreted it that way: They're a bunch of backwards xenophobes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2013, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:33:02 AM
It's not Quebec's ban it's FIFA's ban.
Wow!
Is that the spin this is getting in your Province. It is utter Bullshit. The FIFA rule gives refs the discretion to remove unsafe headgear. There is no FIFA ban on turbans. In fact once FIFA learned the Quebec association was using the FIFA rule as a justification this happened:
QuoteFIFA authorizes wearing of turbans at all levels of Canadian soccer
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/fifa-authorizes-wearing-of-turbans-at-all-levels-of-canadian-soccer/article12550476/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/fifa-authorizes-wearing-of-turbans-at-all-levels-of-canadian-soccer/article12550476/)
I understand the Quebec association has now backed down. The premier now looks really stupid for backing this right - or is that just when opposition parties try to protect minority rights :hmm:
BC went through the same thing in 2005, nobody said a word then. The decision was over-ruled after a while.
The FIFA banned anything on the head, except the burka specifically allowed. Then the FIFA specifically allowed the turban and the Quebec federation allowed it.
Tempest in a tea pot, a good time as any for candian media to practice their favourite sport of Quebec bashing.
EDIT: correction, not just canadian medias but canadians as well it seems.
And because will deny it:
http://bcsikhs.com/williams-lake-players-targeted-at-langley-soccer-tournament/ (http://bcsikhs.com/williams-lake-players-targeted-at-langley-soccer-tournament/)
I don't think I've seen anyone playing with a turban during soccer tournaments, be it world cup or olympics.
I'm also waiting for Neil and CC to call punjabi backwater xenophobes:
http://www.punjabfootball.com/
No turban here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 15, 2013, 08:33:43 AM
A quick search of Youtube shows that most Christians dont attend church every week.
Really? You found that on youtube. Link?
;) ;)
Quote from: Iormlund on June 15, 2013, 09:10:11 AM
What abut the other Ks? Bracelets are probably banned, hair-combs I don't know. Knives without question. Why is then the turban so important? Observant Sikhs won't be able to play anyway.
FWIW, catholics can't have thier gold jesus on a cross bling either. But that's an obvious safety issue.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 10:45:12 AM
I'm also waiting for Neil and CC to call punjabi backwater xenophobes:
http://www.punjabfootball.com/
No turban here.
:lol:
So you figure that Quebec isn't a bunch of backwards xenophobes because a bunch of third-worlders, a group known for backwardness and xenophobia, adopt the same policies that you guys do?
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 12:37:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 10:45:12 AM
I'm also waiting for Neil and CC to call punjabi backwater xenophobes:
http://www.punjabfootball.com/
No turban here.
:lol:
So you figure that Quebec isn't a bunch of backwards xenophobes because a bunch of third-worlders, a group known for backwardness and xenophobia, adopt the same policies that you guys do?
at least he didn't source the KKK :D
I think it is worth translating part of a column by Pierre Foglia published in La Presse this morning. It shows exactly what our Canadian neighbors are about on this question.
-----
Quote
State Religion
"... What was I telling you two weeks ago? I was telling you : "Come now, stop crying, the Sikhs will soon be able to play with that thing on the head and, of course, they won't play at all. Or so little."
Why was I telling you that? First of all because Sikhs play soccer about as much as people in Senegal play curling. I exaggerate, but not that much. Above all I was saying the other day: "I'm not so sure this story has much to do with soccer." So what's it about?
It's about Canada of course. This story is so, but so Canadian, and it illustrate the very specific nature of Canadian multiculturalism, specific in that it is practiced as a combat sport.
Here's an example to make my point. During the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, four players of the Canadian field hockey team, all of Sikh origins, paraded with their turban.
No, no it doesn't upset me. Not at all. In fact I didn't even notice. And if I had I wouldn't have blown a fuse. ... What annoys me is elsewhere. The article (dated August 6th 2008) that some of my readers sent me, mentioned that four players of the Canadian team, WHO DON'T WEAR TURBANS IN THEIR DAILY LIFE - and didn't have any intention of ever wearing it - would do so for the opening ceremony. Why? The journalist asked, since the were not wearing it anyway? The answer: "I want to show I can wear a turban and still be Canadian."
Did I say multiculturalism as a combat sport? It's much more: it's a state religion. What we must realize, to understand the demented country we live in, is that the religious reasons invoked to exempt and accommodate immigrants, and notably to allow Sikhs to play soccer with their turbans, refer first and foremost to the official religion of Canada - multiculturalism - before referring to the religion of those requesting accommodations. To which I add: requesters who never asked for that much.
A British writer, V.S Pritchett, once wrote that a Canadian is lost when he asking himself what it is to be Canadian (cited in 'Neil Bissoondath' "Selling Illusions" - Boréal - 1995). But if you put a turban on his head, there, he finds himself!..."
-----
I especially like the description of Canada as a 'demented country' ("
pays de fous" in French) - because it describe precisely what I've been saying above.
G.
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 12:37:24 PM
:lol:
So you figure that Quebec isn't a bunch of backwards xenophobes because a bunch of third-worlders, a group known for backwardness and xenophobia, adopt the same policies that you guys do?
