It doesn’t give them any such advantage (seriously, try heading a ball with one on). Also, as mentioned above, FIFA allows them.
Also, the justification given wasn’t competitive advantage but a health hazard with no evidence given for the hazard posed. I’d love to know how the turbans are a health hazard.
If they truly pose a health hazard, FIFA should be more worried. And maybe the general public, too. Me, I’m going on the assumption there’s no such health hazard and it’s a very poorly disguised and ill-advised attempt at bigotry.
Have you ever played soccer, or seen a turban? You head the ball with your forehead. If anything, wearing a turban is a disadvantage, as its only possible effect would be to direct the ball slightly downward.
Fair enough, and I’ll stand corrected. My only concern was that people were rushing to denounce something as racism, and I wasn’t sure there weren’t legitimate reasons behind it. At any rate it seems that the issue has been resolved, and Sikhs will be allowed to play in Quebec leagues with their turbans. If other soccer players don’t object, it isn’t my place to.
Kind of like the idea that a deity gives a shit what type of hat a person may wear? Why does this ridiculous idea get to trump someone else’s idea of appropriate attire especially when the former has the choice of not playing at all?
For the sake of argument, why mandate any sort of ‘uniform’ at all? Other than safety issues, let a person wear what they want to wear. Just a cup and a pair of sandals if that is what they want. Spray paint their team number on their hairy back for identification purposes. Actually, it might make soccer a more interesting game.
If you claim it is due to religious tolerance, then would it not be appropriate for the league to claim religious status saying that their uniform is required the way it is due to god (who happens to love football) expecting his chosen few to its commandments (which just happen to be in the league rulebook - taken from golden tablets that only the authors (may their names be praised) had access to and are now lost. Praise god, Hallelujah, Amen!)?
It’s probably worth pointing out that Quebec is an intensely secular place, much like France. The justification that gets used for this latest travesty, much like for the niqab fuss, etc., is that religion should stay out of the public sphere — meaning you should not in any way make people aware of what religion you follow, including by wearing religion-specific clothing. It’s a pretty oppressive idea, but the point is that I’m not really sure whether it’s about hating on anyone who isn’t from a Catholic background, or hating everyone who is religious and just carving out an exception for Catholics because the PQ relies on rural Catholic votes. And yah, the fact that most of the affected people are non-white immigrants or their offspring probably doesn’t help, either.
ETA: For anyone not paying close attention to Canadian politics — it’s particularly hard to decide what’s going on because Quebec’s legislature (the National Assembly) has a crucifix in it, which remains there on “cultural grounds”. Quebec has big tent parties, just like anywhere else, so it’s not that shocking to see unprincipled compromises.
EATA: More complications: Quebec does make a serious (though not terribly successful) attempt to attract Francophone immigrants, which mostly means black folk. Identity politics tend to centre around language and religion, not race per se. I don’t know that Quebec is much worse as a province than other Canadian provinces in terms of race relations, but of course I’ve never spent time in small-town Quebec.
Part of Quebec’s argument against the Canadian Charter, though, was that the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms did the same thing better. The Canadian Charter wouldn’t necessarily help a Sikh who wants to play football — it only applies to government actions, and I don’t think the QSF is a government organization. As Spoons has so admirably shown already, the Quebec Charter does seem to protect Sikh rights. (This isn’t really a slam on the rest of Canada, BTW, since AFAIK every province in the country has anti-discrimination legislation.)
And of course, the Canadian Charter does apply to Quebec anyway, and in principle I don’t think Quebecois are terribly upset by that fact anymore.
I’m not sure that’s true. I pulled up a number of videos under the search “sikhs playing soccer” and could not verify this was a deal breaker.
it would depend on what they are asking to wear. The hair would have to be bundled to the back so as not to interfere with other player’s vision of the ball and that seems to be the case where I see them used by Sikhs. they would also have to be the same color and not interfere with player recognition. So there are limits to what would be acceptable. I would object to thisas an opposing player but not the guy on the right in this one. As a coach I wouldn’t want anything blocking the forehead and side areas where you head the ball. There certainly can’t be any ceremonial metal badges ANYWHERE on the head covering. So there are limits as to what should be acceptable.
