And hijabs on the pitch are out:
Soccer’s legislators have ruled that no player can wear a head scarf on the field.
The International Football Association Board was asked at its annual meeting Saturday to adjudicate on a decision to ban an 11-year-old Ottawa Muslim girl from playing in a tournament near Montreal last weekend because she was wearing a head scarf.
“If you play football there’s a set of laws and rules, and law four outlines the basic equipment,” said Brian Barwick, chief executive of the English Football Association, which is one of the IFAB members.
“It’s absolutely right to be sensitive to people’s thoughts and philosophies, but equally there has to be a set of laws that are adhered to, and we favour law four being adhered to.”
Law four lists the items a player is entitled to wear and head scarves are not mentioned.
Hissy fits may now resume in earnest.
KC: “You can’t degrade the entire concept of secularism in one context and embrace it when it serves as a useful tool with which to beat another religion.”
I love the smell of irony in the morning.
BTW, I support the decision. It is being worn as a religious garment and should not be allowed in a public forum.
Just my 2c.
ET, you say that you “don’t have a problem with this young girl wearing the hijab in a soccer game – because it is showing Muslim women that they can participate in sports.”
If the ruling had gone in the oppositie direction, and this 11-year-old was told she could wear a hijab, the other messages it would send are:
* Muslims get their way, yet again, by pushing the envelope; what’s next? and
* other groups would begin insisting that they get to wear symbols of their social understandings about males and females.
In other words, we open a Pandora’s Box, something we have done far too much in the years of enlightenment (sarc) since the ’60s. Enough, already.
The rules of the IFAB are clear. And they are: hang it up.
I’m comfortable with that.
If we want the message to young Muslim girls to be that they are allowed to participate in sports, then let the initiative be a Muslim initiative. Let the parents of girls who wear hijabs explain the international rules of the game to their children and themselves and let THEM allow their girls to NOT wear the hijab on the soccer field.
If Muslim girls “should” be able to participate in sports, it shouldn’t have to be the rest of the world that acquiesces to the Muslim way of doing things, but the other way around. Soccer is in the international domain and should not in any way be hamstrung by Muslims’ particular way of looking at the world.
The IFAB rules are chrystal clear. Leave them as they are and let Muslims deal with it. Let them open their own Soccer association, where all females are free to wear the hihab. That might work. But don’t expect everyone else to bend the clear and longstanding international soccer rules for a Muslim idiosyncrasy.
And while I’m at it.
Kevin, our Moderator says, “And it is really incredible that multiple teams pulled out of a tournament over something like this. They must feel like fools now that FIFA itself has endorsed the referee’s decision.”
I HOPE they feel like fools. We have a HUGE problem these days with people not being able to DISCERN what is an issue of broad societal import and what is merely a personal preference.
In our society of entitlement, we have people fantasizing–and acting on their fantasy, with the full endorsement of the useful idiots at the CBC–that their own, personal sense of being offended, because certain rules don’t accommodate their way of thinking/living, requires a change on the part of OTHERS NOT THEM.
Somehow we have to get a sense of perspective back. Somehow we have to learn the fine art of discernment again. Of course, discerning what’s best means a certain amount of making judgements: Is this a good thing, a better thing, or the best thing for everyone?
There IS a hierarchy of good/better/best in the real world, so we’d best rewind the tape of Alice jumping down the rabbit hole to get the H*ll back on our feet and out of the upside-down, back-to-front world going down that rabbit hole plunges us into.
Back to my original question:
http://www.kippotcenter.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=363
Now, as far as I’m concerned, wearing a yarmulke on the field is just ducky, and so is wearing a hijab. My point was (and is) that a) no player would be tossed off the field for wearing a kipa, and b) that, were it done, even if the referee were Jewish, we’d be up to our necks in scandalized comment by now.
This isn’t about soccer. It’s about politics and culture–and mean-spiritedness.
The post here is inaccurate, too. IFAB didn’t rule against headscarves. It bravely decided to do nothing at all about Law 4, which has been subject to widely differing interpretation. The Ontario Soccer Association explicitly permits hijabs, the Quenec Soccer Association is silent on the issue.
Meanwhile Charest is playing to the Herouxville crowd, and an 11-year-old is another site of struggle for the culture wars. It’s all rather ugly, really.
“This isn’t about soccer. It’s about politics and culture–and mean-spiritedness.”
Come off it, Dr. Dawg. This is PRECISELY about soccer though some rabid activists–rabble rousers–want to turn it into a political and cultural issue.