The bunch of Third-worlder, the group known for backwardness from wich the poor unjustly-barred-from-soccer-Sikh are issued don't wear turban when they play soccer. So, tell me again, why is it we should accomodate people for traditions they don't themselves respect in their home country?
the reaction of the Quebec separatist Premier pretty much sums up everything I dislike about separatists. Basically her position was the Canadian soccer association had to let the Quebec soccer association have all the benefits of being part of the Canadian system without actually having to following any of its rules.
Typical have cake and eat it too separatist thinking.
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2013, 12:43:16 PM
at least he didn't source the KKK :D
A Sikh (/siːk/ or /sɪk/; Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ, sikkh [sɪkkʰ]) is a follower of Sikhi (Sikhism), a monotheistic, monist, pantheist religion that originated in the 15th century from the Punjab region in the Indian subcontinent.[26]
Strange. In Punjab, the Sikhs don't wear turbans to play soccer. But here, they must, otherwise we are racists and disrepectful of their religion.
At the least, some tribunals show some sense and have forced them (again, what racists we are) to wear a regular helmet when on a motorcycle. How terrible that must have been for them :(
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
I imagine it's the same reason the French put all brown people that they allow into their country into ghettos.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 15, 2013, 02:52:39 PM
the reaction of the Quebec separatist Premier pretty much sums up everything I dislike about separatists. Basically her position was the Canadian soccer association had to let the Quebec soccer association have all the benefits of being part of the Canadian system without actually having to following any of its rules.
Typical have cake and eat it too separatist thinking.
Yes seperatists are evil. You should burn them all when you see one, less they corrupt your youth.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
Why are stories in Quebec covered differently then they are in the rest of the world?
Lost in translation. It ain't unique to Quebec, but you knew that, you're just trolling as usual.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 15, 2013, 08:33:43 AM
For those who believe that wearing a turban is an integral part of their faith it is indeed stupid that a soccer federation would require them to take off the turban to play.
Where do you draw the line? I can't wear a cap if I want to in a soccer game. But suddenly, if I claim it's part of my belief it becomes ok? I want to bring a knife in school, but I can't. But if it's my religion it becomes ok?
People hiding behind religion are horrible human beings. Take responsibility for your opinions FFS.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 02:00:41 PM
Has anyone actually articulated the reason for the Quebec turban ban? I mean, why are they claiming it is necessary?
FIFA rules. If it ain't specifically allowed, it is disallowed. Burka was mentionned as being allowed. Turban was not. Ergo, turban was banned pending clarification of the rules by FIFA.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 02:54:59 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2013, 12:43:16 PM
at least he didn't source the KKK :D
A Sikh (/siːk/ or /sɪk/; Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ, sikkh [sɪkkʰ]) is a follower of Sikhi (Sikhism), a monotheistic, monist, pantheist religion that originated in the 15th century from the Punjab region in the Indian subcontinent.[26]
Strange. In Punjab, the Sikhs don't wear turbans to play soccer. But here, they must, otherwise we are racists and disrepectful of their religion.
At the least, some tribunals show some sense and have forced them (again, what racists we are) to wear a regular helmet when on a motorcycle. How terrible that must have been for them :(
There are a lot of Sikhs in Edmonton, and I know lots of them.
Some of them wear the turban. Some of them do not. But it seems only proper and respectful to give them the option.
So when they ask to wear their kirpan on soccer fields, we should allow them?
If you look up punjab and football, there are some images of players wearing their turban.
At any rate, is there something about speaking French that encourages people to be intolerant?
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 03:46:25 PM
At any rate, is there something about speaking French that encourages people to be intolerant?
How are we intolerant exactly?
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 03:49:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 03:46:25 PM
At any rate, is there something about speaking French that encourages people to be intolerant?
How are we intolerant exactly?
You've demonstrated in this thread no reason for suddenly taking issue with football players who wear turbans. All of your arguments seems to revolve around the fact that you don't like it.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
You've demonstrated in this thread no reason for suddenly taking issue with football players who wear turbans. All of your arguments seems to revolve around the fact that you don't like it.
I played soccer when was I kid. Even when there was snow outside and we were freezing, it was forbidden to wear a knit cap because it was against the rules. Why make exceptions for some people and not grant the same rights for everyone? Wich groups should get what priviledges? Can I get a list? Is holding prayer in public assembly acceptable?
If two men holding their hands is disrespectful to my religion, do we forbid public display of affection by gay couples? Where do we stop? What is the final authority on what is a deep religious icon and what is not? Burning bibles is illegal but burning corans is ok?
Ah, I get it. Nutty anti-religious nonsense.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 04:05:49 PM
... What is the final authority on what is a deep religious icon and what is not? Burning bibles is illegal but burning corans is ok?
Did you vote Yes in 1995? If not you only have yourself to blame for this quagmire we remain mired in. <_<
G.
Are Mormons allowed to doff the Magic Underwear to play sports?
Faux Frogs are weird, news at 11?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
Are Mormons allowed to doff the Magic Underwear to play sports?
Mormons let all sorts of exemptions happen for athletes.
Quote from: Grallon on June 15, 2013, 04:17:40 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 04:05:49 PM
... What is the final authority on what is a deep religious icon and what is not? Burning bibles is illegal but burning corans is ok?
