Muslim girl ejected from Canadian soccer tournament (by a Muslim referee) for wearing a headscarft.
79 Replies to “So: what do we think?”
Those rules were known to all participating teams prior to their joining the tournament…they just assumed they wouldn’t be enforced. The purpose of the rules was for player safety.
When my kids played soccer, there was a rule that no jewelry was permitted due to player safety…does that mean that the soccer league was guilty of jewelryism?
This is much ado about stupidity.
Are Muslim girls allowed to play soccer,? I don’t think they are in Islamic States, and do they wear shorts????.
Bravo for the ref. and thank God, for him, that he’s a Muslim. If the ref. had been non-Muslim, the screaming, yelling, and hair-pulling would be monumental. There’d probably be a Human Rights Commission challenge.
If girls want to play soccer, then they shouldn’t wear a hijab. Playing soccer and wearing the symbol of radical Islam’s suppression of women just don’t go together, so what did this girl—or her supporters—think they were doing? Too many Muslims want to have it both ways–or every way. ‘Continue to live like a Muslim but do Canadian things, always THEIR way.
As for the individuals who “have slammed the referee’s decision, saying it is just another example of how Quebec is trying to get immigrants to toe a cultural line”: Chill out and get a Canadian life. Surely a Canadian jurisdiction has every right to expect immigrants to “toe a cultural line.” Otherwise “immigration” is in danger of becoming “invasion.” Surely it’s not unreasonable for Canadians to expect immigrants from other countries to accommodate Canadian ways…And if it is unreasonable, then Canadians had better start to demand “Why?”
Multiculturalism is pushed way too far when certain immigrants demand that Canadians bend OUR rules because of certain religious/cultural groups’ sensibilities—and Canadians acquiesce.
The ref did the right thing.
Muslim Girl Ejected from Canadian Soccer Tournament
Someone pushed an 11-year old Muslim girl into trying to play in a soccer tournament wearing the symbol of radical Islam’s suppression of women—the hijab. (LGF)
[More on the “suppression” of women by radical Islam:]
There Are No Words
In the blood-stained annals of “honor killing,” this is surely one of the most appalling stories ever to emerge: Abu-Ghanem women speak out against serial ‘honor killings’.
The murder of Hamda Abu-Ghanem, whose bullet-riddled body was found in mid-January at her parents’ house in Ramle, surprised nobody. …
The perpetrators of most honor killings in the Arab community are not apprehended. Hamda’s murder, however, was one too many for the women in the Abu-Ghanem family. She was the eighth woman to be murdered in the extended family in the last six and a half years. All her predecessors also lost their lives in “honor killings.” …
Before Hamda, the other women of the Abu-Ghanem family who lost their lives for honor were Naifa, Suzan, Zinat, Sabrin, Amira, Reem and Shirihan.
…- http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24585&only
If this is as they say a simple safety issue why don’t we all just wrap our kids up in bubble wrap and lock them in their bedrooms or else they may be accidentally strangled while running around on the field.
Thank god we have such safety mined adults around to protect our children from inadvertent hijab based soccer stranglings.
Give me break kids are tougher than you think.
I look back at me being a kid and I don’t think I ever went a day with out doing something at least as dangerous as a 11 year old girl in a scarf. Wake up people you are rasing a bunch of wimps.
davidt: I think you’ve missed the point of this post.
I should hope that the ref. would have told the girl to get off the field whether her hijab was a safety issue or not. The hijab is not a traditional Muslim headress for females, but was introduced in or around the ’70s as a symbol of a female’s place within the hierarchy of radical Islam. It’s a political symbol.
No soccer player would be allowed to wear a t-shirt or pair of shorts emblazoned with political slogans, so why should a player be able to wear gear that serves the same purpose.
You might want to clean your glasses, davidt. The wimpy thing here would have been for the ref. not to prohibit the hijab.
A total political set-up with the kid as the pawn. Shameful. Some will stop at nothing.
This should be a case of who gives a damn if a Muslim kid plays soccer with a headscarf.
Only a fool would think that this is dangerous.
Different Bob is right this is grown ups playing politics with a little kid who should be playing soccer.
The rule is, ostensibly, about safety. It’s a stupid rule, really. If it were a rule against the wearing of the hijab as a hateful, misogynist symbol inappropriate in a pluralistic society, I could probably get past my libertarian misgivings.
What I would like to know is if the organizers of the tournament arranged the refing schedule to ensure that it was a muslim referee that booted her for appearances sake. It is my understanding that she played in at least a couple of games before this ejection. Just saying…
It’s firstly a shame to be using kids to make statements. Why would an eleven year old girl have to be wearing a head cover when all others on the team can feel the wind in their hair?