The rules are clear. There are rules for a reason. They seem to have held the IFAB member teams in good stead for a long time, and the IFAB has ruled. The rules are the rules.
One girl wants to wear a hijab–well, then, the onus is on her and her family to make changes–to wear or not wear the hijab? to play or not play soccer in the IFAB?–not the rest of the worldwide Association.
As I said above, we need to learn the art of discernment once again and cultivate common sense. It doesn’t make sense for the INTERNATIONAL FAB to change its rules in order to not offend the sensibilities of one young female.
The teams’ walking out of the tournament is just one more blow to decorum and good sportmanship. They were wrong to do that: anarchy in the making, something we have far too much of in our classrooms, on the streets, and now on our soccer pitches.
Enough, already.
Similar thing happened here on the lower mainland a while back: http://www.langleyadvance.com/issues05/091205/news/091205nn3.html
A teenage Sikh boy swore at the Ref when he was asked to remove his turban or be ejected from the game. He received a red card and WAS ejected from the game. His team withdrew in protest.
The rules are bent around here all the time for young Sikh youths during regular league games. We see them all the time with those little doilies they wear before they get big enough for those turbans. But at this tournament, they went by the book and the organizer felt horrible for doing it.
This is a tough one.
‘been around the block’ – I agree with your views. As I said, my own view was conflicting; I saw valid points for both the hijab and against it.
The only point ‘for’ it was to show Muslim women that they can participate in activities that would be forbidden in an Islamic country. Note that they, on the sports field, are not veiled and robed.
The point against it, is that the hijab is not a religious requirement; it is a cultural addition, and symbolizes the woman as a sexual object dominated by men. That meaning contradicts my first opinion – which would be to show the woman as equal and free.
The issue is not, I think, about personal freedom (david d). Personal freedom is trumped by the rules of the sport.
I don’t think it’s about politics and culture and mean-spiritedness (Dr Dawg). After all, political systems and cultural have normative rules. The rules in this case are about the sport of soccer and the dress code.
It has absolutely nothing to do with mean-spiritness. Surely you aren’t suggesting that not letting her wear the hijab is just an act of personal antagonism or mean-spiritedness??? That ignores the rules of the sport and says that any criticism of someone who breaks those rules is just ‘mean-spirited’. I don’t think the onus shifts to the rules.
As for your hypothetical question about the yarmulke – it remains hypothetical, since the issue has never arisen. Therefore, to attempt to use it as a valid comparison – is invalid.
ET
Here is a framework that might help you resolve your discomfort.
At one level life is about submission. In the animal kingdom, submission is determined by power. The strong take, the weak submit and give. It applies to food in a pack, and life and death.
As humans, part of the animal kingdom we have evolved, though language, the ability to communicate ideas and concepts: God, his teachings, the rule of law, are all examples.
In some societies, democracies in particular, the people’s submission is given willingly. We submit because we choose to. In authoritarian societies, the people submit because they are forced to.
It is not that black and white of course. And we have choices to make every day. Do I submit to the speed limit or break it? And the state, of course, has the power, to force submission. Submit to the speed limit or pay the fine. Etc.
There are always individuals, collections of individuals and self-identified groups that refuse to submit. Today we find ourselves in a class of ideas. Which will dominate? Which is the ultimate idea in Canada that will dominate all others? Is it the rule of law and tolerance? Or something else?
So the girl refused to submit to the rules of the association. That is her choice. But she does not own the association. She is simply someone who want to partake of their services. And as with all associations the governing body determines the rules. In a free society she is free to join or not join. And our obligation as the larger entity – the society, is to ensure that the rules of the association apply equally and fairly to all participants, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.
I have not seen any systemic evidence that this particular association is applying their rules in an inequitable manner.
So finally, I suggest that this tempest is but a symptom of a battle to determine what idea will dominate to which everyone must submit. this is a battle we have been fighting since we first could formulate concepts and used them to change the nature of our submission battle.
To my end, a serious debate about what the concepts are in Canada that we should submit to would be enlightening.
Finally, ET as a long time reader, but not participant of SDA, I must tell you that I have always enjoyed your commentary. I find it illuminating
JD
Well, ET, you’re wrong. Law Four doesn’t explicitly ban headcoverings, so it doesn’t have to be changed. There is, in other words, no rule against headscarves. And in fact, girls play at the international level with headscarves all the time.
IFAB didn’t even make a ruling–it ducked the issue and even refused to comment on whether the Laval referee’s decision was valid.
Finally, of course my comment about yarmulkes was hypothetical. The fact that it is hypothetical underscores my point.
