[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

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?

But I will admit that we are displaying the traditional smugness of our tribe at this point.

[Grallon]

I never stop marveling at the heights of smugness Canadians can reach when congratulating themselves about their moral superiority.  We Quebecers are used to this of course - we do live cheeks to jowls with them after all - but it should be enlightening to all others.




G.

[crazy canuck]

I never stop marveling at the heights of smugness Canadians can reach when congratulating themselves about their moral superiority.  We Quebecers are used to this of course - we do live cheeks to jowls with them after all - but it should be enlightening to all others.




G.

Meh, you guys are masters at making mountains out of mole hills to try to justify separation.  Carry on.

[katmai]

Why are all Canadians Corrupt crack smoking scum?
Discuss!

[Malthus]

If smugness is the price to pay for not doing stupid stuff like banning turbans from soccer, it is worth it. 

[Admiral Yi]

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

I imagine anyone who cares about the rules. 

Veep brought up a bad fact for you counselor.

[Malthus]

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

I imagine anyone who cares about the rules. 

Veep brought up a bad fact for you counselor.

If anyone 'cares about the rules', they would ask the folks who write the rules what they mean, right? Because if the rules are unclear, it is up to them - the body that drafted the rules, and can in fact change them if it wants - to clarify them.

In this case, that was done, and the ruling body responded that ... turbans are okay. Doesn't that end the issue? At least, asuming that the issue was 'caring for the rules'? 

I took the "only for protection" thing to mean the obvious - that you shouldn't be allowed to wear a hat that had some functional purpose that interfered with or affected either safety or playing the game (imagine wearing a hard-hat that allowed you to hit headers harder). Apparently, so does the ruling body.

[Admiral Yi]

If anyone 'cares about the rules', they would ask the folks who write the rules what they mean, right? Because if the rules are unclear, it is up to them - the body that drafted the rules, and can in fact change them if it wants - to clarify them.

In this case, that was done, and the ruling body responded that ... turbans are okay. Doesn't that end the issue? At least, asuming that the issue was 'caring for the rules'? 

I don't see how you can argue with a straight face that the rule was unclear.

Now you could argue that there was a different rule, or perhaps a higher principal, or political awareness and sensitivity, that conflicted with this published rule, but that's totally different than saying the rule was unclear.

[Admiral Yi]

I took the "only for protection" thing to mean the obvious - that you shouldn't be allowed to wear a hat that had some functional purpose that interfered with or affected either safety or playing the game (imagine wearing a hard-hat that allowed you to hit headers harder). Apparently, so does the ruling body.

So obvious. 

[Malthus]

If anyone 'cares about the rules', they would ask the folks who write the rules what they mean, right? Because if the rules are unclear, it is up to them - the body that drafted the rules, and can in fact change them if it wants - to clarify them.

In this case, that was done, and the ruling body responded that ... turbans are okay. Doesn't that end the issue? At least, asuming that the issue was 'caring for the rules'? 

I don't see how you can argue with a straight face that the rule was unclear.

Now you could argue that there was a different rule, or perhaps a higher principal, or political awareness and sensitivity, that conflicted with this published rule, but that's totally different than saying the rule was unclear.

It was at best marginally ambiguous - in that some people could, with a straight face, make your argument; but a little thought would show that interpretation was wrong.

The rule says you can wear extra gear that was not part of the required gear, if it was for protection only, and was safe for those playing the game.

The intent, when I read that, appeared to me pretty clear - that you could not wear equipment that had any sort of functional attribute other than protection. It did not mean to me that (say) if you were wearing a hat for sentimental reasons, or a religious hat, that had no functional use whatsoever in the game of soccer, you could not wear it.

The "harm" that the rule is aimed at, is pretty clear: they do not want people wearing stuff that interferes with how the game is played, that would give someone an advantage in actually playing the game, or that would be unsafe in playing the game. An example of equipment that would not be allowed under the rule is a hat that made headers more effective.

Your favoured interpretation makes no reasonable sense - why can't I wear my hat, assuming it matches the team colours etc., if it has no effect whatsoever on the game?

In contrast, my interpretation makes perfect sense - the soccer federation is intent on avoiding people introducing equipment (hats or not) that could change the way the game is played, except for safe protective gear. These purely functional issues are ones that the federation reasonably should deal with - not preventing Sikh boys from having a cloth on their heads (unless, of course, they are able to successfully argue it is to protect them from sunburn in which case it would be OK!).

As it turns out, the ruling body happens to agree.

[Malthus]

I took the "only for protection" thing to mean the obvious - that you shouldn't be allowed to wear a hat that had some functional purpose that interfered with or affected either safety or playing the game (imagine wearing a hard-hat that allowed you to hit headers harder). Apparently, so does the ruling body.

So obvious. 

You know you are hard up for arguments when a smilie is the sum of them. 

[Admiral Yi]

You know you are hard up for arguments when a smilie is the sum of them. 

No more or less hard up than one who's argument consists of "it's obvious."

I salute you for making the best of a bad hand in your previous post.

However, it's very much a stretch to say that the intent is "pretty clear."  For one thing, if the intent had in fact been to forbid only head gear that gave the player an advantage, it would have been ridiculously simple to make that intent explicit. 

[Malthus]

You know you are hard up for arguments when a smilie is the sum of them. 

No more or less hard up than one who's argument consists of "it's obvious."

I salute you for making the best of a bad hand in your previous post.

However, it's very much a stretch to say that the intent is "pretty clear."  For one thing, if the intent had in fact been to forbid only head gear that gave the player an advantage, it would have been ridiculously simple to make that intent explicit.

It seems clear to me, if read in context.

The rule isn't about hats specifically, it is about "equipment". Certainly a hat can be "equipment", but usually when one is referring to "equipment", one is referring to a piece of gear that has some sort of function, right?

What the rule is saying is that the only function your equipment may have is protection. It can't have any other.

Now, I suppose one could argue (if one wanted) that a hat without any function at all isn't really "equipment" - the interpretive text differentiates between "equipment" and "clothing". It is possible to argue a hat without any function is "clothing" and not "equipment". In which case, there is also no rule prohibiting it - provided it has been inspected and found safe.

Actual text of the rule, under the heading "Other Equipment" (that is other than the basic equipment):

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.

All items of clothing or equipment other than the basic equipment must be
inspected by the referee and determined not to be dangerous.

Modern protective equipment such as headgear, facemasks and knee and
arm protectors made of soft, lightweight padded material are not considered
dangerous and are therefore permitted.

[emphasis added]

The "ambiguity here is whether paragraph 1 or 2 applies to a hat without a function. If paragraph 1 applies, the better argument is that the only function such "equipment" may have is protective; a hat without any other function is okay as long as it is safe. If paragraph 2 applies, because a hat without  any actual function is "clothing", then it is allowed unless it is determined to be dangerous.

In both cases, a turban would be OK.  To my mind, this isn't a "bad hand", but simply the most sensible reading of the Rule.

[viper37]

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

Quebec politician would not have intervened had not this taken political shape with accusation of racism and intolerance flying from English Canada...  Marois would have looked like a moron trying to politicize the issue... but as it was already done, she had nothing to lose, and in effect didn't.  Nor did she gain anything, but that's beside the point.

[crazy canuck]

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

Quebec politician would not have intervened had not this taken political shape with accusation of racism and intolerance flying from English Canada...  Marois would have looked like a moron trying to politicize the issue... but as it was already done, she had nothing to lose, and in effect didn't.  Nor did she gain anything, but that's beside the point.

Most of the media WFT stories were in reaction to the Premier supporting a discriminatory decision.