Quebec’s legislative committee was supposed to hear speakers from the World Sikh Organization today to discuss, ironically, a bill surrounding the reasonable accommodation of the religious and cultural practices of minorities in Quebec. But they never got past the front door.
That’s because the legislature security would not allow the four men to enter the building wearing their ceremonial weapons, known as kirpans. They came, despite being warned they might possibly not be allowed to enter with the weapons. Security guards attempted compromise by holding the weapons securely for them, but the men refused.
Interestingly, it would appear that the debate on reasonable accommodation got more media attention with four men being barred entry into a government building than had they quietly let them speak their piece in the legislature.
According to certain interpretations of the Sikh religion, it is forbidden to take the weapon off, but as noted by the CBC article this is usually accommodated in most other jurisdictions in Canada. Indeed, I mocked the ridiculous rule during the Olympics when outside food was banned from venues, but deadly weapons were not.
“Unfortunately, we weren’t allowed to enter because we wear the kirpan, which is a bit ironic because we were here to speak upon the issue of accommodation and we weren’t accommodated,” said one of the men denied entry.
It’s interesting that what he finds ironic isn’t the fact that Quebec refused to accommodate him, but that he refuses to accommodate Quebec. Let’s face it, the idea of accommodation works both ways. It may be true that wearing the kirpan is no big deal in India, but then again, Canada isn’t India.
There’s another reason that Quebec is asserting itself a little more forcefully than the rest of Canada. As a minority culture within British Canada, the French have always been wary of another culture diminishing what it has fought so hard to preserve for hundreds of years. Because English culture in Canada is ubiquitous, we’re not as sensitive to the idea of “reasonable accommodation”, the definition of which appears to fluctuate based on geography.
Though people in Quebec may be calling this a simple security issue, I suspect it has more to do with the subject of cultural accommodation.
On a personal note, it makes sense to apply rules to everybody equally. While in transit from Afghanistan, I purchased a Swiss Army knife in Germany for my 9-year-old son. He likes to carve wood with it, and flip open the various instruments.
One day he made the mistake of bringing it to school. As you can imagine, a great deal of nonsense was made over the fact a child brought, what is by sheer technicality, a knife to school. Whether there are Sikh children bringing knives to school, I can’t say. But we do respect the school’s rule.
I think that when Canadians travel abroad, we expect a certain level of reasonable accommodation for our own cultural quirks. But not to the extent that we be allowed special treatment not entitled to the hosts. And I think if you look at it from that point of view, it’s easy to see Quebec is doing the right thing.