1 Corinthians 11:5-7 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Hmmm…..this is why women in church used to wear bonnet’s and hats….doesnt seem to apply anymore.
Reading a little deeper, I am not heavily religous, there are other interpretations. Including that the hair of women is the covering and long hair on women is “her glory” and that the shame on women is a shaved head or short short hair. Of course all of this is in reference to praying and not being out and about town.
Yes the Koran makes references to women keeping themselves covered, in the culture it was written than means cloak drawn. OF course the full context is tha muhammed was rebuking a colleague for doing a doble take and jaw drop on some woman as they rode into town.
So on the Hijab….well sikh men are required to wea the turban….are there turbans worn in mens soccer games in Surrey BC?
As well, no shorts….I dont think shorts are a requirement, jst more for comfort. Of course other cultures put pressure on women for modesty….see womens or mens tennis outfits early in the last century, or mens and womens bathing suits in a similar time frame.
I guess the difference was that it wasnt religously based, religously influenced for sure, but definitely cultural.
Wrapping it in religous language tries to extend a differen level of protection. It is largely cultural reasons that are driving this.
While I think respect for another culture is important it isnt sacrosanct. Games and sports are cultural events. Reasonable accomodation is fine and that means on both sides.
Why her family would put her in a situation that is clearly going to put her in conflict is beyond me.
Another reminder of what happens with religous extremists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6412453.stm
Dr. Dawg is having difficulty with this decision because it is how things work in a free country and he can’t wrap his dogma around it.
Here, lemme ‘splain it for you Dawg.
A) In a free country, a 11 year old can wear the symbol of Arabic female repression if she wants. I might think she’s mental, but really its none of my frickin’ business. I can avert my gaze if I don’t like it, and whine about it at SDA, but I can’t make her stop by force. Because its a free country.
B) In a free country, soccer organizations can make rules for players in their league and kick people off the field for breaking the rules. The IFAB ain’t the gubmint, they hold no power except in soccer games where they paid to rent the field. If you think their rules suck, go rent your own field and have your own tournament.
C) Miss 11 year old is entirely free to wear whatever she wants, whenever she wants, except when she FREELY AGREES to follow IFAB rules by being on THEIR soccer pitch in THEIR tournament.
So Dawg, it all comes down to the old basics of giving your word and keeping it. She gave her word to follow the rules, then broke her word because it was convenient for her, and so paid the penalty. Case closed, hopefully she learns something about promises and honour.
It is unfortunate that so many people thought it was appropriate to support her in her wrong headed pursuit of personal privilege, but hijacking public events in search of political advantage is the fashion these days. Pity.
Dr. Dawg: neo-McCarthyite blather? McCarthy was right there were communist infiltrators. You have to look to the left for real suppression of free speech as in dead. Back on topic the rules are the rules. If you want ot wear a hajib or a yarmulke start your own league.
I wish you guys would get your facts straight. Chew on these:
1) Law 4 does not prohibit head-scarves, or any other head-covering for that matter.
2) The IFAB did NOT “uphold” anything. They uttered a few contentless words after a regular meeting, and wouldn’t even say if they agreed or not with the Laval referee.
3) The Ontario Soccer Association permits these head-scarves. No one from the IFAB has said Boo about it.
4) Head-scarves are worn in international competition all the time.
So, Phantom, to defame this child for “breaking her word” is simply outrageous. Only a conservative would attack a kid to make cheap political points. She broke no rules, has played in Quebec before without incident, and no ruling has been made against her. Got that?
“no ruling has been made against her”
Until the referee made his, that is. My other comments stand. Character-assassinating an eleven-year-old–good grief. Not even Ann Coulter has stooped so low.
Oooh, mau mauing the Phantom! You Dawg, you! Got yer dawgma in a twist, did I? ~:D
Lemme ‘splain it to you again.
From the article: “If you play football, there’s a set of laws and rules, and law four outlines the basic equipment,” said Brian Barwick…
[snippage]
“It’s absolutely right to be sensitive to people’s thoughts and philosophies, but equally there has to be a set of laws that are adhered to, and we favour law four being adhered to.”
“Law four states that players “must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).” ”
Now I know this will be hard for you Dawg, but elswhere in the rules there’s a rule that the referee gets to decide about if you followed the rules or not. If the ref says hijabs are out, they are out. Take it off or play from the bench.
She agreed to that rule too. No defamation here Dawg, sorry to burst your indignation like that.
IFAB has unequivocally upheld the ref’s ruling. End of argument. You don’t like IFAB rules, take up road hockey.