Sure, the religious beliefs dumb, but in this instance, it’s also harmless. So why forbid it, except to be a dick?
No, I don’t think that would be appropriate, because it would be a transparent lie for the purpose, again, of being a dick for no good reason. Plus, of course, the Sikhs religious practices require no action, limitation, or expense for anyone else, while your ridiculous hypothetical places restrictions on what other people are allowed to do.
Yeah, and I know a Jewish guy who loves ham. Not all members of a religion re equally observant. What’s your point?
What’s the difference?
That’s a more interesting question, as the turban could potentially reduce a player’s abilities on the pitch. I could see that as a potentially legitimate reason to forbid the turbans, but that would be on a team by team basis, and doesn’t require a league rule. And it’s not the reason offered by the league, anyway.
the first one has the potential to block the view of an opponent when heading the ball. The 2nd one has the hair flowing back and down which wouldn’t. A traditional turban (which I don’t think we’re talking about) would be even worse. It would be like a lady wearing a hat in a theater for penalty kicks where you form up a wall.
Yes. But then the team gets dumped on for the same reason. I can’t see a scarf pulled back and down being an issue but the color needs to be neutral so as not to confuse team colors. that could be matched to the jersey.
Mississippi didn’t ratify the Thirteenth Amendment until 1995. Didn’t mean the Amendment didn’t apply in Miss.
In any event the Quebec Charter of the Rights of the Person, adopted by the PQ government in 1979, was one of the most far-reaching human rights provincial laws of its time - first to to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation for instance. And it’s that law that governs private institutions like the soccer association. So yes, Quebec as a society has a long record of officially recognising equality based on religion, and prohibiting racial / ethnic discrimination.
Who’s the dick? The one asking that their rules be followed to participate in a entirely voluntary activity? Or the one asking the rules be changed because other voluntary rules they wish to follow could prevent them from participation if they wished to follow them fully? If you ask me to bend my rules so you can join my club, why is it not allowed to ask you to bend your own rules that are preventing you from doing so? Especially when both rules are entirely arbitrary.
Religious practices require restrictions on what their adherents can do. Can I call myself a Sikh without following their practices? Actually, many Sikhs do not follow those practices and still call themselves Sikhs. gods place these restrictions so that their followers have something to separate themselves for the heathens. Frankly, if people keep letting the religious have an easy time of it, how will they prove to their deity that they actually suffered to follow his rules?
The other side of that coin is the adherents taking great satisfaction in getting those same heathens to bend over backwards to cater to their kookiness. Because if all they wanted to do was play soccer, then they’d take their silly headgear off (like many of their fellows do on a regular basis) and not fuss about it. Or they’d get a group together of like minded people and play soccer by whatever rules they wished including a requirement that a person wear a turban. Would you say if they did the latter and someone who didn’t like the turban wanted to play, he should get his way and have them change the rules to cater to him?
If I want to create a club that requires the wearing of a tie, is it every appropriate for me to tell someone who doesn’t like ties and wants to join my club to get stuffed without being a dick? And if my club is for pilots, and you aren’t one? Or any number of other scenarios that result of someone not being allowed to participate for arbitrary reasons because their own arbitrary reasons prevent them? Why is it the former’s responsibility to cater to the later and if they don’t, why are they the dicks?
It depends why you’re setting the rule up. If it’s to specifically exclude a group that you know can’t follow it, as this rule was, then you’re being a dick. Particularly if you can’t justify for any other reason than “I don’t like it”. As noted, the QSF tried to claim it was a safety issue, then utterly failed to back up that claim. I’m not religious, and wish people would voluntarily give up the practice, but seeing a turban on a soccer pitch affects me not at all.
