FIFA screws over iranian female athletes

[Thanas]

Hey guys - did none of the people who go "rargh, Fifa so stupid" ever think about the reason such rules exist? Because Football is supposed to be neutral, free from politics and religion? Does that count so little to you that you demand that Fifa now should allow religious symbols? Can you imagine the troubles that could cause on the field, if, say, Israel and Saudi-Arabia meet?

I'd agree, except that the players specifically designed a compromise in order to avoid this problem and still be allowed to compete by their country and the FIFA.

The problem with that is though that this will open up a slippery slope. If you deviate once, why not deviate in other cases as well? To be honest, I would have voted the same way Fifa did. It is the only choice that does not leave your organization vulnerable in the future and it is the safe choice to boot.

[Simon_Jester]

Sanchez, there's a difference between "not doing anything about" the problems of women in Iran and deliberately making those problems worse through some kind of bizarre misguided dickishness.

You are not necessarily under an obligation to save a drowning man. You are, however, under an obligation not to throw him an anchor when he needs a life preserver.

FIFA is making the Iranian women athletes' problems worse, by imposing an arbitrary and unnecessary restriction that guarantees their government will forbid them to play in international competitions. They should not do that, because it hurts some people and helps no one, and the only reasons for doing it don't make any damn sense.

Can you (or someone else) please PROVE the assertion that FIFA's headscarf ban is making things worse for Iranian women? That's a really inflammatory claim and I don't see any objective evidence supporting it.

That'll wait until Iran (predictably) bans women from competing overseas if they can't wear headscarves while doing so.

Hey guys - did none of the people who go "rargh, Fifa so stupid" ever think about the reason such rules exist? Because Football is supposed to be neutral, free from politics and religion? Does that count so little to you that you demand that Fifa now should allow religious symbols? Can you imagine the troubles that could cause on the field, if, say, Israel and Saudi-Arabia meet?

It's not like the Israeli team becomes spontaneously less Jewish by not wearing conspicuous clothing that identifies their religion, or like the Saudi team becomes less Muslim by doing the same. If they can't play football without trying to kill each other over headscarves, they probably can't play football without trying to kill each other over religion anyway.

In which case that's covered by the regulations regarding violence, not the regulations regarding headgear.

The question here is whether football is supposed to be "neutral" in the sense that "members of any religious or political alignment are free to participate," or "neutral" in the sense that "anyone expressing a religious or political alignment is barred from the field." These are not the same kind of neutrality. I think the former kind of neutrality is better than the latter, because it makes football truly independent of religious or political positions.

Whereas the latter kind of neutrality means (to me) that football is making an aggressive religious and political statement- that all religion and politics is utterly banned, and that you cannot do or say anything that even implies it might exist, or everything else you have done on the field becomes irrelevant and you cannot participate.

There is a difference between an organization expressing a policy of religious tolerance and an organization expressing a policy of official atheism. In effect, FIFA is declaring that women practicing the Muslim religion according to the state religious law of Iran are forbidden to play football in international tournaments. That does not act to expand religious tolerance; that acts to ban female adherents to the Iranian version of Islam from playing at all.

If FIFA is to do this consistently, then as Serafina says, they should ban all crescents, crosses, and the Star of David from player uniforms, since all those are religious symbols far more direct and of far more symbolic power than the headscarf. And I would argue they should also ban secular political symbols- which can be just as provocative as religious ones; a lot of people have fought and died over the question of whether the red flag of international socialism can fly over their country.

But FIFA will not enact such widespread bans, because there are many countries who would be offended and FIFA might get in trouble... whereas they will get in very little trouble by not allowing Iranian women to play international football, because Iran will not stick up for Iranian women athletes the way that, say, France would stick up for its athletes if someone banned the tricolor.

[salm]

The problem with that is though that this will open up a slippery slope. If you deviate once, why not deviate in other cases as well? To be honest, I would have voted the same way Fifa did. It is the only choice that does not leave your organization vulnerable in the future and it is the safe choice to boot.