This is the thing about freedom that guys like you don’t get. Other people are free too. Sometimes they will do things you don’t like.
That’s where tolerance becomes important. I’ve got to put up with this kid’s mental malfunction regarding her head gear, she’s got to put up with the IFAB holding her to her word.
And you, old son, have to put up with me. Bwaha!
No, Dr. Dawg – I think you are ignoring and bending reality to suit yourself.
Because the Rule 4 does not rule specifically against the hijab does not mean it permits the hijab. That’s basic logic (modus ponens). The rule is specific only about what may be allowed, not disallowed. The hijab/headscarf is not on that list. End of story.
Don’t introduce a hypothetical argument to attempt to prove a non-hypothetical situation. That’s what you did; your analogy of the yarmulke remains invalid. It doesn’t ‘underscore your point’ because it is a purely fictional analogy.
Again, if the referee made his ruling, then according to the rules of the game, and the international board, that’s his right. It had nothing, obviously, to do with religion.
Again, the hijab is a sociocultural symbol; it is not a religious requirement. To transform cultural symbols into sacred artifacts by defining them as religious symbols is not an action that should be accepted, meekly, by either the host or other population. The Muslim population should examine this transformation and its symbolic meaning (the transformation of the woman into a sexual object); and the non-Muslim population should examine the slippery slope that emerges when artifacts are defined as religious rather than cultural artifacts.
By the way Dawg, on a more serious note, have you considered WHY the IFAB has the rules that they have?
Think for a minute about the number of casualties at soccer games world wide over the last few decades. Crowd riots, ref assassinations, players murdered, all these things are commonplace.
The IFAB has a lot more important things to worry about than the hurt feelings of a few little kids in Canada.
It’s a sports event, not a religious ceremony.
The league has existing rules for the protection of the participants.
The girl in the hijab ignored the rules in order to make a political/religious statement. She was presumably put up to this by her parents, supported by the hissing snakes at various Islamic organisations.
This tactic was slapped down as it should have been. As was the Muslim tactic of demanding special Islamic prayer rooms at a college stadium in the US. As was the Muslim taxi drivers tactic to not carry passengers with alcohol, or blind passengers with seeing eye dogs at the Minneapolis airport. As was the flying imams.
The hijab may be an older Islamic symbol (which is of course an even older Jewish and Christian symbol pilfered by Islam as usual). However, the full burka has only been around since the 70’s, as the ultimate symbol of female oppression.
This incident as well as the others I mentioned are tactics to errode our culture using our own laws and ‘mulit-culti’ sensitivity in order to separate and elevate Muslims above the rest of society in general. Which is consistent with their values and teachings in the Quran.
It’s just another front in the same war. And they lost.
The issue is not really about soccer. The kids at the heart of this are only 11 year olds who want to enjoy the game, have fun, and be the best they can be.
I don’t find it hard to understand why her team mates voted as a team to withdraw. All they are likely seeing is that one of their friends, and apparently a very good soccer player, was disqualified for something that probably few, if any, of them even understand what is at issue. To them it was something “blatantly unfair” so of course they would side with her. To argue that a hijab poses a safety issue is nonsense.
It is about a cadre of adults constantly seeking wedge issues to push their own agenda. To me it is abominable/despicable to push their own political issues/statements through their own young people. I smell another human rights panel decision coming – just to have it “on record” as a “win” in the political arena.
Apparently there was a tribunal challenge in Ontario that was successful as regards allowing a kirpan to be worn by a young soccer player. It seems that Ontario also has something on record supporting the hijab that QC does not and this also is not surprising. Just because Ontario does something – does this mean the the rest of us have to subscribe to it as well?
It is not unlike the turbans in the RCMP, the headgear issue in the Canadian Legion, or the kirpan – etc., etc. All of these things were settled either in a tribunal or via the supreme court so the case law is already in place and could be used in a court challenge. It sounds like her mother might be just the person who will be pushing for this with, no doubt, some pretty heavy lobby groups for both moral and financial support.
To those who choose to settle these kinds of issues through the courts rather than person to person – it is their choice, and whether we like it or not – they are likely going to “win” legally but certainly not socially nor win many friends while doing it.
These tactics only serve to create intense dislike on the part of others and does nothing but rip away at our social fabric – just as has been happening for some 25 years or so. It has only succeeded in polarizing people and creating intense divisiveness within society. The recent comments of both Khan and Allgebra are certainly not helpful.
Facts:
IFAB has unequivocally upheld the ref’s ruling. End of argument.