It looks suspiciously like a set up to get reaction and try to paint us as intolerant, bigots or racist, given the referee was Muslim. He could have overlooked it, or if forced could resign.
it was not a problem for anyone else.
Why do they want to stand out like sore thumbs while living in this Country, attending our schools, playing our sports etc anyway?
Let them integrate and enjoy our Society and blend in. If the sport has a uniform, don’t allow them to bastardize it.
The bigger story is using children to make a statement.
I’m a footy fan. Personally I couldn’t give a flying you-know-what if a player wears something on their head – Charmaine Hooper and several of the Canadian women wear this headband contraption that is supposed to prevent head shock when heading the ball.
I am however opposed to women in hijabs or any other kind of covering. I think we should be hostile to the wearing of this stuff at every opportunity, and quite frankly I think we should be putting some Muslim men in full burqa so they can experience what it’s like.
We already lost this battle kids.
Anybody remember the Sikhs and their turbans back in the 1970’s? Police uniforms ring a bell? No such thing as a uniform anymore, ya gotta bend with the multi-culti wind eh?
Not that I don’t think the battle isn’t worth re-fighting, mind you. A uniform is supposed to be just that… uniform. If you don’t like the outfit maybe you should re-think the whole coming to Canada thing, or choosing the cops or the military for a career at least.
The hijab is just another tempest in a tea pot. There are lots of places where you don’t want something wrapped around your neck, and a soccer game is just one of them. DavidT and DifferentBob would be singing a MUCH different tune if this kid got choked, maimed or otherwise mangled due to having this thing ripped off the kid’s head during play. What’s next, turbans instead of helmets in peewee hockey? Good idea!
How about female police constables in hijab and veil? Sound like a plan?
It’s quite simple really. It’s a contracting issue.
The rules of soccer as they relate to dress are quite specific. You can only wear soccer socks, shin guards, running shoes, underwear, shorts and the team jersey. Nothing else is allowed on the pitch. No jewelery around the neck, no rings, no sweat bands, no yarmulkes, no turbans, etc. etc. etc.
It is on this basis that all teams through the provincial, and Canadian soccer federation are able to gain insurance.
As a result of theses rules there are people of faith (of all kinds) who will not participate. There are likely Orthodox jews, for example, who choose not to join. They choose not to join as they find the terms of membership onerous.
As a libertarian I find these rules just, equitable, and fairly applied. If there is an error, and a slight one at that, it is that the federations (all sports federations) do not communicate the nature of their contract explicitly enough.
If you wish to join our organization here are the rules that we apply. And these rules are applied equally and with the same degree of enforcement no matter what you race, religion, gender, etc. etc.
If you wish to join, you need to be willing to submit to these rules.
And that is what this is all about. Are people/groups willing to submit?
Those that are may join. Those that do not want to submit – cannot.
Soccer players should not be allowed to wear scarves any more than mounties are allowed to wear turbans or kids are allowed to take knives to school.
It is a FIFA rule.
get FIFA to get its act together. Just following the international rules.
Wonder what the ref would have done if a Sikh kid had showed and wanted to play wearing the kurpan/knife ??
Wininrome
She was excluded from playing this game with the other children because the scarf was a safety issue not because the “hijab is not a traditional head dress for females” and the ref should have made that clear.
I find many of these comments strange such as Liz j suggesting that this is a Muslim conspiracy designed to make people look like bigots.
And as for the Libertarian who does not think individuals should be able to decide what kind of religious hat they wear…. lets hope that such hope for the government to assert control over religious clothing does not become mainstream.
I knew a nun the used to pay badminton in the habit and as far as know she never strangled anyone.
Has a full-length photo of her been published? I bet she was covered head to foot in some outfit, which probably wasn’t the team’s uniform.
Right thing to do. Her parents make her wear this stuff to make a political point and keep her separated from western societal norms. I’m surprised they let her play football.
Davidt
thank you for ignoring the basis of my comment.
you said “And as for the Libertarian who does not think individuals should be able to decide what kind of religious hat they wear…. lets hope that such hope for the government to assert control over religious clothing does not become mainstream.”
They may wear whatever they choose to wear.
The issue is contracting and submitting. There are rules that someone who wishes to join must submit to.
If an individual finds the rules onerous, for any reason whatsoever, then they are free not to join.
However is you join you must submit to the rules. That is the nature of a contract.
JD
Allowing the girl to play with a safely tucked in hijab is reasonable accommodation, in my opinion.
It is not bowing to multicultural relativism, but something that a western, pluralist society can permit if it is confident in its predominantly Christian roots.
The problem is that Islamic extremism and constant caving on the part of the majority when it comes to Christian customs is strengthening a third force that is also totalitarian: secular fundamentalism.