Did you vote Yes in 1995? If not you only have yourself to blame for this quagmire we remain mired in. <_<
G.
Quebec charter is essentially the same as Canada's charter. There would be no change there.
I voted yes in 1995 and I don't regret it. I certainly will not vote yes on another referendum though, the sovereignists act like morons.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 04:10:47 PM
Ah, I get it. Nutty anti-religious nonsense.
No.
Religion in private space: ok.
Religion in public space: not ok.
No prayers, no religious symbol, peace on Earth for all men of good will. Simple.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 10:20:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 04:10:47 PM
Ah, I get it. Nutty anti-religious nonsense.
No.
Religion in private space: ok.
Religion in public space: not ok.
No prayers, no religious symbol, peace on Earth for all men of good will. Simple.
I got it - you're all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't actually mean anything. :thumbsup:
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 10:20:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 04:10:47 PM
Ah, I get it. Nutty anti-religious nonsense.
No.
Religion in private space: ok.
Religion in public space: not ok.
No prayers, no religious symbol, peace on Earth for all men of good will. Simple.
Why is religion singled out for this? What about Freedom of Speech?
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 10:59:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2013, 10:20:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2013, 04:10:47 PM
Ah, I get it. Nutty anti-religious nonsense.
No.
Religion in private space: ok.
Religion in public space: not ok.
No prayers, no religious symbol, peace on Earth for all men of good will. Simple.
I got it - you're all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't actually mean anything. :thumbsup:
Exactly. Sounds oddly reminiscent of some of the toleration that France had allowed the Huguenots.
It's kind of funny (meaning sad) to see Quebecois rail against multiculturalism, since multiculturalism was essentially instituted for the sake of Quebec, to explicitly disavow any attempts to assimilate the French in Canada.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 12:22:04 AM
It's kind of funny (meaning sad) to see Quebecois rail against multiculturalism, since multiculturalism was essentially instituted for the sake of Quebec, to explicitly disavow any attempts to assimilate the French in Canada.
Not quite. There was a middle period of "biculturalism" back in the 60s.
Quote from: Josephus on June 15, 2013, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2013, 02:59:05 AM
I'm curious on turbans. Surely the could lead to a slight unfair advantage? Made of certain material it could aid with heading the ball, if its big enough it will give you extra reach for knock ons, etc...
No more than an afro. :huh: It's not made of leather you know.
I'm pretty sure Kwenye Jones (Stoke still I think?) once scored due to his big ass hair.
What's to say they couldn't make one out of leather?
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2013, 03:08:58 AM
What's to say they couldn't make one out of leather?
What's to say they can't make one out of leather that
shoots laser beams?
Quote from: Tyr on June 16, 2013, 03:08:58 AM
Quote from: Josephus on June 15, 2013, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2013, 02:59:05 AM
I'm curious on turbans. Surely the could lead to a slight unfair advantage? Made of certain material it could aid with heading the ball, if its big enough it will give you extra reach for knock ons, etc...
No more than an afro. :huh: It's not made of leather you know.
I'm pretty sure Kwenye Jones (Stoke still I think?) once scored due to his big ass hair.
What's to say they couldn't make one out of leather?
My big ass hair can be a problem sometimes.
Quote from: The Brain on June 16, 2013, 01:31:06 PM
My big ass hair can be a problem sometimes.
:pinch:
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 10:59:32 PM
I got it - you're all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't actually mean anything. :thumbsup:
I do belive that religion is only meaningful for individuals, not societies, yes. I do belive that a society based in laïcité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9) is better than theocracy, yes.
If that makes me intolerant, I will accept it.
I'm willing to concede some points to the dominant culture of a country. Crucifix, for example, that are placed alongside roads to denote the deaths. I'd be opposed to moon crescent though. Just like I'd be opposed to building a shopping centre in front of my house.
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2013, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2013, 10:59:32 PM
I got it - you're all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't actually mean anything. :thumbsup:
I do belive that religion is only meaningful for individuals, not societies, yes. I do belive that a society based in laïcité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9) is better than theocracy, yes.
If that makes me intolerant, I will accept it.
I'm willing to concede some points to the dominant culture of a country. Crucifix, for example, that are placed alongside roads to denote the deaths. I'd be opposed to moon crescent though. Just like I'd be opposed to building a shopping centre in front of my house.
I suppose if a Sikh can wear a turban, it's a theocracy. :rolleyes:
If nobody else can. it is.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 16, 2013, 02:15:12 PM
If nobody else can. it is.
Easy mistake to make, but there's a difference between
theocracy and
turbanocracy.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 16, 2013, 02:15:12 PM
If nobody else can. it is.
I for one, welcome our Sikh overlords. :lol:
I'd love to see a Pastafarian challenge the rule.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01945%2Fpasta_1945678c.jpg&hash=bf8b4d426e8d37a66907034081fb50ad4f76cb7a)
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2013, 11:38:22 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2013, 11:33:02 AM
It's not Quebec's ban it's FIFA's ban.
The Canadian Soccer Association is the one not respecting the rules.
Also, what Jab?
The article is about how the Quebec politicians are supporting the Quebec soccar federation on this.
