Quebec Not Very Accommodating

A half a dozen years back, a cabane à sucre  was taken to task for making an accommodation to a large group of Muslims who asked that pork not be used in the preparation of their meals.
Since the group was rather large and represented an important and profitable booking, the owner agreed. Why not?

A good time was had by all, the owner very happy to provide a service for which he was well-paid and the Muslims happy for the social outing that represents an important aspect of Quebec culture and history.

But not everyone was amused, in fact the Quebec Association des restaurateurs de cabanes à sucre was horrified that the traditional recipes which included pork were bastardized in order to make a religious accommodation.
The president, Hermine Bourdeau-Ouimet, opined that pork is part of the pleasure at the cabane à sucre and that there shouldn't be any question of modifying the traditional menus. Link{fr}

In another cabane à sucre, 260 hundred Muslims were celebrating a day at the sugar shack and asked that the dance floor be used for prayer for about ten minutes.
The only other group in the hall was about twenty non-Muslims who were told to get off the dance floor for the short period that the prayers were offered,
Incensed, that group stormed out in a huff.
When the owner was questioned by the press over the incident, he remarked casually that there were close to 300 Muslims and twenty Christians and if the majority didn't rule, their money certainly did.

And so was born in Quebec the debate over religious accommodations.

Should we or shouldn't we.

If you believe the polls, most Quebecers don't want to make what are commonly known as 'reasonable accommodations,' a clever euphemism for 'reasonable religious accommodations', fearing that it will somehow lead to a breakdown in society and destroy the all important social cohesiveness, that is the cornerstone of the nationalist narrative.

As a society, we are in fact, very in tune with the concept of reasonable accommodations, just not with reasonable accommodations that involve religion.

The leading anti-religious-accommodation journalist of the Journal de Montreal Richard Martineau makes this point about the religiously observant.

"You chose to follow the tenets of a religion? ..... Then assume the consequences.

Maybe your choice will prevent you from eating in restaurants in La Ronde because you won't find halal or kosher meat ...
And maybe your choice will prevent you from bathing in a public lake, because in Quebec there isn't separation between the sexes.

It's your choice.  
A company does not have to bend over backwards to accommodate you.
If God is so important to you, you should accept without complaint the sacrifices that the religion you have chosen .

This is the price to pay." Link

To many this argument makes sense, but it does show an incredible naïvete by someone who hasn't a clue as to what a business is all about, which is selling as much product or services at a profit, as one can.
If a group of 300 customers made a request for square dancing music to be played while they dine, then square dancing music it would be.
Maybe not to Mr. Martineau, but to any smart businessman.

If you believe in what Mr. Martineau wrote above about personal choice and living with the consequences, then you would have to agree that no accommodation should be offered to a large group of vegetarians who wished to arrange an afternoon at the cabane a sucre, because it too would entail a menu modification.
 After all, like the Muslims, it is a personal choice that vegetarians make not to conform with mainstream Quebec society and so they too should be forced to live with the consequences.

But I'm pretty sure that if faced with the question of vegetarians, Mr. Martineau would find room in his heart for an accommodation.

How about a large Yoga group, which asks that the dance floor be liberated for ten minutes so that they could do some limbering up exercises. Considering that 260 of the 280 guests are part of this Yoga group, is it really unreasonable or just good business?

Such is the folly of the debate over reasonable accommodations, because by definition an accommodation that is reasonable should be supported by all and contrarily we should all be against an unreasonable accommodation.

Of course we make accommodations all day long, the old standby that the rules should apply equally to all, is nothing but a pipe dream. We make these accommodations because they are the right thing to do.

We allow those with limited mobility to park closer to entrances and reserve parking spots just for them, excluding others.
The special prices at the movies for students or senior citizens is an accommodation that discriminates based on age.
The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts both discriminate against the opposite sex.
Golf clubs that don't allow women in the dining room may be seen as dinosaurs, but fitness clubs that bar men are seen as progressive.

All of a sudden accommodations don't seem so absurd, but when those accommodations revolve around religion, the atheist majority, led by Mr. Martineau see red, the debate always returns to so-called concept of equality, where we in fact violate those rules every day.

And so to the decision made by the La Ronde amusement park in Montreal (owned by Six Flags) to no longer allow Kosher or Halal food to be brought into the park by guests, can be seen in the Quebec context.
After a newspaper story detailing the horror, an online petition demanding that the amusement park end the religious accommodation was signed by 19,000 people who had nothing better to do with their time. Read a story  See the petition

Incidentally another petition, asking the La Ronde to sell healthier food received less than six hundred signers. Link
It is a sad commentary on what drives public debate in Quebec.
I bet if you asked these 19,000 petitioners if it would be okay for La Ronde to sell Halal or Kosher food, the majority would say absolutely not.
Why? Dunno.

The venue has a firm no outside food policy, which is fair for a business that makes much of its money selling food.
Unlike other venues who do offer kosher food, there isn't enough business in Montreal to warrant the investment and so La Ronde caved to the pressure and reversed a policy that did allow food to be brought in.

In a massive show of support, the Richard Martineau's in the media applauded this policy, citing the old chestnut of equality. If Jews and Arabs can bring in food, why not the Christians?

There is of course an easier solution to the problem and as the old saying goes, where there's a will, there's a way.

Like the airlines, the amusement park could have patrons pre-order kosher or Halal or in fact a vegetarian plate from a published menu, perhaps 24 hours before coming. Customers could pay for their purchases online and pick them up at a designated counter.
Not a big deal, certainly not brain surgery.
I'm not sure how many people would actually use the service, but if it were to be underused, the park could then successfully argue that it is unnecessary.

As I said, where there's a will, there's a way.

Unfortunately, in Quebec, there is a lack of will.