What difference does it make if an eleven year old girl plays soccer wearing a headscarf?
Those who suggest it has something to do with 'safety' are blowing smoke. It doesn't.
This whole incident has to do with conformity. Those who've come down against the headscarf in this case are expecting this kid and her family to conform to 'Canadian' norms. They aren't interested in whether the headscarf interferes with the girl's play or if by some weird fluke it could become part of some entangled mess that could strangle her or limit her vision -- because neither is a reasonable concern. The game is being supervised and watched by dozens of adults. A yank on the headscarf is no more likely to injure or kill this girl than a tug to the hair, and one would have to have an expansive imagination to concoct a scenario where a headscarf could hurt someone other than the wearer. Where is the risk?
Rules are rules. Nonsense.
Rules are bent and changed all the time to fit in with the reasonable expectations of participants. Prior to this incident there was no rule about headscarves. There was a rule about jewelry, which makes sense. Jewelry is optional and decorative. It is not generally part of a religious tradition or custom. It could be ripped off during play causing harm to the wearer or it could cut another player coming in contact. Injuries are unlikely, but because there is a certain potential for harm when a person wears a ring, bracelet, earrings or a necklace while playing sports, the rule is not unreasonable. This non-rule regarding headscarves has only become an issue because the ref decided to make it one. Yes, I am aware he is Muslim, but that doesn't preclude him from being a jerk on a power trip.
I do wonder if the headscarf is so important to this girl for religious reasons, is she wearing long pants or something to cover her legs, but either way, I still believe a ban on headscarves is unfair.
I also wonder if Sikh boys or men have faced this problem? Anyone know?
canadianna
29 comments:
Sikhs I've seen in the gym have worn small hair covers.
On the overall, like it or not,it has come down to an objection against more Muslim religious "rights" being injected into Canadian culture such as the kirpan worn in school and the turban worn in the RCMP. People are getting tired of being assaulted by "political correctness"'
Is she gaining more sympathy because she's a cute innocent 11 year old? What if the case was that of an 11 year old boy who wore something trailing on his head???
Conformity is not a bad thing to teach an 11 year old. We all have to conform at many a thing.
It also would be good for her to learn some respect for rules and regulations that have been around a long time, probably before she was born.
As far as hijabs go, they are supposed to be about "humility"....yet this little girl (and those I know personally) wear different colored, designed, jewelled hijabs on a daily basis. The woman I know is thrilled when people admire her hijab. So, where's the humility? I'd believe it if the person I knew wore black/brown/grey, something drab that wouldn't call attention to the hijab.
The parents of this 11 year old said that the little girl likes her blue hijab the best, because it matches the color of her eyes. okay....where's the humility?
The woman I worked with said that wearing the hijab is about the belief that men are not to see the hair of the wearer....only the father, brothers, close male relatives (and of course women) can see her hair, because hair is a seductive feature that should only be reserved for her future husband.
Tell me now how this fits in with an 11 year old girl.
Judging by what I've read about the muslim faith (past, present, and conflict views now)....as soon as a female child reaches the age of 9, she is considered old enough to be married. Yes, this is an old belief that is still followed in some of the tribal areas.
If this little girl and others wore their hijab when they went to the mosque to pray, then I would believe what they say when they refer that it means to them to be closer to God, and that it's about humility for them.
As for decorating what they wear, and seeking attention by their colorful hijabs, I don't.
This is a separate issue, however, from the sports issue. I only point it out because I don't believe what they're saying....meaning, that I don't trust their motives. That's my opinion, take it for what it's worth, or not.
trooper -- if the issue affected anyone besides the player, your comment about political correctness might mean something, but the fact remains, the headscarf on the playing field is as innocuous as a hair ribbon and less likely to cause injury than your typical bauble that girls wear to put their hair in ponytails.
There is nothing politically correct about expecting one's religious attire be respected and allowed in public places -- that's what freedom is about, isn't it? Doesn't freedom allow people to wear what they want within certain reasonable boundaries -- the boundaries being used here are made up. They don't benefit anyone, they don't prevent harm -- so they are there simply to prevent a person of a particular faith from participating in a secular activity unless they conform to the secular ideal. Stupid and restrictive.
I would think that more people would be concerned with the limitation put on religious and personal freedoms than whether something is politically correct -- particularly, when the child was not wearing the headscarf to make a political statement -- she figured it wouldn't be an issue. And it shouldn't have been.
And anonymous -- yes, we all have to conform to many a thing. Good manners, respect for others, fair play and sportsmanship are all invaluable and can be reinforced and should be expected out on the pitch. If being forced to remove a headscarf or not play taught any of these things, I might agree with you. Conformity for the sake of conformity is mind numbing and hardly the hallmark of an enlightened society.
