Sihk kirpan controversy in Quebec

[Dale Seago]

I think the main problem here is that a good number of Sikhs do indeed carry functional kirpans, which could be easily used as a weapon.

And other things.

Some years ago I and my then-wife (whom I trained up to 8th-degree black belt level in the Bujinkan) were as volunteers providing training assistance in patrolling tactics and self-defense to a neighborhood-watch group in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district called "Residents Against Drugs", or "RAD". During the course of this we of course went out on patrol with them quite a few nights.

One night a Sikh couple (man & wife) approached our team and thanked us for being there and for the work we were doing. I & my wife glanced at each other, nodded to each other, and I asked them, "Hey, could we talk to you guys over here away from the group for a minute?"

Out of earshot of the team, we introduced ourselves and I handed them my card. I told them we also appreciated THEM being around for the safety of their community, and assured them that neither I nor my wife had any problem with the fact that they were carrying concealed firearms; nor would we tell anyone.

Their eyes widened and they were speechless for a bit; then the husband simply thanked us.

Some months after that they got in touch with us (had my card, remember?) and we got together for a wonderful dinner. We explained the things that had tipped us off -- which, frankly, most law enforcement professionals would not have picked up -- showed them how they could do it better, etc. That being a night when we were not in any sort of "under public scrutiny" role, as I recall we also showed them what we were carrying, which definitely trumped their own stuff.

BTW, I and my ex have both been in positions where, though civilians, we were legally "carrying firearms for a living". I ain't sayin' whether or not this was one of those occasions, but I did want to mention that.

[Tobus]

Is it so wrong to say "this is our culture. if you don't like it don't come here. Many places in the world will let you live as you wish. Just not here".

Yes, it is wrong if a nation that pretends to be a friend to liberty is in the business of telling a peaceful person how to live his own life, or trying to make him fit a certain mold. That's not liberty.

The idea of keeping a nation culturally pure, racially pure, religiously pure, or any other kind of purity that's based on exclusivity, is an obsolete one that should conjure unpleasant memories of the past where they have been tried. The only way to truly enforce such 'purity' is through bloodshed.

Forced multiculturalism through law is abhorrent, but forced monoculturalism is just as bad. I can understand the desire for a culture to want to maintain its identity and traditions, and I even support that idea. But not when it takes a negative tone by actively denying the culture of others.

After all, would any of us want to be told that we cannot wear kilts because they don't fit in with mainstream culture wherever we happen to be? Or would we rather enjoy the liberty of proudly wearing the garb and accoutrements of our heritage?

We of Scots descent, of all people, should understand the idea of liberty and cultural tolerance.

[Lallans]

Yes, it is wrong if a nation that pretends to be a friend to liberty is in the business of telling a peaceful person how to live his own life, or trying to make him fit a certain mold. That's not liberty.

The idea of keeping a nation culturally pure, racially pure, religiously pure, or any other kind of purity that's based on exclusivity, is an obsolete one that should conjure unpleasant memories of the past where they have been tried. The only way to truly enforce such 'purity' is through bloodshed.

Forced multiculturalism through law is abhorrent, but forced monoculturalism is just as bad. I can understand the desire for a culture to want to maintain its identity and traditions, and I even support that idea. But not when it takes a negative tone by actively denying the culture of others.

After all, would any of us want to be told that we cannot wear kilts because they don't fit in with mainstream culture wherever we happen to be? Or would we rather enjoy the liberty of proudly wearing the garb and accoutrements of our heritage?

We of Scots descent, of all people, should understand the idea of liberty and cultural tolerance.

Quebec remains in Canada, but on what could often be taken to be a day-to-day basis. And let's say that if they separate I would not care to live there and leave it at that.

[Jay]

Yes, it is wrong if a nation that pretends to be a friend to liberty is in the business of telling a peaceful person how to live his own life, or trying to make him fit a certain mold. That's not liberty.

The idea of keeping a nation culturally pure, racially pure, religiously pure, or any other kind of purity that's based on exclusivity, is an obsolete one that should conjure unpleasant memories of the past where they have been tried. The only way to truly enforce such 'purity' is through bloodshed.

Forced multiculturalism through law is abhorrent, but forced monoculturalism is just as bad. I can understand the desire for a culture to want to maintain its identity and traditions, and I even support that idea. But not when it takes a negative tone by actively denying the culture of others.

After all, would any of us want to be told that we cannot wear kilts because they don't fit in with mainstream culture wherever we happen to be? Or would we rather enjoy the liberty of proudly wearing the garb and accoutrements of our heritage?

We of Scots descent, of all people, should understand the idea of liberty and cultural tolerance.

With all due respect, friend, you are confusing English Canada with Quebec. Quebec never signed the 1982 Bill of Rights that essentially defined Canada as being a multi-cultural land of freedoms. That makes Quebec no different than France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Japan et al in saying "this is who we are and you accept that if you choose to live here"

As I said earlier, I believe in personal and religious freedoms and do agree with multiculturalism. However, I also agree that any individual culture reserves the right to decide if they wish to maintain this culture.

