In the U.S., at least, I believe there’s a specific legal doctrine covering things just like this, which is to say: religious belief is, in some sense, voluntary because you could believe otherwise; however, they’re religious beliefs, and so of tremendously huge importance to you, and saying “just change your religious belief” is, practically, about as difficult as saying “hey, black guy, be white.” In other words, by their nature, religious belief are, effectively, not voluntary, at least in comparison to “my soccer league’s uniform is important.” This is the theoretical foundation of s. 2(a) of the Charter and the first amendment.
I’m an atheist who is anti-religion, but I still strongly agree with legal protections that make it possible for us to be free in our beliefs and our expressions of belief while at the same time being able to participate as fully as possible in daily life. It’s all about finding balance and compromise, rather than being arbitrary and exclusive.
This is racism, pure and simple - the idea that there could be any kind of motivation is ludicrous. All the Laws of the Game say about headgear (and other non-mandatory player equipment) is that they mustn’t endanger the player or other players. To say they are not sanctioned by FIFA is incredibly weak as not all equipment needs to be FIFA sanction (the Hijab was different as there were safety concerns).
To give some background Sikh players have been wearing turbans for years. I remember playing in youth matches 20 years ago in England in a FA-sanctioned youth league against players with turbans and it was a total non-issue. They’re not dangerous to anyone and they confer no advantage or disadvantage (all the hair is tied to the top of the head, which you should not use to head the ball anyway).
Head-coverings in general have never been outlawed by FIFA: for example Efe Sodje wore a bandana when he played for Nigeria in the 2002 World Cup, as he did, and still does, throughout his long career as a professional footballer in England. The 'turbans Sikh players use when playing soccer are essentially bandanas.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, let’s look at actual Quebec law:
[QUOTE=Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms]
10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
…
A distinction, exclusion or preference based on the aptitudes or qualifications required for an employment, or justified by the charitable, philanthropic, religious, political or educational nature of a non-profit institution or of an institution devoted exclusively to the well-being of an ethnic group, is deemed non-discriminatory.
[/QUOTE]
There are a couple things to notice about the legislation. First, that decision I mentioned earlier (Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem) found that a belief has to be sincere before we start worrying about discrimination. Second, “I have a religious belief that says I must (/must not) do X” is not the end of the story. If you have a legitimate, serious reason not to accommodate the belief, you don’t have to. So if you’re running a nude volleyball tournament, you don’t have to let Mormons wear their underwear to it. The point is just that you have to have one.
Okay, so playing in a soccer league may or may not be as big a deal as getting to vote, even though both of those activities are voluntary (could go either way, really). But let’s say everyone else gets wise to the game. So in our hypothetical, restaurants — hell, grocery stores — no longer allow people to wear turbans inside. All the private schools have no-heads-covered policies. All the clubs, professional associations, etc. start requiring uncovered heads. Suddenly, Sikhs have no place in society unless they stop practicing their religion — it is not just as bad as but actually the same as society coercing them. So yes, the ability to engage in voluntary transactions, including soccer organizations, is a public good.
But frankly, I even need to appeal to a more extreme hypothetical. The QSF said outright what it thought Sikh children should do: “play in their backyards”. Meaning, apart from society. I don’t think any Quebecois Sikhs, children or adult, missed the message that was being sent: go away. And yes, that is a pretty big deal.
If it was blatantly obvious then FIFA would have made a ruling and been done with it.
I don’t know. Unlike you I’m not clairvoyant. But “turban” can be anything. Literally. I showed pictures of them with metal adornments as well as examples of those that did and did not block someones view. It’s much simpler to eliminate them than it is to pass judgement on individual examples as they come up. It WOULD be simple to say the hair has to be worn behind the head and forbid solid objects on or in the garment. The color of it should already be codified under uniform codes.
Sorry but this is simply not true. You think of soccer as a kicking sport but it’s very much a heading game near the goal, particularly on corner kicks. Having your vision blocked is a big fucking deal to a defender. And even when I played soccer in my younger days (when the rules were not written in stone) uniforms had to be color matched. Headgear had to be neutral which meant not visibly similar to the opposing team’s colors. Bandanas had to be removed if they didn’t meet this criteria. I expect FIFA will rule on the color of headgear as stated.
I don’t know, that was my whole point. And considering FIFA didn’t summarily dismiss it tells me they will give the matter the consideration it’s due.