You could use that argument for all changes in player dress codes.

Players are not allowed to take off their shirts anymore which they used to do frequently after scoring a goal. It was banned because it´s frowned upon in some prudish countries. This didn´t cause a slippery slope I know off, though.

I don´t know. Players are allowed to wear helmets. Why shouldn´t they be allowed to wear other head gear if it doesn´t breach reasonable safty regulations?

[Serafina]

Hey guys - did none of the people who go "rargh, Fifa so stupid" ever think about the reason such rules exist? Because Football is supposed to be neutral, free from politics and religion? Does that count so little to you that you demand that Fifa now should allow religious symbols? Can you imagine the troubles that could cause on the field, if, say, Israel and Saudi-Arabia meet?

I'd agree, except that the players specifically designed a compromise in order to avoid this problem and still be allowed to compete by their country and the FIFA.

The problem with that is though that this will open up a slippery slope. If you deviate once, why not deviate in other cases as well? To be honest, I would have voted the same way Fifa did. It is the only choice that does not leave your organization vulnerable in the future and it is the safe choice to boot.

Sorry, i do not see the slippery slope here, especially since religious iconography is already allowed!

The headscarf is a piece of clothing, and as far as i am aware the one we're talking about was just covering up some extra skin. It did not carry any religious iconography, symbols or colors.
This does not open up an avenue to place big star of David or similar symbol on your shirt (nevermind that small ones are already allowed) or to wear a cross on a chain or something like that. Those are easily distinguishable from a headscarf.
If you want to ban specifically religiously designed clothing, not a problem either. As i said, this headscarf was specifically designed to deviate from traditional islamic female clothing. It still covers up the required parts, but i see no reason why this should not be allowed.


In the end, this is a extremely cautious approach - too cautious in my opinion. I would not even call it cautious, it's more a matter of being afraid.
And again, i would like to point out the hypocrisy here: Religious symbols are already allowed of FIFA-trikots as a part of national flags. Given that the most critical religious states (you named Israel and Iran) carry such symbols on their flags, the potential for confrontation is already there (not to mention that the flags itself could do that even without specific symbols).


As for neutrality - banning someone for their gender, faith or ethnicity (or combination thereof) hardly strikes me as neutral, and for all intents and purposes this is what happened here.
If you want to achieve true negative neutrality (as in "ban everyone not neutral), you should also strike every national flag and probably sponsorship symbol from the players trikots as well. After all they are not necessary do differentiate between the teams. At least then you'd be consistent.

[Thanas]

It's not like the Israeli team becomes spontaneously less Jewish by not wearing conspicuous clothing that identifies their religion, or like the Saudi team becomes less Muslim by doing the same. If they can't play football without trying to kill each other over headscarves, they probably can't play football without trying to kill each other over religion anyway.

Yes, because there is absolutely no grey area between "flat out provocation" and "utmost neutrality".

The question here is whether football is supposed to be "neutral" in the sense that "members of any religious or political alignment are free to participate," or "neutral" in the sense that "anyone expressing a religious or political alignment is barred from the field." These are not the same kind of neutrality. I think the former kind of neutrality is better than the latter, because it makes football truly independent of religious or political positions.

You cannot really have one without the other. After all, if anybody is allowed to make a statement they wish, you'll probably end up with the Libyan team wearing "Obama is Hitler" shirts next time.

Sorry, i do not see the slippery slope here, especially since religious iconography is already allowed!

As part of flags. Not as part of gear. The difference is one - one is the symbol of a nation, codified under international law, the other is a purely religious symbol.

If you want to ban specifically religiously designed clothing, not a problem either. As i said, this headscarf was specifically designed to deviate from traditional islamic female clothing. It still covers up the required parts, but i see no reason why this should not be allowed.