Secular fundamentalism would force all religious expression out of the public square, leaving it only open to humanists and atheists. This view would also continue the erosion of Christian symbols and viewpoints in politics.
Secular fundamentalism is no match for Islamofascism. It may look like a tempting solution, but France, which is much further down this road, has shown far less success with its religious minorities despite the crackdown.
No, what we need in Canada is a revival of our historic western roots. That means that we understand the contribution of Judeo-Christian morality to our laws and institutions and that we keep the natural law that is a reflection of this as a basis for pluralism and religious freedom.
Otherwise, those of us who are crying out for suppression of public religious expression on the part of minorities may find their own religious expression suppressed. Hey, Christians are already feeling this. We’re fighting a battle on two fronts folks, and secular fundamentalism is as dangerous ecause it would also kill the very antidote for the dying west.
RE: JD’s post. These are two very different things and conflating them is not right. Sikh men actually do wear turbans and have since there have been Sikh men. Besides, they are not forced to wear it whether they like it or not. And as well, if you remember, the Air India thing and radicals in BC temples, there was some compelling reasons to get Sikhs who could go undercover in the Vancouver area. Const. Joe Smith would have had some problems with that. The fact that they screwed up the investigation is a whole other matter.
As to the headscarf? Troublemaking (at the minimum) is what jihadis do best. Radicalization of 11 year old girls (who are subject to honour killings if they hang out with the boys) is unacceptable.
I watched an interview with the kid & her mom last night on CJOH (Ottawa CTV affiliate). Mom’s name is “Maria” and she wasn’t wearing any headcovering whatsoever. Perhaps this is the kid’s way of being different and standing out, but it’s degenerated into a “it’s not FAIR” hoohah. She’s had her 15 minutes of fame. I don’t care if adult women want to wear the hijab (never a bad hair day), but I don’t see why a pre-teen child would wear one or why her mother would let her. What point is she trying to make?
I would like to celebrate my heritage by wearing a helmet with horns.(yes historcally incorrect but imbedded in the common knowledge)
I knew a nun the used to pay badminton in the habit and as far as know she never strangled anyone.
Posted by: davidt at February 27, 2007 8:44 AM
——————————
I guess you didn’t watch the Carling Cup final between Chelsea and Arsenal. After seeing John Terry get kicked in the face and knocked out, you’d feel sheepish about comparing footy to badminton.
The suggestion that this eleven year old girls head scarf could result in her being “choked, maimed or otherwise mangled due to having this thing ripped off the kid’s head during play.” is obsurd. Even in the most outlandish thought experiment I can’t see that happening. And I can’t see the thought process required to see an eleven year olds scarf maiming anyone.
I surprised that the idea that this scarf could result in on fied strangulations is being given any serious consideration.
And as for the good point that this is a contract. I was under the impression the rule (contractual term) being used to keep the child from playing with her friends was one that concerned safety.
And if that is the term used in the contract that resulted in her being expelled then I would suggest that it would not hold up in court no matter how liberal the judge was in interpreting that provision.
Mat.
We are not talking about professional football we are talking about eleven year old girls.
Wow. The local media never mentioned half of the relevant details in this story.
Hey look on the bright side, at least we can blame Quebec for this one.
Mat.
We are not talking about professional football we are talking about eleven year old girls.
Posted by: davidt at February 27, 2007 9:54 AM
———————————
Regardless, it’s a rougher game than badminton – twist ankles, kicked shins, dislocated knees, etc.
Badminton isn’t even rough, even when played by nuns in habit.
Perhaps there would not have been such a fuss if muslims did not have a history of demanding special treatment in the name of their religion. There is the RCMP and the turban. Prayer mats when arrested, special food while in jail, prayer rooms in schools, toilets that face east, the kirpan in schools, just for a few examples. As no one wanted to be called a bigot, racist ect. we the people gave in. They almost got sharia law in Ont. This was a deliberate attempt to make a political, not religious, stmt. Too bad for her, the ref, a muslim, called her on it. If the mother doesn’t wear the scarf, that shows this girl was trying to make trouble. I hope there are reporters who will follow her around and catch her without the scarf. Also, she was wearning slacks not shorts. The g&m has about 300 comments re this story, and some are extremely stupid. If she is a very devout, religious muslim girl, she would be in a burka. Did she stop playing during prayer time, I doubt it. If you are going to be a devout anything, you can’t pick and choose what parts of said religion you follow, it is all or none. She reminds me of all the devout christians who turn up at church at chritmas and easter, never to be seen again. Three cheers to the ref who called her on it. In one interview I saw one of the team members said, when shown the paper with the rules on it, and this one highlighted, Yes, we knew the rule, we just didn’t think it would be enforced. By taking their teams out of the match, the coaches and parents sent a message, rules do not have to be followed. So what other rules will these parents and coaches allow their kids to break without punishment.
this shows how PC everybody-almost everybody, has become. The whole team walked off, and I believe another 8 teams. These kids have all been so saturated in PC that they are going to miss games and the tournament becuase all their schools preach “strength thru diversity” etc etc.