The "jab" was him claiming I have massive problems with Quebec, or something, which I presumably need to get over before I can comment on the French veil thing. I decided I needed to do something to prove him right. :D
Thanks. :) Not "massive", some bias definitively, it's one of your pet peeves, shall we say. Less so than the Anglo-Canadian press which does it for a living, it seems.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 12:22:04 AM
It's kind of funny (meaning sad) to see Quebecois rail against multiculturalism, since multiculturalism was essentially instituted for the sake of Quebec, to explicitly disavow any attempts to assimilate the French in Canada.
You fail at understanding the real purpose of the Canadian variant of multiculturalism. It was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism. In other words to de precisely what you think it was meant to prevent: accelerate assimilation. If every group is nothing more than a minority within Canada then the national identity of Quebecers can be diluted and thus their legitimate aspirations dismissed. And Canadians have absorbed this so well they keep being annoyed by the fact we do not accept this minority role they want us to play. The problem lies in that there are too many Quebecers like Viper here - sitting on the fence - who can't make their mind to leave. One can't keep one's cake and it it too.
G.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 12:22:04 AM
It's kind of funny (meaning sad) to see Quebecois rail against multiculturalism, since multiculturalism was essentially instituted for the sake of Quebec, to explicitly disavow any attempts to assimilate the French in Canada.
On January 29, 1990, Sault Ste. Marie became a flashpoint in the Meech Lake Accord constitutional debate when council passed a resolution declaring English the city's official language[13] and the sole language for provision of municipal services.[14] The Sault Ste. Marie language resolution was not the first of its kind in Ontario, but because Sault Ste. Marie was the largest municipality to have passed such a resolution and the first to do so although it had a sizable Franco-Ontarian population,[15] the council's action was very controversial. Many objections were raised by the French-speaking population.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sault_Ste._Marie,_Ontario#History
See also: Thunderbay.
See also: Quebec flag burning.
By comparison, Quebec asks that cities with less than 50% english population do not provide
de facto bilingual communications but offer it upon request only. And for that, we are intolerant of our english minority.
I can imagine Montreal or Laval declaring itself unilingual French and refusing services in English... oh that'd sure go well in english canadian medias... They would certainly say it makes sense, just like 'Soo' and Thunderbay and so many Ontarian cities... They would say we don't have to offer services to fringe minority, that we are wise&well to take steps to save money, to properly manage our finances... I can imagine the praise coming from the National Post and the Globe&Mail. Can you? :)
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2013, 11:00:04 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 12:22:04 AM
It's kind of funny (meaning sad) to see Quebecois rail against multiculturalism, since multiculturalism was essentially instituted for the sake of Quebec, to explicitly disavow any attempts to assimilate the French in Canada.
On January 29, 1990, Sault Ste. Marie became a flashpoint in the Meech Lake Accord constitutional debate when council passed a resolution declaring English the city's official language[13] and the sole language for provision of municipal services.[14] The Sault Ste. Marie language resolution was not the first of its kind in Ontario, but because Sault Ste. Marie was the largest municipality to have passed such a resolution and the first to do so although it had a sizable Franco-Ontarian population,[15] the council's action was very controversial. Many objections were raised by the French-speaking population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sault_Ste._Marie,_Ontario#History
See also: Thunderbay.
See also: Quebec flag burning.
By comparison, Quebec asks that cities with less than 50% english population do not provide de facto bilingual communications but offer it upon request only. And for that, we are intolerant of our english minority.
I can imagine Montreal or Laval declaring itself unilingual French and refusing services in English... oh that'd sure go well in english canadian medias... They would certainly say it makes sense, just like 'Soo' and Thunderbay and so many Ontarian cities... They would say we don't have to offer services to fringe minority, that we are wise&well to take steps to save money, to properly manage our finances... I can imagine the praise coming from the National Post and the Globe&Mail. Can you? :)
I'm confused as to how that relates to what Jacob said. Grallon's addresses it.
Quote from: Grallon on June 17, 2013, 07:19:50 AM
You fail at understanding the real purpose of the Canadian variant of multiculturalism. It was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism. In other words to de precisely what you think it was meant to prevent: accelerate assimilation.
It's the sinister: 'being nice and accomodating to destroy us' plot. :hmm:
Actually, you have a bit of a point: nothing is better for maintaining in-group identity than persecution by the majority, and nothing so corrosive to group identity as lack of persecution. Which is exactly why Quebec seperatists are so ready to claim they are being insulted and humiliated - and to treasure each and every such humiliation.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2013, 11:08:27 AM
I'm confused as to how that relates to what Jacob said. Grallon's addresses it.
I gave an example on how multiculruralism is supposed to protect the french minority in this country. Or rather an example on how it doesn't change anything.
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2013, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grallon on June 17, 2013, 07:19:50 AM
You fail at understanding the real purpose of the Canadian variant of multiculturalism. It was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism. In other words to de precisely what you think it was meant to prevent: accelerate assimilation.
It's the sinister: 'being nice and accomodating to destroy us' plot. :hmm:
Actually, you have a bit of a point: nothing is better for maintaining in-group identity than persecution by the majority, and nothing so corrosive to group identity as lack of persecution. Which is exactly why Quebec seperatists are so ready to claim they are being insulted and humiliated - and to treasure each and every such humiliation.