IFAB has done nothing of the kind. They ducked the issue with athletic skill, and wouldn’t even say whether they agreed with the ref’s ruling.
No other referee had ever interpreted Law 4 in this fashion. Azzy had played in Ontario, which explicitly allows the head-scarf, and had played in Quebec, where the issue never arose. To blame the child, as Phantom did, is unconscionable.
ET seems to believe that if something is not explicitly permitted in a rule, it is prohibited. I question that. Rule 4 is silent on the head-scarf. It doesn’t, in other words, either allow or prohibit it. And nothing from the IFAB rabbits has changed that.
She missed my point about the yarmulke, too. The very fact that this is a hypothetical should indicate something: namely, that the issue would never arise. Imagine sending someone off the field for wearing a yarmulke–the howls of indignation we’d hear right here at SDA.
Anyway, more at my place, no more here.
Furthermore, many Christian kids are not allowed to play organised sports on Sunday. Christians are not challenging sporting organisations to adjust schedules to allow the Christian kids to play.
Headline on the page one of the Ottawa Citizen today:
“Rulemakers Duck While Azzy Scores ”
with a cover photo of her playing at Frank Clair Stadium in Ottawa, with the text “Asmahan ‘Azzy’ Mansour kicks in her second goal yesterday at Frank Clair Stadium, helping lead her Nepean Hotspurs team to victory”
Those gosh-darned teenage Muslims – now they’re playing soccer better than us normal Canadians. Where will it end?
Now, let the _real_ “hissy fits” begin. Feel the love. I’m outa here.
No, Dr. Dawg – your logic remains severely faulty.
1) The fact that something is not forbidden does not mean that it is allowed. It is equally invalid to state that unless something is ‘explicitly permitted then it is prohibited’.
For example, it is not explicitly forbidden to throw your computer in the river, but that does not mean that it is allowed. And to say that unless is it explicitly permitted to help an old lady across the street, then it is prohibited’ – is also illogical.
You can’t ‘affirm the consequent’.
2) Equally, your hypothetical argument is fallacious. It is hypothetical because it hasn’t happened and therefore, you can’t use it as an analogy. Your use of it as an analogy is false.
You’ve transformed a non-factual event into a statement of morality, when you say ‘imagine the reaction to such an event’. But that’s not the argument. Not only is it hypothetical of you to imagine the argument, but – you still don’t get it. The situation hasn’t arisen, not because of the non-existent ‘howls of outrage at SDA’ but because the situation itself hasn’t occurred. Again, you are doing what you have done in (1) – which is to equate a positive/negative antecedent with its opposite consequent.
3) You are ignoring that the referee has the right to make decisions about suitable clothing for the game. You are focused only on the symbol, the religious symbol. But the symbol happens to be a material object – and the referee had every right to be concerned, not about its symbolic nature but about its material nature. You are completely ignoring this.
For example, should a player wear a kirpan in the game?
ET, you’re obfuscating.
First, I’m not affirming the consequent. I am stating, in plain language, that Law 4 neither prohibits nor permits the head-scarf. Relying upon it as an authority, therefore, to disallow the head-scarf, will not do. It is an error in logic to assume (as many seem to be doing) that, because the head-scarf is not explicitly permitted in Law 4, it must be prohibited. In an odd and roundabout way, I think we might even agree on this point.
Secondly, your objection to my hypothetical simply makes no sense. I am asking people to imagine what their reaction would be if a player were sent off for wearing a yarmulke. I am suggesting that their reaction might be substantially different than in the instant case. I am pointing out, therefore, on that very basis, that the real issue here is Islam, not soccer. I think many of the commenters here would agree.
Finally, there is an element of arbitrariness in the decision of the referee. No such rule was imposed earlier, and, in Ontario, the head-scarf is explicitly permitted. What is needed here is clarification for the sake of consistency. Rules are supposed to be clear. But the IFAB ducked their responsibility in this respect. They said nothing of substance–they didn’t even comment on whether they thought the referee was right–and Law 4 remains too vague to be of any use. A “law” or rule that allows widely varying interpretations leaves a citizen at perpetual risk. It offends against justice.
Interesting that you raise the kirpan. Res judicata, I believe:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=d27e5a61-d272-4aab-810f-b615a957ee35&k=37999
Have any of you pro- hijab posters ever seen a soccer game at tournament level??? The rules about headgear are in place for a very good reason; to keep players from getting injured. It’s unbelieveable what a dirty player can accomplish in a pile up and yes, that kind of thing does happen in kid’s sport. I saw some clips of this kid and she seems to be a very good player. I suspect that’s why her coach rolled the dice and took her to this tournament and why the rest of her team was disappointed enough to forfeit.
