Since I write quite often about soccer, I decided to attempt to comment about the interesting story of a girl who was ordered off the field by a referee at an international tournament in my home city of Laval.
This was a tough thing for both the player and the referee.
A couple of things need to be stressed here. This is not a human rights issue nor is it a case of Muslims being persecuted - the referee was ironically Muslim. This is a a straightforward case of an official following the rules. I've played soccer all my life and there are all sorts of things that we are not allowed to wear on the field. I remember one time when a ref asked me to remove my necklace that happened to carry a cross.
Funny. It never occurred to us to claim that the Quebec soccer federation was being anti-Christian; that somehow we were being persecuted. And don't tell me that's a different story because it isn't.
All soccer players are asked to remove something of value that may be deemed inappropriate or dangerous.
What this case opens up are all sorts of questions like: what about our "rights" then? Like I said, to me it was my necklace with a cross on it.
What happened here is a family/community simply over reacting. Nor was I impressed by the Ontarian soccer teams that packed up and left in protest. They should have done their homework about the Quebec rules beforehand. Quite frankly, I take major offense that some claim they are being persecuted against.
Is this a case of reasonable accommodation?
A libertarian may argue that the overall premise of a civil society is predicated on the fact that the next person does not infringe upon another person's liberties. Or that if the hijab does not harm or affect the safety another it should be allowed. Is life that simple? Does Islam run in direct contradiction to libertarianism? I'm afraid Muslims will have to learn to concede and without citing the Charter every time an innocuous incident happens. We do not have to remind ourselves that the same tolerances and privileges accorded to Muslims are not always reciprocated in Muslim countries for Christians.
We are witnessing a reemergence of religion colliding and asking to live side by side secular activities. Does religion really have a place on the soccer pitch? Should concessions be made?
By extension and on a somewhat related story, the Cross has been removed in our schools and more and more Christmas trees too lest we offend people. What kind of people would take offense to such things? Why are we pandering to them anyway?
A spirit of compromise should prevail. In this instance, if a child wants to play a sport but the rules are clear then it is incumbent on the player to follow the rules. End of story. The minute we play favoritism we open the door to all sorts of nonsense. Keep it black and white.
It's only a matter of time people will push back. It's only normal.
Back to the hijab. The player had a choice. Wearing the hijab is a cultural ordinance that's been around for 1400 years. Interestingly, many Muslims have also remarked that the hijab is not a religious requirement. Many people hold cultural things close to their hearts but is a soccer field the best place to cling to this?
We do have to determine if it's dangerous for whatever reasons but officials need to make that decision free of pressure. They should take different perspectives into account. Every angle about what could happen has to be considered however unlikely. It's called being prudent. For if anything were to unfortunately happen who would take the blame?
Let's not politicize this anymore than it has been. This sort of stuff will only upset moderate people. If Quebec determines - free of racism of course - that the hijab poses too many safety concerns live and abide by its decision. That's what it means to live in a democracy.
Was it a school, ie government, activity? If not, then whatever the agreed on rules are, that's what the players abide by. If the activity is not mandated by government, ie, voluntary, I still see no libertarian angle.
ReplyDeleteLibertarians believe anything goes short of violence to another. Since agreed-upon rules dictate game play, if there's a rule someone doesn't want to follow, then they don't get to play. They are at liberty to go away.
It was a soccer field at a tournament. I agree. Those were the prercribed rules.
ReplyDeleteFor more material on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms I encourage you and your readers to visit www.charterofrights.ca -- an unbaised, plain language, and interactive look at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also contains relevant case law and precedents. The website is available in English, French, Chinese (traditional), German, and Italian with 6 more languages planned.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this, Grenwolde. Question: Can we decide how to live without always citing the Charter?
ReplyDelete