Malthus, if Montreal was to declare itself unilingual french, refusing to communicate in english with its minority, how do you think the Canadians outside Quebec would react?
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2013, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grallon on June 17, 2013, 07:19:50 AM
You fail at understanding the real purpose of the Canadian variant of multiculturalism. It was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism. In other words to de precisely what you think it was meant to prevent: accelerate assimilation.
It's the sinister: 'being nice and accomodating to destroy us' plot. :hmm:
Actually, you have a bit of a point: nothing is better for maintaining in-group identity than persecution by the majority, and nothing so corrosive to group identity as lack of persecution. Which is exactly why Quebec seperatists are so ready to claim they are being insulted and humiliated - and to treasure each and every such humiliation.
Malthus, if Montreal was to declare itself unilingual french, refusing to communicate in english with its minority, how do you think the Canadians outside Quebec would react?
Probably the same why we react whenever Quebec's sign laws come up. :P
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2013, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grallon on June 17, 2013, 07:19:50 AM
You fail at understanding the real purpose of the Canadian variant of multiculturalism. It was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism. In other words to de precisely what you think it was meant to prevent: accelerate assimilation.
It's the sinister: 'being nice and accomodating to destroy us' plot. :hmm:
Actually, you have a bit of a point: nothing is better for maintaining in-group identity than persecution by the majority, and nothing so corrosive to group identity as lack of persecution. Which is exactly why Quebec seperatists are so ready to claim they are being insulted and humiliated - and to treasure each and every such humiliation.
Malthus, if Montreal was to declare itself unilingual french, refusing to communicate in english with its minority, how do you think the Canadians outside Quebec would react?
I'd be pretty surprised in Montreal was to say that.
Now, if
Temiskaming was to say that, I'd think the town counsel was a bunch of idiots. Particularly if there was a large, English speaking minority living there.
The difference is, what some idiots do in
Temiskaming isn't really reflective of Quebec as a whole. OTOH, Quebec's bizzare and intrusive language laws
are.
I had a case not two weeks ago involving that. A client (can't say who) had a product recall in both Canada and the US - safety concerns. As part of the recall process, they put up recall notices in all of their stores (of the "if you bought this product, please di not use - it is dangerous - return for a full refund" variety). Naturally, their Canadian notices were bilingual - the exact same message in both English and French (and, this is important,
the font was the same size in both versions).
So I get this agonized call from the client: they were issued some sort of citation in Quebec. Turns out it is against the Quebec language laws to have a "poster" that has font the same size in English and French. Never mind that this isn't an advertisement - it's a safety notice. They have to take the posters down or face a fine.
I pointed out that there was an express exception in the legislation for "public health and safety" posters. No dice. If they wanted to, they could take it to court, according to the authorities. French had to be "predominantly larger", or they would be charged.
So the posters came down, ones with French "predominantly larger" were printed and distributed - all of which, of course, took time. Meaning that actual citizens of Quebec, whose safety was at risk, were not getting the benefit of the posters that everyone else in North America was getting.
But at least there weren't pictures of people wearing turbans on those posters.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2013, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2013, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grallon on June 17, 2013, 07:19:50 AM
You fail at understanding the real purpose of the Canadian variant of multiculturalism. It was designed to undermine Quebec nationalism. In other words to de precisely what you think it was meant to prevent: accelerate assimilation.
It's the sinister: 'being nice and accomodating to destroy us' plot. :hmm:
Actually, you have a bit of a point: nothing is better for maintaining in-group identity than persecution by the majority, and nothing so corrosive to group identity as lack of persecution. Which is exactly why Quebec seperatists are so ready to claim they are being insulted and humiliated - and to treasure each and every such humiliation.
Malthus, if Montreal was to declare itself unilingual french, refusing to communicate in english with its minority, how do you think the Canadians outside Quebec would react?
Probably the same why we react whenever Quebec's sign laws come up. :P
Like this?
https://www.facebook.com/DOWNWITHPAULINEMAROIS
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2013, 03:02:27 PM
Now, if Temiskaming was to say that, I'd think the town counsel was a bunch of idiots. Particularly if there was a large, English speaking minority living there.
Who says it has to be large? Anglos are a minority nearly everywhere. Where they aren't, they don't want to mix with French (see the merger/unmerger/reformation of Montreal).
QuoteOTOH, Quebec's bizzare and intrusive language laws are.
No more intrusive than the rest of the bureaucracy.
Quote
I pointed out that there was an express exception in the legislation for "public health and safety" posters. No dice. If they wanted to, they could take it to court, according to the authorities. French had to be "predominantly larger", or they would be charged.
So the posters came down, ones with French "predominantly larger" were printed and distributed - all of which, of course, took time. Meaning that actual citizens of Quebec, whose safety was at risk, were not getting the benefit of the posters that everyone else in North America was getting.
I could spend an entire week telling you of my difficulties with my government, and it isn't about language issues.
Before these laws, Canadian corporations used english solely for all their commercial publications. Including safety regulations. And more importantly, the Sears catalogue, the only place where the youths could buy a Canadiens jersey resulting in many childhood traumas for kids forced to wear a Leafts jersey ;)
As you said, such communications are exempt from the law, and I'm pretty sure there is jurisprudence on that. It's not the first time a bureaucrat decides to rewrite the law. They usually back down before it goes to trial, once they submit their case to the legal department.