I hope the soccer league has some balls and tells them all to go to hell.
To those of you that think the ref did the wrong thing.You should all read The Force Of Reason by Oriana Fallaci
dministrators and now the media viewrs ALL know the rules were in place AHEAD OF TIME.
the sensible methodical logical course is to get a ruling on the hijab PRIOR to the beginning of the season and then go with that.
this is just a dare to the referee to act and thus make it a media issue.
wtf are rules for anyway? challenge the rule AHEAD OF TIME, not on the friggin playing field.
Lost in all of this is the fact that an 11 year old KID thinks she is a godfearing muslim and needs to submit to Islam. Since when is an 11 year old child old enough to make such a huge life affecting choice??
This just reeks of an adult power play a la the “6 Imams” who were booted off the plane in Minneapolis.
OT, but there are no readers comments. Read the Calgary Sun, Neil Waugh-column re Ed Stelmach basically telling suzuki and algore to go to hell.
Paul Jackson re dion and the terror bill. How many of you knew that Zundel was a leadership candidate when PET was elected.
The interesting angle to me is the mother. She appears to be a WASP who married a Muslim. It’s one thing if she wants to be treated second-class, but it’s quite another when she chooses to have her child treated equally badly.
I see this kind of thing occasionally at the mall: the cutest little girl has got one of those stupid hijabs on her head because of her medieval father. It’s one thing I suppose if the mother acquiesces because she’s Muslim-born, but it’s unconscionable for a western-raised mother to allow it.
Amen, robertbollocks. THAT is the point. The issue about the stupidity of the rule is valid, but not germaine to this outburst…the rule was there, it was known beforehand and it was violated. There should be no dispute or outrage because a rule was enforced.
If you want to dispute the stupid rule, do so beforehand. If SDA commenters think the rule is stupid and something arising from the “nanny state” condition…you’re probably right (although it probably more like “libel-chill” from the insurance companies). But it doesn’t apply to THIS outburst.
As I said before, much ado about stupidity.
Although the head scarf issue by itself is minor, you’re exactly right Mary T.
The implementation of Sharia is a creeping process. Proponents use our own laws and culture to ensure Islamic separation from normal society and special privilege over us. As the Muslim’s get their way and their population grows, the final result is dhimmitude for non-Muslims.
For the doubters, read the recent curriculum that the Muslim Council of Britain is ‘suggesting’ for all British schools. It is pernicious to say the least. Its ‘suggestions’ effect non-Muslim students as well, in terms of dress, food and courses.
I think the ref did the right thing.
As a former soccer ref I would not allow someone to play with their face covered.There are considerable studies showing professional soccer play who have choked by swallowing chewing gum.
If a player goes down apparently injured part of my assessment is to look at their face for an indication as to how serious the injury is.
As far as 11 year olds it make no difference.Developing players can be awkward and clumsy and tend to have “accidents while the more developed players to to have injuries due to “accidents and an over inflation of their abilities.
If the girl did get injured what kind of abuse would the ref be in for then?
Refs never win!
I’ll advocate that this girl should be allowed to wear her token of oppression the day that a western woman is allowed to walk through downtown Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in shorts and a t-shirt without having her head cut off.
Until then, they can bugger off.
It’s about rules.
Either you follow them, or you are destined to reside on the fringes of society.
You can put me down in the column that supports little religious girls playing soccer.
The rest of the old grumps who want to make political hay out of this should think twice before going on and on all the great reasons this poor little girl should not be allowed to play soccer with her little friends.
Davidt her friends the kaffuurs? Dhimmis?
Davidt. You really need to read The Force Of Reason, it just might change your way of thinking.
Her friends the kaffirs?
No her little friends on her childrens soccer team.
You know the bunch of little girls who all these grown ups are now angry she can play games with.
Seriously lighten up.
Its one thing to be political and harp and haw about everything under its lens but its another to gang up on an eleven year old girl who want to play.
And the force of reason is alarmist baloney that seeks to make problems rather than solve them.
Killing of 18 boys on soccer pitch in Iraq kind of puts this story into perspective. It’s a religion of peace don’t you know.
Those rules were known to all participating teams prior to their joining the tournament…they just assumed they wouldn’t be enforced. The purpose of the rules was for player safety.
