[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Jacob's point is a good one.  The change occurred to accomodate a then minority group who did not with to swear an oath on the bible.  Now it is very common to see.

But the change was for everyone.  It wasn't exclusively for non christians.  You could be Christian and not swear on the Bible.  Equal treatment for everyone.

Yes and you are now free to wear a turban while playing soccer should you so choose.  Equal treatment for everyone.

Niether the rich nor homeless may sleep under a bridge. Equal treatment for everyone.

I could go on but do you really think simply applying the maxim, "equal treatment for everyone" is the end of the analysis?

[Jacob]

But the change was for everyone.  It wasn't exclusively for non christians.  You could be Christian and not swear on the Bible.  Equal treatment for everyone.

Yeah, so now you can go ahead and wear a turban too. Equal treatment for everyone

[viper37]

Yes and you are now free to wear a turban while playing soccer should you so choose.  Equal treatment for everyone.

I'm not free to wear any head covering I want.  Only burka an turbans are allowed.

[Malthus]

Yes and you are now free to wear a turban while playing soccer should you so choose.  Equal treatment for everyone.

I'm not free to wear any head covering I want.  Only burka an turbans are allowed.

Not so.

http://www.friendsofsoccer.com/?p=174

When FIFA announced their decision to support the CSA's directive on head covers for male players in Canada, what it did was confirm the CSA's formal guidelines for their use.

The head cover must:
• be of the same colour as the jersey
• be in keeping with the professional appearance of the player's equipment
• not be attached to the jersey
• not pose any danger to the player wearing it or any other player (e.g. opening/closing mechanism around neck)

They did not rescind any existing ban on turbans, because there never was one. Throughout the world, as we have cited, baptised Sikhs have been allowed to play soccer with head covers at all levels of the game, including professional matches and FIFA internationals. This required no special directives from FIFA or anyone. In all cases, referees on site properly applied FIFA Law 4, which allows for headgear, so long as it is protective and poses no injury risk.

That hasn't changed. What is clear now is that headgear is still allowed on the pitch under Law 4, unless the national association has specifically banned it. It also clarifies that national associations have the ability to issue guidelines and directives for their domestic use.

While some may be surprised that FIFA has moved so swiftly to respond to a simple domestic soccer issue, we are not. FIFA is capable of acting quickly when it comes to the best interests of the game. When it comes down to simple decisions between those who want to expand the reach of the sport versus those who want to limit it, FIFA has a history of siding with those who want to grow the game. They have done so in this case.

In sum, you can wear any headgear you want, as long as it isn't a risk - and this has always been true under FIFA Law 4.

[crazy canuck]

I am free to wear any head covering I want so long as it conforms to FIFA safety rules.

fyp

[viper37]

FIFA rules 2012-2013:

A player may use equipment other than the basic equipment provided that its sole purpose is to protect him physically and it poses no danger to him or any other player

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/index.html

And later, altough it seems to be about celebration of goal only:

A player must be cautioned if:
[...]
- he covers his head or face with a mask or other similar item


I can see why there would be confusion as the rules weren't that clear.

[Malthus]

You can resolve the issue by wearing a hat of some sort that is as non-dangerous as a turban, and complaining loudly if FIFA rules you can't wear it.

[viper37]

I'm trying to find a similar article for BC's 2005 ban of turban on soccer fields:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/with-turban-ruling-quebec-has-reached-its-historic-peak-of-intolerance/article12468616/?service=mobile

I just can't find it.  Malthus, CC, can you help me please?

[viper37]

You can resolve the issue by wearing a hat of some sort that is as non-dangerous as a turban, and complaining loudly if FIFA rules you can't wear it.

the rules said only for protective purpose.  Physical protection, not spiritual.  I still think it's a bad idea to allow religious symbols on soccer fields.  Or hockey ice rink.  Or football fields.

[Malthus]

You can resolve the issue by wearing a hat of some sort that is as non-dangerous as a turban, and complaining loudly if FIFA rules you can't wear it.

the rules said only for protective purpose.  Physical protection, not spiritual.  I still think it's a bad idea to allow religious symbols on soccer fields.  Or hockey ice rink.  Or football fields.

Any covering by definition offers some physical protection to the head. That's not why Sikhs wear a turban of course, but who cares?

[Jacob]

I'm trying to find a similar article for BC's 2005 ban of turban on soccer fields:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/with-turban-ruling-quebec-has-reached-its-historic-peak-of-intolerance/article12468616/?service=mobile

I just can't find it.  Malthus, CC, can you help me please?

It's a little while ago, so it's a repost. Here's an article: http://www.sikhawareness.com/index.php/topic/7616-bc-soccer-refrees-to-be-re-educated-on-turbans/

You will note that the BC Federation - the equivalent of the Quebec one in this case - over-ruled the ban (made by some local referees), quoting the self same rules on headgear that FIFA clarified yet again.

You will also note that no provincial politicians of any shape got involved in defending the turban ban.

So yeah... no such articles, because what happened was a simple mistake on a small scale that was quickly corrected on the part of provincial level officials. Which is the way it should happen; and which is why you're seeing less strident articles in response.

[Malthus]

I'm trying to find a similar article for BC's 2005 ban of turban on soccer fields:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/with-turban-ruling-quebec-has-reached-its-historic-peak-of-intolerance/article12468616/?service=mobile

I just can't find it.  Malthus, CC, can you help me please?

From what I read, there was no 2005 ban by the proivincial association in BC. A ref did boot some kids out of a BC game once, though.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/City+Sikh+cheers+ruling+turbans+soccer/8529101/story.html

It's been eight years since Calgary high school student Gurinder Dhah was tossed from a soccer pitch because he wouldn't remove his turban.

He was one of several Sikh boys prohibited from taking part in a British Columbia tournament while wearing a patka, a headscarf worn for religious reasons.

There's a difference - on the one hand, some kids getting booted by a ref; on the other, the provincial body posting as a rule that the gear isn't allowed, with the full backing of the province's politicians.

The latter, naturally, is somewhat of a bigger deal.

[Jacob]

According to the article I linked, the ban lasted two days and the provincial association reconfirmed the (still in effect and recently clarified) FIFA rules on turbans.

[Malthus]

According to the article I linked, the ban lasted two days and the provincial association reconfirmed the (still in effect and recently clarified) FIFA rules on turbans.

Yup, your article is the more complete. You win at google-fu. 

This just highlights the silliness of the Quebec association's initial ruling. The point was dealt with elsewhere. Why re-invent the wheel?

[HVC]

Anglo bias!