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2013, 03:08:57 PM
But at least there weren't pictures of people wearing turbans on those posters.
Turban wearing posters are allowed. Only soccer players - awaiting FIFA clarification, just like in BC - were disalowed ;)
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2013, 03:08:57 PM
But at least there weren't pictures of people wearing turbans on those posters.
Turban wearing posters are allowed. Only soccer players - awaiting FIFA clarification, just like in BC - were disalowed ;)
Since this matter had, as you pointed out, already been dealt with one wonders what the bright bulbs in Quebec were thinking.
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2013, 04:02:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2013, 03:08:57 PM
But at least there weren't pictures of people wearing turbans on those posters.
Turban wearing posters are allowed. Only soccer players - awaiting FIFA clarification, just like in BC - were disalowed ;)
Actually... if you read the post and link in the Canadian Politics thread, you'll see that the BC Association was the one that clarified the issue, without having to hear from FIFA.
In any case, since FIFA has clarified, shouldn't that settle the issue for you?
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2013, 11:40:37 AM
It's the sinister: 'being nice and accomodating to destroy us' plot. :hmm:
...
Nothing sinister about it - merely the delusions of a politician with daddy issues (Trudeau) made into state policy (or state religion as said elsewhere) that latched on the smug complacency of a majority of Canadians. That and, it must be stressed, the willful complicity of the federalists within Quebec itself.
After the 1995 referendum defeat the Liberals soon took power, they increased the immigration quotas, they facilitated the diffusion of the multiculturalist dogmas within Quebec's educational system and, let us not forget, they systematized and greatly enlarged the collusion/corruption schemes they had going at all levels.
Do you know for instance that Thomas Mulclair, who was at the time a provincial Liberal minister, became at odds with Jean Charest after he began investigating the Laval City management? He was told then, by Charest himself, that he could not antagonize the mayor of Laval because the man was such a reliable source of financing for the Quebec Liberal Party? And do you know that all these people were also rubbing elbows with the same people behind the Sponsorship scandal? IN fact, in many cases they were the same...
No Malthus, there was no plot... merely... an alignment of interests all leaning in the same direction.
G.
I never would have thought that Canadian politics is so toxic.
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2013, 04:30:32 PM
In any case, since FIFA has clarified, shouldn't that settle the issue for you?
Does it for you guys?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 07:39:45 PM
I never would have thought that Canadian politics is so toxic.
How long have you been reading the threads on this forum?
Quote from: Grallon on June 17, 2013, 05:52:00 PM
Do you know for instance that Thomas Mulclair, who was at the time a provincial Liberal minister, became at odds with Jean Charest after he began investigating the Laval City management? He was told then, by Charest himself, that he could not antagonize the mayor of Laval because the man was such a reliable source of financing for the Quebec Liberal Party? And do you know that all these people were also rubbing elbows with the same people behind the Sponsorship scandal? IN fact, in many cases they were the same...
If you're going to bring that into discussion, we should discuss Serge Ménard. He was Minister of Justice for the PQ under Parizeau. Vaillancourt attempted to bribe him. Yet, he did nothing while in power...
He was Minister of Justice. He could have ordered an inquiry board. He could have ordered the SQ to investigate, citing what he saw as testimony to the effect there was something wrong with Laval.
Did he do it? Nope. He stayed silent. But why?
Could it because the PQ also had a lot to lose by going against Vaillancourt at the time?
Could it be that because Parizeau had a referendum on his agenda he had no time to govern the province?
Could it be that Parizeau wanted nothing to distract public attention from the sovereignty issue?
Could it be that Parizeau was so desperate for help in winning his referendum, he shut his eyes on everything else?
Just look at the PQ now, promoting vandalism and bullying as free speech. Doing nothing to investigate the FTQ... They need their help, they certainly won't help the evil entrepreneurs that are bullied by their friends. Hey, they'll even help them fight the Federal who wants to put an end to their misuse of public funds. Oh, the horror...
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 07:39:45 PM
I never would have thought that Canadian politics is so toxic.
How long have you been reading the threads on this forum?
Some kind of short-terme amnesia, maybe.
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2013, 12:29:08 PMDoes it for you guys?
Yeah, it's totally settled as far as I'm concerned. The only thing that keeps it going is you and grallon going on about how English Canada is prejudiced against Quebec, and how a vigorous defence was needed against the people calling the action wrong.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 07:39:45 PM
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...
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2013, 12:34:48 PM
... 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. :contract:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on June 18, 2013, 01:57:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2013, 12:34:48 PM
... 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. :contract:
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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2013, 12:44:30 PM
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2013, 02:28:06 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2013, 02:28:06 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2013, 02:21:51 PM
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.
Thank you for not saying 'freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion' BB.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2013, 02:21:51 PM
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.
I don't think they were building anything on those soccer fields, Iorm.
Then why did they need the turbans?
Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2013, 03:46:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 18, 2013, 03:39:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2013, 02:21:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:06:12 PM
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.
It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 18, 2013, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:06:12 PM
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.