When my kids played soccer, there was a rule that no jewelry was permitted due to player safety…does that mean that the soccer league was guilty of jewelryism?
This is much ado about stupidity.
Are Muslim girls allowed to play soccer,? I don’t think they are in Islamic States, and do they wear shorts????.
Bravo for the ref. and thank God, for him, that he’s a Muslim. If the ref. had been non-Muslim, the screaming, yelling, and hair-pulling would be monumental. There’d probably be a Human Rights Commission challenge.
If girls want to play soccer, then they shouldn’t wear a hijab. Playing soccer and wearing the symbol of radical Islam’s suppression of women just don’t go together, so what did this girl—or her supporters—think they were doing? Too many Muslims want to have it both ways–or every way. ‘Continue to live like a Muslim but do Canadian things, always THEIR way.
As for the individuals who “have slammed the referee’s decision, saying it is just another example of how Quebec is trying to get immigrants to toe a cultural line”: Chill out and get a Canadian life. Surely a Canadian jurisdiction has every right to expect immigrants to “toe a cultural line.” Otherwise “immigration” is in danger of becoming “invasion.” Surely it’s not unreasonable for Canadians to expect immigrants from other countries to accommodate Canadian ways…And if it is unreasonable, then Canadians had better start to demand “Why?”
Multiculturalism is pushed way too far when certain immigrants demand that Canadians bend OUR rules because of certain religious/cultural groups’ sensibilities—and Canadians acquiesce.
The ref did the right thing.
Muslim Girl Ejected from Canadian Soccer Tournament
Someone pushed an 11-year old Muslim girl into trying to play in a soccer tournament wearing the symbol of radical Islam’s suppression of women—the hijab. (LGF)
[More on the “suppression” of women by radical Islam:]
There Are No Words
In the blood-stained annals of “honor killing,” this is surely one of the most appalling stories ever to emerge: Abu-Ghanem women speak out against serial ‘honor killings’.
The murder of Hamda Abu-Ghanem, whose bullet-riddled body was found in mid-January at her parents’ house in Ramle, surprised nobody. …
The perpetrators of most honor killings in the Arab community are not apprehended. Hamda’s murder, however, was one too many for the women in the Abu-Ghanem family. She was the eighth woman to be murdered in the extended family in the last six and a half years. All her predecessors also lost their lives in “honor killings.” …
Before Hamda, the other women of the Abu-Ghanem family who lost their lives for honor were Naifa, Suzan, Zinat, Sabrin, Amira, Reem and Shirihan.
…-
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24585&only
If this is as they say a simple safety issue why don’t we all just wrap our kids up in bubble wrap and lock them in their bedrooms or else they may be accidentally strangled while running around on the field.
Thank god we have such safety mined adults around to protect our children from inadvertent hijab based soccer stranglings.
Give me break kids are tougher than you think.
I look back at me being a kid and I don’t think I ever went a day with out doing something at least as dangerous as a 11 year old girl in a scarf. Wake up people you are rasing a bunch of wimps.
davidt: I think you’ve missed the point of this post.
I should hope that the ref. would have told the girl to get off the field whether her hijab was a safety issue or not. The hijab is not a traditional Muslim headress for females, but was introduced in or around the ’70s as a symbol of a female’s place within the hierarchy of radical Islam. It’s a political symbol.
No soccer player would be allowed to wear a t-shirt or pair of shorts emblazoned with political slogans, so why should a player be able to wear gear that serves the same purpose.
You might want to clean your glasses, davidt. The wimpy thing here would have been for the ref. not to prohibit the hijab.
A total political set-up with the kid as the pawn. Shameful. Some will stop at nothing.
This should be a case of who gives a damn if a Muslim kid plays soccer with a headscarf.
Only a fool would think that this is dangerous.
Different Bob is right this is grown ups playing politics with a little kid who should be playing soccer.
The rule is, ostensibly, about safety. It’s a stupid rule, really. If it were a rule against the wearing of the hijab as a hateful, misogynist symbol inappropriate in a pluralistic society, I could probably get past my libertarian misgivings.
What I would like to know is if the organizers of the tournament arranged the refing schedule to ensure that it was a muslim referee that booted her for appearances sake. It is my understanding that she played in at least a couple of games before this ejection. Just saying…
It’s firstly a shame to be using kids to make statements. Why would an eleven year old girl have to be wearing a head cover when all others on the team can feel the wind in their hair?
It looks suspiciously like a set up to get reaction and try to paint us as intolerant, bigots or racist, given the referee was Muslim. He could have overlooked it, or if forced could resign.
it was not a problem for anyone else.
Why do they want to stand out like sore thumbs while living in this Country, attending our schools, playing our sports etc anyway?