“If you play football there’s a set of laws and rules, and law four outlines the basic equipment,”
If only our courts followed the same dictum when it comes to law, & equality before said law. If not adherance to the “rules”.
The real villains of the piece are the little girl’s friggin parents who care so little for their child that they have used her to make a cheap point. It’s a game. It’s supposed to be about having fun. And don’t try to tell me that an 11 year old cooked this up all by herself.
By the way, I’m not an Arabist but, I have worked in 4 Muslim countries and, as far as I know, even where women are obliged to cover their heads, observance by little girls isn’t required.
Dawg, of course the issue is Islam. If the girl had been kicked out for non-regulation cleats nobody would care.
Rules and sportsmanship vs. Islam and multi-culti PC liberalness. It tells me a lot when none of the politicians are sticking up for sportsmanship.
What disturbs me about stories like these is the feeling that there’s a “creeping, insidious” plan to change this western country into something that the muslim faith will someday dominate. I have a strong feeling that this issue really isn’t about whether or not the girl can play soccer wearing a hijab, but whether or not Canada will once again bow down to a culture/religion/belief system that is so opposite everything we in the west believe in.
They should just let the girl wear her headscarf and play soccer. I don’t see what the big deal is.
From Little Green Footballs RoyalCanadian
No, no please. muslims do not need your stinking infidel legal rules, your moral rules, your social rules, your rules of etiquette or even your rules of personal hygiene. Why would muslims follow your rules of sport?
If muslim taxi drivers elect not to pick up blind people with seeing eye dogs at an airport, YOU mister and missus infidel are racist if you think blind people should be treated fairly.
If muslim taxi drivers elect not to pick up openly gay people at an airport, YOU mister and missus infidel are racist if you think gays should be treated with the same respect as heterosexuals.
muslim boys rape non-muslim girls and feel justified in doing so as a cultural lesson to infidels because their respected muslim religious leaders state clearly that women who are not blanketed from head to toe are asking for it and 32 year boys will be 32 year old boys after all.
In a recent poll 12% of muslims in Canada thought it was reasonable for muslim terrorists to cut off the head of a Canadian prime minister, even a Liberal prime minister!
The vast majority of muslim males accept that women are deficient in terms of legal status, religious status, and parental custodial status and in a wide range of other areas. If you are one of the few ignoramuses on earth who does not think this is true, follow the recent travails of a Canadian women whose husband kidnapped their children and went to a muslim dominated country. It is not easy getting children back from a muslim dominated coutnry if the male in his almighty male wisdom does not agree.
With all of these real and dangerous problems looming with our muslim friends, somehow the Canadian Berka Capitulators (CBC) decided to worry about scarves on the heads of little girls in a sport where less than half of the parents even watch!
The soccer world prudently set forth rules for uniforms and equipment based on safety and conformity. The muslims want to push on every front for special treatment to wear us down. Shamefully, the CBC is only too willing to oblige.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
muslims can rape women in Darfur on a daily basis and there is barely a peep from the pseudo intellectuals on the left. But not allow berkas on a soccer pitch and they go ballistic. Do you think our lefty pals might have an agenda? Well they do. It’s the whim wham agenda. Who hates Israel most and Who hates America most. The left always fails because they reject reality in favour of rhetoric, but they sure can be annoying until they self destruct.
“Fetish – 1) An object regarded as having magical powers.
2) Something to which one is devoted excessively or irrationally.
3) Psychiatry – Some object, not in itself erotic, which is regarded as sexually stimulating. ”
Funk And Wagnalls
Fetishes come in all shapes and sizes. Pierre Trudeau, as smart as he allegedly was, had a French language fetish, and the Sikhs have their turban fetish and the Muslims have their hijab fetish.
The common thread between these fetishes is that they all are CONSPICUOUS markers of POLITICAL POWER.
Trudeau’s French language signs across Canada showed the dominance of ‘French Power’ in the federal govt. of the 1970s. You can’t miss them can you?
Turbans in the RCMP showed the political influence that the Sikhs have obtained in Canada despite their small numbers. You can’t miss them can you?
Now we have the Muslims trying to publicly display their religious markers in Canada’s social life to do the same thing. You can’t miss them can you?
It is noteworthy that it is always nacissitic extremists who are always trying to impose the
fetishes of their strange little worlds upon the public at large.