It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
If you want the obvious example of when religious rights should give way to society's needs, it's the veil vs photo ID. Sorry - you need to uncover your face ma'am...
Quote from: Iormlund on June 18, 2013, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:06:12 PM
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.
It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.
The question is who deems it necessary and why. If we had, for example, some folks from the Quebec soccer asssociation deeming it necessary I would have some doubts as to whether in fact that were true.
The hard hat goes over the turban.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks. Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2013, 04:47:46 PM
The hard hat goes over the turban.
Yes, a modified turban can be worn the accomodate the hard hat if the hard hat is a bona fide occupational requirement.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
That argument is just as sound if you remove the religion bit.
BTW, there are very, VERY good reasons to keep health and safety standards mandatory. Trust me.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
it doesn't work that way and you know it. The family or the worker will still sue the employer, and he'd still have to pay benefits. Some lawyers will make it work.
Plus, hospital care is 100% paid by taxes, so we let them pay hospital fees for their behaviour too?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 04:47:41 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 18, 2013, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:06:12 PM
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.
It's not tough at all. If it is deemed that people have to wear a hard hat, they should, too.
The question is who deems it necessary and why. If we had, for example, some folks from the Quebec soccer asssociation deeming it necessary I would have some doubts as to whether in fact that were true.
Do you think that hockey players should play without hard hats if they so choose?
Viper raises a good point: Lawyers are utterly evil and poison everything they touch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks. Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but generally in the U.S. the employer is liable for on-the-job injuries, even if the injuries result from the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures. And failure to follow proper safey procedures is actually the cause of a great many on-the-job injuries.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2013, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
it doesn't work that way and you know it. The family or the worker will still sue the employer,
:huh:
Is Quebec the only Province in Canada that doesnt have a Workers Compensation scheme for injury which removed ability to sue the employer?
Quote from: dps on June 19, 2013, 05:19:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks. Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but generally in the U.S. the employer is liable for on-the-job injuries, even if the injuries result from the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures. And failure to follow proper safey procedures is actually the cause of a great many on-the-job injuries.
That is not how it happens in Canada. Here (at least outside Quebec) there is a workers compensation scheme which compensates workers for work related injuries. Employers pay premiums for the coverage. The bona fide occupational requirement is related to the human rights analysis.
Same here.
Most states in the US have a workers compensation system which seems similar to what you describe.
Quote from: ulmont on June 19, 2013, 06:52:47 PM
Most states in the US have a workers compensation system which seems similar to what you describe.
One thing that seems different - at least from what I gather anecdotally - is that in the US employers are incentivized to prevent workers from filing compensation claims because it will cause their premiums to go up; while in Canada, I have never heard of such a sentiment.
Not sure how accurate that is, however...
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you pay higher WSIB premiums if you have a history of employees claiming compensation. But I think WSIB is an Ontario thing anyway.
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you pay higher WSIB premiums if you have a history of employees claiming compensation. But I think WSIB is an Ontario thing anyway.
You are incorrect. Extra penalties and premiums are paid if a workplace has a poor safety history. If it gets bad enough the employer can be charged under the Act.
@ Jacob, it is for that reason that employers try to keep workplace injuries to a minimum. It is also an offence under the Act from disuading an employee from claiming injury benefits - the penalty far outweighs any benefit the employer might obtain by doing so which provides a good deterent - which is probably why you have not heard of it happening here. But suspect it does happen in some less reputable places.
Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2013, 07:37:18 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you pay higher WSIB premiums if you have a history of employees claiming compensation. But I think WSIB is an Ontario thing anyway.
But we all have different versions of it. Alberta and Saskatchewan have WCBs.
Thanks for the clarification guys :)
Vaguely related - I have it on good authority that the BC WCB is very well managed financially :)
Just because there's a "-stein" or "-schmidt" there? Sounds racist.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 06:16:28 PM
:huh:
Is Quebec the only Province in Canada that doesnt have a Workers Compensation scheme for injury which removed ability to sue the employer?
We have a workers compensation scheme for injury. It does not remove anymore the ability to sue the employer, but I think it will be the CSST (Commission Santé Sécurité au Travail) who will do it, not the worker or his family. Criminal litigation is also possible in cases of negligence. And we still pay 2x more than Ontario or NB.
However, in this case, we were refering to an employee refusing to wear protective equipment, based on religious grounds. At such point, he removes himself from the "system", so everything is fair game. He or his family would probably claim that he was misinformed by the employer of the risks involved and win money.
In the actual system, it is exceptionnal for an employer not to blamed for an employees refusal of wearing protective gear.
Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2013, 07:06:27 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 19, 2013, 06:52:47 PM
Most states in the US have a workers compensation system which seems similar to what you describe.
One thing that seems different - at least from what I gather anecdotally - is that in the US employers are incentivized to prevent workers from filing compensation claims because it will cause their premiums to go up; while in Canada, I have never heard of such a sentiment.
Not sure how accurate that is, however...
The premiums will be up here too. But since any injury would be declared as such at the hospital, it's hard to make it has if nothing happened.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 08:51:59 PM
You are incorrect. Extra penalties and premiums are paid if a workplace has a poor safety history. If it gets bad enough the employer can be charged under the Act.