Let them integrate and enjoy our Society and blend in. If the sport has a uniform, don’t allow them to bastardize it.
The bigger story is using children to make a statement.
I’m a footy fan. Personally I couldn’t give a flying you-know-what if a player wears something on their head – Charmaine Hooper and several of the Canadian women wear this headband contraption that is supposed to prevent head shock when heading the ball.
I am however opposed to women in hijabs or any other kind of covering. I think we should be hostile to the wearing of this stuff at every opportunity, and quite frankly I think we should be putting some Muslim men in full burqa so they can experience what it’s like.
We already lost this battle kids.
Anybody remember the Sikhs and their turbans back in the 1970’s? Police uniforms ring a bell? No such thing as a uniform anymore, ya gotta bend with the multi-culti wind eh?
Not that I don’t think the battle isn’t worth re-fighting, mind you. A uniform is supposed to be just that… uniform. If you don’t like the outfit maybe you should re-think the whole coming to Canada thing, or choosing the cops or the military for a career at least.
The hijab is just another tempest in a tea pot. There are lots of places where you don’t want something wrapped around your neck, and a soccer game is just one of them. DavidT and DifferentBob would be singing a MUCH different tune if this kid got choked, maimed or otherwise mangled due to having this thing ripped off the kid’s head during play. What’s next, turbans instead of helmets in peewee hockey? Good idea!
How about female police constables in hijab and veil? Sound like a plan?
It’s quite simple really. It’s a contracting issue.
The rules of soccer as they relate to dress are quite specific. You can only wear soccer socks, shin guards, running shoes, underwear, shorts and the team jersey. Nothing else is allowed on the pitch. No jewelery around the neck, no rings, no sweat bands, no yarmulkes, no turbans, etc. etc. etc.
It is on this basis that all teams through the provincial, and Canadian soccer federation are able to gain insurance.
As a result of theses rules there are people of faith (of all kinds) who will not participate. There are likely Orthodox jews, for example, who choose not to join. They choose not to join as they find the terms of membership onerous.
As a libertarian I find these rules just, equitable, and fairly applied. If there is an error, and a slight one at that, it is that the federations (all sports federations) do not communicate the nature of their contract explicitly enough.
If you wish to join our organization here are the rules that we apply. And these rules are applied equally and with the same degree of enforcement no matter what you race, religion, gender, etc. etc.
If you wish to join, you need to be willing to submit to these rules.
And that is what this is all about. Are people/groups willing to submit?
Those that are may join. Those that do not want to submit – cannot.
Soccer players should not be allowed to wear scarves any more than mounties are allowed to wear turbans or kids are allowed to take knives to school.
It is a FIFA rule.
get FIFA to get its act together. Just following the international rules.
Wonder what the ref would have done if a Sikh kid had showed and wanted to play wearing the kurpan/knife ??
Wininrome
She was excluded from playing this game with the other children because the scarf was a safety issue not because the “hijab is not a traditional head dress for females” and the ref should have made that clear.
I find many of these comments strange such as Liz j suggesting that this is a Muslim conspiracy designed to make people look like bigots.
And as for the Libertarian who does not think individuals should be able to decide what kind of religious hat they wear…. lets hope that such hope for the government to assert control over religious clothing does not become mainstream.
I knew a nun the used to pay badminton in the habit and as far as know she never strangled anyone.
Has a full-length photo of her been published? I bet she was covered head to foot in some outfit, which probably wasn’t the team’s uniform.
Right thing to do. Her parents make her wear this stuff to make a political point and keep her separated from western societal norms. I’m surprised they let her play football.
Davidt
thank you for ignoring the basis of my comment.
you said “And as for the Libertarian who does not think individuals should be able to decide what kind of religious hat they wear…. lets hope that such hope for the government to assert control over religious clothing does not become mainstream.”
They may wear whatever they choose to wear.
The issue is contracting and submitting. There are rules that someone who wishes to join must submit to.
If an individual finds the rules onerous, for any reason whatsoever, then they are free not to join.
However is you join you must submit to the rules. That is the nature of a contract.
JD
Allowing the girl to play with a safely tucked in hijab is reasonable accommodation, in my opinion.
It is not bowing to multicultural relativism, but something that a western, pluralist society can permit if it is confident in its predominantly Christian roots.
The problem is that Islamic extremism and constant caving on the part of the majority when it comes to Christian customs is strengthening a third force that is also totalitarian: secular fundamentalism.
Secular fundamentalism would force all religious expression out of the public square, leaving it only open to humanists and atheists. This view would also continue the erosion of Christian symbols and viewpoints in politics.