People originally moved to North America to leave religious strife and ethnic wars behind them – maybe even be free FROM religion, or having other people’s religious political apparel from being paraded in their faces everyday.
This is true because otherwise we’d all being wearing Quaker suits.
Really, the extremists should just bugger off to places where their irrational fetishes are more appreciated and leave us normal people alone.
Come to think of it, that language thing had to be sexual too because it didn’t seem like the guy was all there.
daqwg – I’ll continue to disagree with you. The issue is not Islam; it’s the headgear. It’s you and other multiculturalist postmodern relativists who are focusing on the symbolic and ignoring the material.
Again, the logic stands – you are setting up a faulty relation between antecedent and consequent. I’m not going to repeat it. But you cannot claim that because X-rule does NOT state A, then, A is allowed.
And, the analogy with the yarmulke is again, invalid. That’s because you are focusing on the symbolic, when the issue is the material.
I have no respect for our human rights commissions, filled as they are with the sophistry of the leftist relativist.
Again, what you are obfuscating – is the facts. The facts are that the headgear was objected to because of its MATERIAL reality not because of its SYMBOLIC reality. The two are quite different. Facts are facts. The kirpan should also have been objected to because of its MATERIAL reality.
Lots of good comments on this thread, and for the most part, an understanding of what this is really all about.
The issue is about safely playing soccer and the right of the IFAB to have rules and to enforce them. Period.
Bringing in the hijab and making a huge issue of this Muslim symbol of female suppression is a red herring, totally contrived by the parents and other politically active Muslims who want to put Muslims across as “victims.”
This 11-year-old is no victim. She plays soccer according to IFAB rules and she contravened the rules. Rules are rules, they’re important, and no amount of obfuscating about her “rights” and other refs letting her play with her hijab on should distract from the main point here: She broke the IFAB rules. She doesn’t get to play.
What’s so hard to understand about that–unless you don’t want to understand it and want to make the hijab the issue.
He’s just pulling your chain ET. Look at the freak-out he pulled when I suggested bad sportsmanship. He’d like it to be about systemic racism et al but it isn’t and he knows it.
As many posters above have said, this is really about a bunch of adults making an issue of a little kid’s soccer game. Can you say “set up”? Sure you can! Say it with me now!!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070303/soccer_headscarves_070303/20070303?hub=TopStories
Three guesses as to what religious group is taking this to the Human Rights Commission, first two don’t count.
She broke the IFAB rules.
No, she did not.
That’s funny Dawg. Bwahaha!!! Tell us another one!
Explain, then. Was Mansour in violation of the IFAB rules when she played in Ontario? Is the OSF in violation of the IFAB rules by permitting headscarves? Was Mansour in violation of the IFAB rules when she played previously in Quebec?
Did any IFAB official state that she was in violation of the IFAB rules?
You just make it up as you go along, don’t you?
A muslim woman I worked with last summer said that she only started wearing the hijab two years ago. She also stated that she is not that religious. I believe that she is one of those who wear it as a “political statement” rather than a “religious vow.”
If someone is so religious as to what to wear a hijab, then they must not care whether or not they play soccer, you would think.
There are other muslim “rules” where a man is not supposed to touch a female. Well, then, how does this 11 year old girl reconcile that with having a male coach who must touch her on the shoulder at one time or another???
Their religious “rules” just do not make sense if they want to fit into Canadian society.
Amish and Hutterites, two examples, maintain their own religious beliefs and customs by being “part of” and yet “separate”. They do not expect the rest of us to ride in buggies or wear polka-dotted dresses.
As a devout Christian I am always amused at the nonsense that passes for informed debate over things religious. My wife wears a head covering as directed by St Paul in 1 Corinthians. The Koran may likewise instruct a Muslim woman to cover her head, I couldn’t prove it one way or the other not reading Ancient Arabic which I have heard is the only language the true Muslim reads in trying to discern the teachings of the Koran. However as a Christian I would say that the difference between my wife and the Muslim woman is reasons for the similar actions. My wife does it as a priestly function that expresses the truth of Salvation. It has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks or feels about her. The Muslim however is taught that she is the cause of sin in others and must therefore take any action available to avoid causing others to stray from the life prescribed by Mohamed. In other words the Muslim views herself as impediment to exclusive salvation and so hides her head native beauty. The Christian woman covers her head to proclaim inclusive Salvation to all mankind.
Sure Joe, but if she was playing soccer and the ref told her no scarves allowed, would she be a good sport about it or would she disrupt the tournament?
Equally, if she was in a swim tournament and was told that she must not wear the hijab as it could get wet and twist around her neck and drown her – would she insist?