In Quebec, smaller employers will be charged according to the general health&safety risks of the unit (group of worker doing similar tasks accross the province). Say, a small shop with 2 employees, no matter if an employee spends 6 months a year on work related injuries or never leaves work in 6 years, the premiums will be the same.
Unless the employer is part of a mutual wich regroups employers and make their own group's history count instead of the entire province.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2013, 01:49:20 AM
Just because there's a "-stein" or "-schmidt" there? Sounds racist.
:huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2013, 06:18:59 PM
Quote from: dps on June 19, 2013, 05:19:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2013, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
The thing about this example is that a hard hat is for their own protection. If they say 'it's against my religion, I know it puts me at risk, but I'm okay with that and won't hold the employer responsible if I get injured', then perhaps we should let them?
The issue is normally analyzed in terms of bona fide accupational requirement regarding health and safety risks. Normally on a construction site the bona safety concern requires the hard hat regardless of whether the employee is willing to take the risk.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but generally in the U.S. the employer is liable for on-the-job injuries, even if the injuries result from the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures. And failure to follow proper safey procedures is actually the cause of a great many on-the-job injuries.
That is not how it happens in Canada. Here (at least outside Quebec) there is a workers compensation scheme which compensates workers for work related injuries. Employers pay premiums for the coverage. The bona fide occupational requirement is related to the human rights analysis.
Well, yes, what I meant was that the employer is liable in the sense that their premiums go up based on the amount of claims against them. But I kind of shorthanded or glossed over that because my main point was that here, the failure or refusal of the injured employee to follow proper safety procedures--for whatever reason--doesn't preclude them from successfully pressing a claim.
http://portal.soccercray.com/2012/05/20/montreal-sikh-teen-aneel-samra-told-he-cant-play-soccer-while-wearing-turban/ (http://portal.soccercray.com/2012/05/20/montreal-sikh-teen-aneel-samra-told-he-cant-play-soccer-while-wearing-turban/)
Quote
Samra said he has encountered problems with his turban before.
Though he says he is good enough, he never bothered to try out to play on an inter-city team because he knows he wouldn’t be permitted to play with his turban. Earlier this year, while playing for Beurling Academy, where he attends school, a referee warned his coach that the turban was not permitted, but the coach convinced the referee to allow Samra to play anyway.
Samra said he knows international soccer rules don't allow people to wear turbans, but in the past those rules were ignored.
The FIFA rules were so clear, that Sikhs knew international soccer rules didn't allow turbans...
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
http://portal.soccercray.com/2012/05/20/montreal-sikh-teen-aneel-samra-told-he-cant-play-soccer-while-wearing-turban/ (http://portal.soccercray.com/2012/05/20/montreal-sikh-teen-aneel-samra-told-he-cant-play-soccer-while-wearing-turban/)
Quote
Samra said he has encountered problems with his turban before.
Though he says he is good enough, he never bothered to try out to play on an inter-city team because he knows he wouldn’t be permitted to play with his turban. Earlier this year, while playing for Beurling Academy, where he attends school, a referee warned his coach that the turban was not permitted, but the coach convinced the referee to allow Samra to play anyway.
Samra said he knows international soccer rules don't allow people to wear turbans, but in the past those rules were ignored.
The FIFA rules were so clear, that Sikhs knew international soccer rules didn't allow turbans...
All this article is saying is that
this particular fellow thought that FIFA rules prohibited turbans. It's very likely he thought that because that's what the Quebec refs were telling him, not because he's got any particular insight into the rules.
Or that he has basic reading skills.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:06:59 PM
Or that he has basic reading skills.
If he had more advanced reading skills, he'd have known the Rule did not prohibit turbans? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 03:08:24 PM
If he had more advanced reading skills, he'd have known the Rule did not prohibit turbans? ;)
In order to attain that level of knowledge advanced reading skills would not have sufficed; he would have required advanced instruction in sophistry and obfuscation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:12:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2013, 03:08:24 PM
If he had more advanced reading skills, he'd have known the Rule did not prohibit turbans? ;)
In order to attain that level of knowledge advanced reading skills would not have sufficed; he would have required advanced instruction in sophistry and obfuscation.
Forced. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:17:00 PMBah. It was a bonecrusher.
Your self-evaluation skills seem pretty unreliable these days.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
Your self-evaluation skills seem pretty unreliable these days.
This one was a bit of a joke.
If you're truly interested in going over Berkut's and my exchange in the voting thread step by step, I'd be happy to join you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:33:58 PMThis one was a bit of a joke.
If you're truly interested in going over Berkut's and my exchange in the voting thread step by step, I'd be happy to join you.
That one was a bit of a joke.
And I am so not interested in going over that thread, step by step or otherwise. But thanks for the offer :hug:
A bit of a joke as in I don't want to get into it, or a bit of a joke as it has no basis in truth and i was just poking you with a stick?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 03:43:46 PM
A bit of a joke as in I don't want to get into it, or a bit of a joke as it has no basis in truth and i was just poking you with a stick?
A bit of a joke as in I was poking you with a stick without any regard to whether it was accurate or not. I do not have an opinion as to whether Berkut or you "won" that particular round, and I have no desire to form such an opinion.