Secular fundamentalism is no match for Islamofascism. It may look like a tempting solution, but France, which is much further down this road, has shown far less success with its religious minorities despite the crackdown.
No, what we need in Canada is a revival of our historic western roots. That means that we understand the contribution of Judeo-Christian morality to our laws and institutions and that we keep the natural law that is a reflection of this as a basis for pluralism and religious freedom.
Otherwise, those of us who are crying out for suppression of public religious expression on the part of minorities may find their own religious expression suppressed. Hey, Christians are already feeling this. We’re fighting a battle on two fronts folks, and secular fundamentalism is as dangerous ecause it would also kill the very antidote for the dying west.
RE: JD’s post. These are two very different things and conflating them is not right. Sikh men actually do wear turbans and have since there have been Sikh men. Besides, they are not forced to wear it whether they like it or not. And as well, if you remember, the Air India thing and radicals in BC temples, there was some compelling reasons to get Sikhs who could go undercover in the Vancouver area. Const. Joe Smith would have had some problems with that. The fact that they screwed up the investigation is a whole other matter.
As to the headscarf? Troublemaking (at the minimum) is what jihadis do best. Radicalization of 11 year old girls (who are subject to honour killings if they hang out with the boys) is unacceptable.
I watched an interview with the kid & her mom last night on CJOH (Ottawa CTV affiliate). Mom’s name is “Maria” and she wasn’t wearing any headcovering whatsoever. Perhaps this is the kid’s way of being different and standing out, but it’s degenerated into a “it’s not FAIR” hoohah. She’s had her 15 minutes of fame. I don’t care if adult women want to wear the hijab (never a bad hair day), but I don’t see why a pre-teen child would wear one or why her mother would let her. What point is she trying to make?
I would like to celebrate my heritage by wearing a helmet with horns.(yes historcally incorrect but imbedded in the common knowledge)
I knew a nun the used to pay badminton in the habit and as far as know she never strangled anyone.
Posted by: davidt at February 27, 2007 8:44 AM
——————————
I guess you didn’t watch the Carling Cup final between Chelsea and Arsenal. After seeing John Terry get kicked in the face and knocked out, you’d feel sheepish about comparing footy to badminton.
The suggestion that this eleven year old girls head scarf could result in her being “choked, maimed or otherwise mangled due to having this thing ripped off the kid’s head during play.” is obsurd. Even in the most outlandish thought experiment I can’t see that happening. And I can’t see the thought process required to see an eleven year olds scarf maiming anyone.
I surprised that the idea that this scarf could result in on fied strangulations is being given any serious consideration.
And as for the good point that this is a contract. I was under the impression the rule (contractual term) being used to keep the child from playing with her friends was one that concerned safety.
And if that is the term used in the contract that resulted in her being expelled then I would suggest that it would not hold up in court no matter how liberal the judge was in interpreting that provision.
Mat.
We are not talking about professional football we are talking about eleven year old girls.
Wow. The local media never mentioned half of the relevant details in this story.
Hey look on the bright side, at least we can blame Quebec for this one.
Mat.
We are not talking about professional football we are talking about eleven year old girls.
Posted by: davidt at February 27, 2007 9:54 AM
———————————
Regardless, it’s a rougher game than badminton – twist ankles, kicked shins, dislocated knees, etc.
Badminton isn’t even rough, even when played by nuns in habit.
Perhaps there would not have been such a fuss if muslims did not have a history of demanding special treatment in the name of their religion. There is the RCMP and the turban. Prayer mats when arrested, special food while in jail, prayer rooms in schools, toilets that face east, the kirpan in schools, just for a few examples. As no one wanted to be called a bigot, racist ect. we the people gave in. They almost got sharia law in Ont. This was a deliberate attempt to make a political, not religious, stmt. Too bad for her, the ref, a muslim, called her on it. If the mother doesn’t wear the scarf, that shows this girl was trying to make trouble. I hope there are reporters who will follow her around and catch her without the scarf. Also, she was wearning slacks not shorts. The g&m has about 300 comments re this story, and some are extremely stupid. If she is a very devout, religious muslim girl, she would be in a burka. Did she stop playing during prayer time, I doubt it. If you are going to be a devout anything, you can’t pick and choose what parts of said religion you follow, it is all or none. She reminds me of all the devout christians who turn up at church at chritmas and easter, never to be seen again. Three cheers to the ref who called her on it. In one interview I saw one of the team members said, when shown the paper with the rules on it, and this one highlighted, Yes, we knew the rule, we just didn’t think it would be enforced. By taking their teams out of the match, the coaches and parents sent a message, rules do not have to be followed. So what other rules will these parents and coaches allow their kids to break without punishment.
this shows how PC everybody-almost everybody, has become. The whole team walked off, and I believe another 8 teams. These kids have all been so saturated in PC that they are going to miss games and the tournament becuase all their schools preach “strength thru diversity” etc etc.