What lesson has this kid been taught? That Canadian society can't bend to accept something as innocuous as a headscarf. Fortunately, she's also been taught that her peers and fellow players stand behind her.
This girl, in conforming to her faith's tradition is not violating any law, or any values, and she is not imposing her beliefs on anyone. It is a non-threatening assertion of faith.
Whatever reason this girl chooses to wear the headscarf, it certainly wasn't being done as a political statement - it isn't as though this was her first time doing it. It is a religious choice, and a girl of eleven is likely to have entered puberty, which is the time at which Muslim girls seem to start thinking on these things.
You say that the headscarf is about 'humility'. No, it is about modesty. Modesty doesn't mean that one can't have style or taste.
Her motivation isn't the issue. The issue is the motivation of those who would restrict her freedom for no valid reason and pretend that they are doing it for her own good.
I normally am completely in agreement with you Anna, but in this case, I can't.
Having played Soccer, I completely understand the rules against jewelry - hands, arms fly everywhere when competing for the ball, and you never know when a ring or a necklace or a bracelet could snag on somwthing or someone.
Yes, a hijab is just a piece of cloth, but presumably it is tied or pinned in place, or it would fly off while running anyway. If this is the case, it would be the same kind of hazard to the wearer and possibly her opponents. It must come off. If she doesn't feel like she can be a good muslim and play Soccer under these conditions, then perhaps she shouldn't be playing soccer. I mean, we wouldn't be having this discussion if she were trying to wear a burkha on the pitch would we?
Shane - nope, we wouldn't. But a burka and headscarf are very different things. If the question were about a burka, I would be wondering why a little girl would choose to wear such restrictive clothing while trying to play.
You're right, a headscarf is tied or wrapped in place. All due respect Shane, (and I do hold you in high esteem) the likelihood of it flying off and doing damage to someone is just silly. It's piece of cloth. If it were to fly in the face of another player, it isn't as though they are in cars and would have to swerve to avoid something. A piece of cloth in the face is not going to hurt anyone and if that's the best anyone can come up with, it's still a stupid prohibition.
Two points regarding the safety issue.
First, Hijab's are typically fastened with 2 pins. Pins are not specfically mentioned but would probably be covered under the area of "jewellery" which is specifically disallowed. Players are not allowed to wear rings or ear rings and pins are worse in terms of safety.
Secondly, a scarf worn around the neck could lead to choking problems if another player grabs the scarf from behind...
Anonymous -- There are headscarves both with and without pins.
Many of the pins are like safety pins and have a protective ends. They are not easy to open and when worn during play, they would be fastened under the shirt and unlikely to be seen let alone disengaged.
If the pin is really an issue, fine, say 'you can wear your headscarf, but fasten it without a pin.' But that isn't what's being said.
As for another girl grabbing the scarf . . . you can just as easily grab the back of the shirt with choking as a result. With dozens of people watching and supervising, it isn't likely harm would come to her -- and if that were really the case, why do our schools and Muslim parents let their girls wear headscarves at recess? Or in gym class?
It's not about pins or scarves or safety or whatever other spin you want to put on it. Calling it a scarf is unfairly clouding the issue and an attempt to trivialize it. It is a hijab, the wearing of which represents a religious statement. If it was a balaclava or a hat or any other sort of cloth adornment we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your statement that it does not affect anyone else is unfairly presumptious in that others may indeed be offended. It doesn't matter to me personally one way or another but you have to consider other viewpoints.
Trooper -- apparently you misunderstand the issue. It is about pins and scarves. What is isn't or shouldn't be about sensibilities. Anyone who is offended by a headscarf or a hijab or a crucifix can just learn to suck it up. Are those who are offended by a hijab also offended by a habit? And what the heck difference does it make to an eleven year old girl playing soccer? If you take away the safety issues Trooper, it's only about one thing -- bigotry.
is it because it's quebec and thus involved in the "reasonable accommodation" dispute that this has got more media attention than this did?
http://www.langleyadvance.com/issues05/091205/news/091205nn3.html
Mark -- could be. The Quebec election is another factor.
I first heard about the BC one on the radio today, likely missed it before. Part of it is because this involved Ontario teams too. That's why we've heard more about it -- but apparently the BC thing is why Ontario now has an official position on head wear -- and according to Ontario rules, head scarves and turbans would be in.
I guess I've been told....I'm a bigot for sure. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. It's your blog so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Thanks again.
Ken
trooper - I'm not calling you a bigot. If you've inferred that from what I've said, I'm sorry.