Cultural respect goes both ways. Sometimes people forget that. Multiculturalism is not about some cultures doing their own thing and expecting others to cave in to that. Its about 2 or more differing cultures taking the best of each and creating something bigger while still maintaining the original cultures.

[be da veva]

Cultural respect goes both ways. Sometimes people forget that. Multiculturalism is not about some cultures doing their own thing and expecting others to cave in to that. Its about 2 or more differing cultures taking the best of each and creating something bigger while still maintaining the original cultures.

Well said and pretty much how things are in Montreal and the sorrounding subburds.

[Lallans]

Well said and pretty much how things are in Montreal and the sorrounding subburds.

Oh yeah? You should have seen Montreal 30-40 years ago. It's a small town now, culturally and financially.

[Dale Seago]

And while the Quebecois dither about Indian Sikhs with kirpans. . .

Over in Nepal, right by India. . .

A retired Ghurkha soldier.

Versus 40 train robbers/rapists armed with swords, other blades, and maybe-functional firearms.

3 robbers dead, 8 injured, the rest fled, thanks to one man with a khukuri.

I'm raising a glass of good malt in honor of Bishnu Shrestha.

http://myrepublica.com/portal/index....&news_id=27100

Could even a Scot have done better?

[be da veva]

Oh yeah? You should have seen Montreal 30-40 years ago. It's a small town now, culturally and financially.

I have to agree that about 40 years ago, being an anglophone wouldn't have been easy. We had a political crisis and some terrorists activities.
Hopefully, those days are far behind and the more extremists of québecois won't rely on those kinds of tactics. But yes, there are still some die hard fanatics that could be pushed to that limit. It only takes one to pull the trigger.

I have used the ''maudit anglais'' has a friendly banter to rugby players before or after a game, even during practice sessions. We were the ''sissy frenchmen''. During a game though, what we called each other on the pitch is not to be mentionned here..... BTW, I played for the Montreal Irish, an anglophone team. There are french teams too.

I was born in the early 70s, my generation is more open to cultural exchanges. You could say that we do it cross culturally....

But I guess you have to be here right now to get all the little nuances.

And to paraphrase Gimli in LOTR;
'' An anglophone communicating in french where a quebecois dares not?!?!?!
I'd never hear the end of it...''

Bonne journée à tous et toutes.

À bientôt

[be da veva]

Wow,

Well, I'm living in the forementioned province and my english is not as good as my french, but you seem to be missing a few infos on how things are here...
Like everywhere else, there is bigotery and xenophobia. BUT.... It is not shared by all.
We can all point somewhere and say that somethings are wrong.
For the cultural effort of trying to save everything that is french, the people will let themselves be told what to keep of their (french) history and stay away from anything else... though most are of mixed blooded heritage. I myself have a good mix of scottish, irish and french going back a few centuries. But the people in the media will lean toward the french part of our history because it is more sexy, more appealling for the ratings.
Yes, Canada is bilingual. I am french canadian first, quebecois second. Does that mean I should not be proud of my ancestry? Canada is bilingual, but the provinces decides what language to use officially. Some uses english, some are bilingual, one is french.
Somebody in the prairies or over the rockies don't like to see french on their cereal box in the morning? Well somebody on the Cote Nord doesn't like to see english on theirs either. Yes there is some xenophobia, but it is not only centered on the french side.

As for religion. The goverment has taken the religion out of the office. Religion is something of a joke to many here. Sad as it is, this is the reality. They don't care about where you are from they don't care what you believe. All they care about is what the mainstream medias are spewing about cultural differences.
This said though, as I have said before, this is not representative of all the french speaking population of Quebec.
The kirpan situation mentionned above is representative of how our goverment works...
You can leave a message, but they won't read it.
But to be fair, all goverment buildings are to be considered neutral terrain. Everybody is equal, no exeptions of religous or cultural is tolerated. You cannot take a kirpan on a plane, you cannot bring it in the building. You cannot wear a veil to indentify yourself at the airport, same in an official goverment building. (but they will have a female officer on site to identify the women wearing a veil because their religion forbids them of showing there faces to the men). This is basically something that came with 911 that slowly slided to the french paranoia that we are close to any other culture than our own.
BTW a decorative little kirpan on a hairbrush would've pass with no problem. Maybe not on a plane.
As with everything else, moderation is best.

On a side note, imagine a chinese restaurant opening in Little Italy only catering to chinese speaking customers. How do you think the Italians would like that. Would they think it a good idea? The best location? Imagine 20 restaurants.....

Have a good day

P.S. I don't wear a kilt pin on a plane but I do in the official buildings...

[CMcG]

be da veva,

Thanks for chiming in, I was hoping that someone from Quebec might be able to put this in perspective.

Can you comment on how the kilt is treated in La Belle Provence, according to your experience? And in relation to the article, how about the sgian dubh?