It seems to come down to the word “reasonable.” Reasonable accommodation is required; unreasonable accommodation isn’t.
In San Diego, for the Gay Pride Parade, an anti-gay group sued to be allowed to join the parade. They wanted to enter a float with the phrase “Normal People” on the side. The court said no, because the slogan contradicted the theme of the parade. If the slogan had been supportive – “All Variation is Part of the Whole” perhaps – the entry would have been welcomed.
Suppose a nice fellow is employed in a factory, on an assembly line. Well, then, no: he can’t stop and pray when the meuzzin calls, because such an unscheduled work stoppage would shut down the entire assembly line. But, yes, he may take regular breaks through the day – just like everyone else. Some drink coffee, some smoke cigarettes, and some pray. A reasonable accommodation is required.
So, in this case, when the Sikhs agreed to wear scaled-down minimal turbans, that constitutes a reasonable compromise. Good on them for it.
(According to one Sikh spokesman, who had gone through the same sort of thing regarding military uniform regulations in Great Britain, there is no specific shape or size for a Sikh’s turban. They can be quite big or quite small, and various colors are permitted. They’re actually easy-going about it.)
This worth noting, many people when they think of a turban would be thinking along the lines of the kind of turban that may be worn at a religious ceremony or the more understated, but still fairly large turbans that many Sikhs wear in their everyday lives. However these kind of turbans are impractical for playing sport in and what most Sikhs tend to wear are essentially bandanas worn in the style of an ordinary bandana such as England cricket star Monty Panesar or with the hair tied up in a bun on top of the head. As I pointed out before bandanas have been worn in World Cup proper before.
That’s quite a stupid comparison. One has to do with the manner in which soccer is played, and the other does not.
Look, it’s fine to blather about the fine print but there’s also common sense, and it’s obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a hamster that the QSF was cracking down on turbans (where nobody else was) for no other reason than the fact that they had a burr up their ass about dark-skinned kids looking different. No more and no less. Everyone knows it, including you and Magiver and Pauline Marois. This had nothing to do with the QSF’s pathetic claim of “safety,” a claim for which they made no effort at all to support.
So what? And I mean that literally; why do YOU have a problem with turbans? Dark skinned kids scare you?
So what? Just because someone wants something doesn’t mean everyone has to bow down to their request even if it doesn’t cost them anything to do so.
I don’t have a problem with Turbans. I have a problem with people claiming they need to do something to comply with their ‘special’ beliefs and expect others to cater to it. Especially when other people who claim the same damned belief don’t expect special consideration.
You know what you can do with your insinuation, don’t you?
You do realize that the fact that some don’t find it necessary to forego haircuts and wear a turban doesn’t mean that others don’t, right? Different sects have different interpretations and different people have different levels of religious observation.
And couldn’t you look at this the other way? The Canadian Soccer Association and FIFA both currently allow players to wear turbans. Why should we cater to the Quebec Soccer Federation’s belief that turbans are a safety hazard? Should they not have to provide some sort of evidence for their belief before we cater to it? Obviously since other associations are able to allow players to wear turbans then so can the QSF.
You do realize I don’t care why one person chooses to wear a hat over another, right? That someone thinks it is important for some reason is their affair alone.
There was a similar brohaha in the UK over the motorbike helmet law when it was passed in 1976. Sikhs were granted a specific exemption on the grounds that nobody had ever asked them to wear helmets when they served in the army.
Yes, we get it. You think religious accommodations are stupid. I think you can probably come up with something better to start with than this one, though.
You still haven’t provided any reason why people should be forced to do what you want them to do in this instance.
Nobody is being catered to. They are not being provided with turbans at the expense of the QSF.
But by your logic, why isn’t it the QSF that wants to be catered to? The Canadian Soccer Association cleared turbans for on-field wear, and the QSF demanded special treatment. It was the QSF that jumped the chain of command, babbling about FIFA despite the fact that they have no standing with FIFA - the QSF is merely a regional deliverer for the Canadian Soccer Ass’n, which I’m sure sticks in their craw but tough shit. They were told by their national association to allow turbans but they insisted they were special. So what’s the difference?
(Actually, I can see one difference; in one case you have just some kids who play to play soccer and aren’t harming anyone, and in the other you have a bunch of mean old assholes who can’t act in a measured and decent fashion.)