But if it isn't a safety issue, what is it? When it's no longer about what it's about, then you have to figure it's about something else, right? If it isn't about soccer rules, then it's got to be about the headscarf itself. If that's what it's about, then the place to address it isn't the soccer pitch with a little girl.
I understand completely when you say that you don't want political correctness shoved in your face. Neither do I. But this isn't about political correctness. It's about kids playing and adults interfering with rules and rulings that have nothing to do with the game.
Sorry but I was just trying to expand on the discussion and explore some possible underlying issues. If I offended anyone I apologize. I just won't bother you anymore.
Trooper -- I have apologized for your perception of what I have said. I never meant to imply that you are a bigot. I don't know you, or what is in your heart, so that would be a presumptuous characterization.
Despite my apology, you remain wounded and contend you will not come back. I'm sorry that you won't, because you weren't "bothering" anyone, and differing points of view are always welcome here.
You say you were trying to expand on the discussion, but I respectfully suggest that you wanted to do so without having people respond and critique what you have to say. If that is what you want, you are best to start a blog and not enable comments so you won't have to face it when other people disagree.
I guess I talked myself right into a corner. You win.
Trooper -- glad to see you decided to stay!
Like Shane, I very very rarely disagree with anything you write. Today I take exception. I was a soccer dad for many many years. What many are suggesting is that the "rules" in particular "rule 4" does not state specifically what cannot be worn. No it does not specify hijabs, nor does it specify silver jewelery with blue stones. It is not about what it does not say it is about what it does. The rules have been there for many years specifying what IS allowed to be worn by the players of the game in FIFA sanctioned events which I presume this was considered to be such as most tournaments are. Are these "rules" enforced the same by all referees? Nope... Some will allow girls to wear ear rings if they are taped in place, some won't. Some will allow sweat bands, some won't. I'm guessing it depends on how serious they take the game and how "pure" they believe it should be played. I'm am also sure that the older ref's take one other thing into consideration. LIABILITY. I now take off my soccer dad hat and put on my certified safety officer hard hat... Some people will call it safety, but it really is about liability as is most of anything safety related. IF in some strange outrageous way, this girl had gotten injured, and it was a direct result of her wearing the hijab, you can bet that it would be in court so fast that it would make your head spin and someone would be paying. More likely than not, the ref and the soccer association involved in the tournament would be found guilty for NOT enforcing the same "rules" that everyone is now bashing.
Tim -- You're right. Litigation and fear of litigation put limitations on much of what we allow, but common sense has to prevail at some point. There is no realistic risk of harm here, and that's what rules should be based on. We can all think of bizarre but unlikely ways that children can get hurt doing just about anything -- and then there are plenty of ways they actually get hurt that we wouldn't think of.
This is not a child wanting to play hockey without all the equipment. A headscarf is not dangerous, despite all the tragic potentialities that people are trying to conjure. And, in future, if soccer associations fear litigation if they allow a girl to wear one and she gets hurt, then it would be prudent to have the parents sign a waiver.
FIFA is promoting soccer in Muslim countries, and their rules are not forcing young Muslim girls to remove the hijab during play. If it's fine for young Muslim girls in Muslim countries to 'risk' their lives playing soccer, why not a young Canadian Muslim girl?
Rules are rules until someone realizes they don't make sense. I'm afraid I still can't see the sense in this one.
I have very complex feelings on the whole issue.
Depending on your source, the wearing of a muslim women's head covering is not mandated by the Quran but by culture, which goes a long way in explaining the varying degrees of covering used by muslim women worldwide. In fact, there is a tribe of muslim Beduoin in north west Africa whose women go around uncovered while the men wear head and face coverings. So if the Quran does not explicitly dictate the covering of a woman's head, how does it become a freedom of religion issue? Which suggests it more an issue of cultural tradition. And as far as I know -there is no freedom of culture.
The governing soccer body dictates the rules and the ref applied the rules as dictated by the governing body. The rule may be ridiculous and silly but there is nothing which suggest the rules can not be changed provided one goes about it in the appropriate fashion.
What conflicts me is this idea that the religious must be incorporated into secular life rather than the religious finding their own way within secular society.
The religious did not at one time expect or demand an accommodation within secular society for their particular religious traditions - while now it seems we have moved full circle and appear to be remaking secular society to accomodate the needs of the various religious among us.
In the past, the various religious groups recognized that they were free to participate fully or not in secular society and neither demanded or expected any secular organization to accomodate their varying religious traditions. In return, their religious traditions were not regulated by secular society.
My fear is that by allowing religious tradition to be accomodated fully in secular society that secular society will feel free to meddle in religious tradition - a kind of quid pro quid - if you will.
kateland -- I take your point and it makes sense. It could be used as an excuse to assault religion.
