Dhillon fought for reasonable accommodation and argued that wearing a turban is a religious duty for Khalsa Sikhi men. Nationalism influences complication similar to this one because without it their would be no reasonable accommodation, there would have been only one voice which would have been the Supreme Court of Canada. Based on the evidence shown in source one this is what being part of Canadian nationalism means. However we the people of Canada are only a petri dish for this world, we are nothing more than a test …show more content…
In the past there was an referendum on separating Quebec from the rest of Canada surprisingly 49.42% of Quebec's population voted yes. Nevertheless, the results, in which the no side eked out a narrow victory, revealed that the voters were nearly equally divided. The voters who voted yes may have had an opinion of that without the rest of Canada weighing down Quebec they could thrive and accomplish a substantial amount. On the contrary, without Canada Quebec would have to form a new government which would have taken many years maybe even decades. Source two may be an example of ethnic nationalism, ethnic nationalism defined as a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Half of Quebec wanted to have this become a part of their country but they other half was against it. This all returns to the question what would Quebec be without Canada, would it be nationalism less, or would it have a good strong sense of ethnic nationalism? Either way as of now Quebec is still a part of Canada's nationalism and