I hope the soccer league has some balls and tells them all to go to hell.
To those of you that think the ref did the wrong thing.You should all read The Force Of Reason by Oriana Fallaci
dministrators and now the media viewrs ALL know the rules were in place AHEAD OF TIME.
the sensible methodical logical course is to get a ruling on the hijab PRIOR to the beginning of the season and then go with that.
this is just a dare to the referee to act and thus make it a media issue.
wtf are rules for anyway? challenge the rule AHEAD OF TIME, not on the friggin playing field.
Lost in all of this is the fact that an 11 year old KID thinks she is a godfearing muslim and needs to submit to Islam. Since when is an 11 year old child old enough to make such a huge life affecting choice??
This just reeks of an adult power play a la the “6 Imams” who were booted off the plane in Minneapolis.
OT, but there are no readers comments. Read the Calgary Sun, Neil Waugh-column re Ed Stelmach basically telling suzuki and algore to go to hell.
Paul Jackson re dion and the terror bill. How many of you knew that Zundel was a leadership candidate when PET was elected.
The interesting angle to me is the mother. She appears to be a WASP who married a Muslim. It’s one thing if she wants to be treated second-class, but it’s quite another when she chooses to have her child treated equally badly.
I see this kind of thing occasionally at the mall: the cutest little girl has got one of those stupid hijabs on her head because of her medieval father. It’s one thing I suppose if the mother acquiesces because she’s Muslim-born, but it’s unconscionable for a western-raised mother to allow it.
Amen, robertbollocks. THAT is the point. The issue about the stupidity of the rule is valid, but not germaine to this outburst…the rule was there, it was known beforehand and it was violated. There should be no dispute or outrage because a rule was enforced.
If you want to dispute the stupid rule, do so beforehand. If SDA commenters think the rule is stupid and something arising from the “nanny state” condition…you’re probably right (although it probably more like “libel-chill” from the insurance companies). But it doesn’t apply to THIS outburst.
As I said before, much ado about stupidity.
Although the head scarf issue by itself is minor, you’re exactly right Mary T.
The implementation of Sharia is a creeping process. Proponents use our own laws and culture to ensure Islamic separation from normal society and special privilege over us. As the Muslim’s get their way and their population grows, the final result is dhimmitude for non-Muslims.
For the doubters, read the recent curriculum that the Muslim Council of Britain is ‘suggesting’ for all British schools. It is pernicious to say the least. Its ‘suggestions’ effect non-Muslim students as well, in terms of dress, food and courses.
I think the ref did the right thing.
As a former soccer ref I would not allow someone to play with their face covered.There are considerable studies showing professional soccer play who have choked by swallowing chewing gum.
If a player goes down apparently injured part of my assessment is to look at their face for an indication as to how serious the injury is.
As far as 11 year olds it make no difference.Developing players can be awkward and clumsy and tend to have “accidents while the more developed players to to have injuries due to “accidents and an over inflation of their abilities.
If the girl did get injured what kind of abuse would the ref be in for then?
Refs never win!
internal server error?
Headline at MSNBC
Iraq TV: Car bomb at soccer field kills 18 children….-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1791956/posts
I’ll advocate that this girl should be allowed to wear her token of oppression the day that a western woman is allowed to walk through downtown Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in shorts and a t-shirt without having her head cut off.
Until then, they can bugger off.
It’s about rules.
Either you follow them, or you are destined to reside on the fringes of society.
“…Are Muslim girls allowed to play soccer…”
Who knows. But here are one set of rules pertaining to muslim girls who marry soccer players.
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=84291&ln=eng&txt=soccer
I think they are losers.
From swim suit riots to cartoons,
They think it too
http://no-libs.com/?p=1462
You can put me down in the column that supports little religious girls playing soccer.
The rest of the old grumps who want to make political hay out of this should think twice before going on and on all the great reasons this poor little girl should not be allowed to play soccer with her little friends.
Davidt her friends the kaffuurs? Dhimmis?
Davidt. You really need to read The Force Of Reason, it just might change your way of thinking.
Her friends the kaffirs?
No her little friends on her childrens soccer team.
You know the bunch of little girls who all these grown ups are now angry she can play games with.
Seriously lighten up.
Its one thing to be political and harp and haw about everything under its lens but its another to gang up on an eleven year old girl who want to play.
And the force of reason is alarmist baloney that seeks to make problems rather than solve them.
Killing of 18 boys on soccer pitch in Iraq kind of puts this story into perspective. It’s a religion of peace don’t you know.