But I would argue that at times Western societies, typically but not always secular societies, have simply accepted differences without much thought. As for integration, I think there was always a sense of the 'host society' and the 'outsider'. I'm not sure if that's the model Canada is going for, but I think that's the way it will become if we choose to exclude those who don't conform to our preset norms.
My problem is that the excuse for not allowing the girl to wear the headscarf has been that it's a 'safety issue'. If that isn't it, then let's be honest -- let's say that we as a society are not ready to accept the subtle erosions of our culture. I think that's a legitimate concern and issue to debate -- clouding it with false concern about 'harm' is silly.
God, this one has got me so conflicted. On one hand, there's the sensible reaction that says: "Hey, what he hell's the problem?" On the other hand there's my aversion to allowing Islam to get any foot-hold whatsoever in our society. Where ever Isalm Is, they always seem to want control. There are no societies, where Muslims are the majority, that are the exception. Where ever they dominate, Islam also dominates.
I lived for many years amongst Mennonites where women and young girls normally wore "headcoverings". Yet I know that everyone of them would have either removed the 'covering' or declined the opportunity to play if the rules called for the removal of their headcovering. What rankles most is the ME ME attitude of the young girl. No one forces her to cover her head and no one forces her to play FIFA sanctioned soccer. If she wants to play soccer in a hijab then form a league where it is allowed.
Religious or not, ceremonial or decoration. I don’t by any of that bleeding heart Liberalism.
We live in Canada; I am Canadian, Proud to be Canadian and proud of my own heritage. I support every aspect of this persons right to express and show their passion for their heritage, but please, we too have rights as a Country that we all should be able to stand up and be proud of.
If people don’t like the way we live, leave. I will respect your right to honour your own heritage, but not inflict your beliefs onto me in my country.
PROUD TO BE CANADIAN
I was conflicted on this one too, but ultimately decided that FIFA made the wrong call. I'm glad you've posted this Canadianna, because I thought I was the only one in the BT's that felt this way. I'm glad there is discussion here because my post on the issue did not generate any discussion.
Wearing of the Hijab is a cultural, not a religious, practice. It is incorrect to portray this little girl's choice as springing from an expression of religious faith. It is a personalized choice based on cultural practice.
That choice may or may not have merit in over-riding the rules of the game. In many countries with large or predominant Muslim populations, girls wear the Hijab while playing soccer and other sports. But not all such countries allow girls to play soccer, at all.
It is also unfair to judge Islam based on someone displaying the outer trappings of a cultural observance of a religious belief. This is so whether that someone is an 11-year-old or the child's parents. It is so whether the judgement is favorable (i.e. from the girl and her parents, or from her team mates) or unfavorable (i.e. perhaps from spectators, or from the newsmedia, etc.).
If no exception to the rule can be justified -- if -- then perhaps an exception can be made by the girl. Her choice is not to follow a religious rule but to follower her own individualized priorities.
The application of this same rule is flexible for the observant Jewish boy who'd wear the yarmulke. Sometimes, however, it can mean sitting out the game.
If a game is schedule on a Sunday, some Christian players will choose to not play. This also applies when games are scheduled on special days on a religious calendar -- Christian or otherwise.
I am sure we can come up with other examples where either a rule is modified or an individual chooses to modify his or her participation.
Making such choices, in favor of one's beliefs -- whether cultural or religious -- is part and parcel of practicing those beliefs. It is unreasonable to expect that all religious practices come with no cost whatsoever.
Wearing of the Hijab on the soccer pitch is not strictly a safety issue but, as someone said above, a liability issue. This is a prominent aspect of the sectarianism that dominates our legal system. That system is sectarian in that it favors the non-religious, in effect if not in principle.
Yet accomodation can be made if communications are open and clear. Assuming bigotry and intolerance is very harsh -- on either side.
Rules are usually established for very good reasons. It is correct that rules be challenged and reviewed from time to time. Until a rule is changed, it stands. In soccer, the game officials sometimes have wide discretion, sometimes not.
In this case the entire team stood against the rule and with the girl who wanted to wear the Hijab. If they choose not to participate, that's a fair choice to make. It comes with a cost, no matter how insiginficant we might think it, but at least they are free to choose. It is admirable, in my view, that they stood with the girl, and admirable that the girl stood on her choice. But it is mistaken to characterize hers as a choice to follow a religious practice rather than a cultural practice.
This little incident provided a "teachable moment" and her parents ought to have sought to clarify rather than to confront.
I do think that with a little prior notice the tournament officials could have accomodated this practice. The spirit of the game creates many teachable moments for the youngsters. That's the greatness of the Beautiful Game.
Post a Comment