The issue is the Material reality – and the referee felt that the scarf could get caught in the rough play and harm her. The symbolism of the scarf is entirely and utterly irrelevant. Dawg and other leftists are quite wrong to focus only on the superficial level, the symbolic, and completely ignore the deeper level, the material.
Deeper level? Yes, it’s ‘deeper’ because it is physically objectively real. The symbolic identity is a cerebral mental definition added to that material object by we humans. It has no objective existence.
The referee was concerned that the physical object, the scarf, could harm the girl. His concern for her health is being completely ignored by the leftist rush to the red herring irrelevancy of ‘her religious rights’. Rubbish.
So, she DID violate the IFAB rules, which are not to wear clothing or material objects that could harm her and/or others in the game of soccer – a rapid moving, interactive, contact sport. The referee was within his rights to define the scarf as a valid member of that class of ‘potentially harmful objects’.
To continue the endless debate – if one follows Dawg’s logic, then, because the rules do not expressly forbid the hijab, then it is permitted -That illogic means that because my local grocer has a sign up only saying ‘No dogs allowed’, this means that I can go in there with my pet pig.
And, his claim that because no-one else has previously forbidden the girl’s wearing of the hijab, then, this referee was wrong to do so, is yet another logical fallacy. After all, the real reason why the previous referees might have said nothing is because they didn’t want to expose themselves to the rage of the leftists, who would as they are now doing, rise up in defense of the symbolic, while ignoring the material.
This referee was Muslim; his focus was on the material reality – and the fact that the scarf could get entangled in the roughness of the play and hurt the girl.
The focus on the symbolic only, while ignoring the material reality is illogical – and has indeed led to tragedy. I’m sure that most of us recall the young girls being trapped in a school fire, last March in Mecca and not allowed out to freedom, because they were not ‘symbolically clothed’ in their hijabs and gowns.
A dress code is a sociocultural symbol; many Muslim women who wear the hijab wear it because of its group bonding; it’s like a school uniform, like a sorority pin, like sports team uniforms. It bonds the wearers together into a group identity, which is always emotional, always warm and inclusive. Then, to add onto this groupism, a sanctity of religion – that strengthens the group emotive glue.
But, to focus only on these conceptual interpretations of the material and ignore the material – can get the user into physical harm. Those young girls didn’t have to die in Mecca; they did, because they weren’t ‘dressed properly’.
ET might have a hard time explaining the Saudi international soccer team, the Turkish one that I referenced over at my place, the Iranian one…
All of her obfuscation (and it’s getting pretty thick on the ground, frankly)isn’t making any case at all. She keeps putting words in my mouth. For the last time, ET, and forgive the shouting this once: I DO NOT CLAIM AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED IT IS PERMITTED. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED ISN’T NECESSARILY IMPLICITLY PROHIBITED EITHER.
Got that?
Now, moving on:
LAW 4 DEALS ONLY WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE. I HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE MATERIAL LEVEL THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE DEBATE–ARGUING THAT THERE IS NO HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK. I HAVE PROVIDED EXAMPLES. I HAVE MADE NO ARGUMENT BASED ON RELIGION OR EVEN TOLERANCE, OTHER THAN TO COUNTER SOME OF THE INTOLERANCE HERE, COMMENTERS FOCUSING, TO USE YOUR WORDS, ON THE ‘SYMBOLIC.’
Was I heard this time? Good. Moving on:
You have attacked me for asking people here to speculate about their reactions were a yarmulke at issue. After all, that too would appear to come under the QSA’s “no headgear rule.” Then you yourself brazenly speculate about the motives of other referees, and indeed of the Ontario Soccer Federation (which explicilty permits the head-scarf). What balderdash–they’re all afrAId of “leftists?”
Thinking too hard ET. Dr. Dawgie just can’t wrap his leftish cranium around the idea that the ref has the power to make this call, and that by letting it stand as-is the IFAB has agreed with him.
Sometimes refs make calls that are capricious, wrong, unfair or even crooked. Tough. You want to play, you have to suck it up.
Freedom, responsibility, sportsmanship. Foreign concepts to the Dawgmiester so he’s trying to make it about racism.
Dawg, have you considered the possibility that this is the first ref she’s come across willing to brave the firestorm to enforce the rules? This guy was a Quebec Muslim and the usual suspects are screaming for his scalp. Imagine if he’d been a white guy from Ontariariario! Probably would have found a horse head in his bed by now.
he’s trying to make it about racism.
That’s a flat-out lie.