This sounds extremely illogical. If it does serve only for the purpose of religion, why is it not a religious symbol? Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

And again, i would like to point out the hypocrisy here: Religious symbols are already allowed of FIFA-trikots as a part of national flags. Given that the most critical religious states (you named Israel and Iran) carry such symbols on their flags, the potential for confrontation is already there (not to mention that the flags itself could do that even without specific symbols).

False analogy, see above why.

As for neutrality - banning someone for their gender, faith or ethnicity (or combination thereof) hardly strikes me as neutral, and for all intents and purposes this is what happened here.

Yes, you are completely right. FIFA acted only to stop the poor Iranian team, who of course were set to sweep their division and win the championship, from becoming real contenders. In fact, the conspiracy goes even further. FIFA acted in the full knowledge that this might endanger democratic reform in Iran and FIFA acted with the stated goal of oppressing women.

No, for "all intents" (I love how you disregard the stated intent of FIFA and just substitute your own for it, because that is the only way you could write such a sentence) and "purposes" (ditto).

If you want to achieve true negative neutrality (as in "ban everyone not neutral), you should also strike every national flag and probably sponsorship symbol from the players trikots as well. After all they are not necessary do differentiate between the teams. At least then you'd be consistent.

No, you wouldn't. Because Flags are not the same as religious symbols, nor are sponsorships.

[Serafina]

As part of flags. Not as part of gear. The difference is one - one is the symbol of a nation, codified under international law, the other is a purely religious symbol.

Your argument was that it might infuriate players of opposing religions.
I fail to see how this does not apply to symbols just because they are on flags, or even to the flags themselves.

This sounds extremely illogical. If it does serve only for the purpose of religion, why is it not a religious symbol? Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

It's also a piece of clothing that is required by their cultural dignity. Yes, that is based on religion - but the same goes for many nudity taboos. This is just a more extreme example.
I wasn't arguing that it did not have a religious purpose, just that they tried to make it as inoffensive as possible.

Yes, you are completely right. FIFA acted only to stop the poor Iranian team, who of course were set to sweep their division and win the championship, from becoming real contenders. In fact, the conspiracy goes even further. FIFA acted in the full knowledge that this might endanger democratic reform in Iran and FIFA acted with the stated goal of oppressing women.

No, for "all intents" (I love how you disregard the stated intent of FIFA and just substitute your own for it, because that is the only way you could write such a sentence) and "purposes" (ditto).

Sorry, but that's a complete strawman.
What i am actually saying is that, yes, this DOES hurt the womens movement in Iran. Certainly not to the obtuse amount you're claiming here, but all benefits i can see here are negative.
I don't give a damn about the FIFAs intentions until they can demonstrate that there was a legitimate, sports-related reason for this decision. I fail to see how their decision benefits womens football at all.

No, you wouldn't. Because Flags are not the same as religious symbols, nor are sponsorships.

I'm quite aware of that, but your original argument was that the inclusion of religious icons could lead to conflict between players of different belief systems:

Can you imagine the troubles that could cause on the field, if, say, Israel and Saudi-Arabia meet?

The same applies to flags, especially when adorned with religious symbols. Granted, that with sponsorships was obtuse.



In the end, i am upset about this setback for womens rights in Iran. It might be a small one, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
It also shows that the FIFA is not willing to stand in for the rights of minorities (which can also be seen in other cases). Political neutrality is an admirable goal, but it should not replace all morals.

[Thanas]

Your argument was that it might infuriate players of opposing religions.
I fail to see how this does not apply to symbols just because they are on flags, or even to the flags themselves.

No, my argument was that if you allow one religion special privileges (and that is what we are talking about here) then you also must allow others the same. This of course opens a whole can of worms and yes, might infuriate others.

I still fail to see how you do not get "Flags are already pushing it. If we add more, that might infuriate even more whackos".

It's also a piece of clothing that is required by their cultural dignity. Yes, that is based on religion - but the same goes for many nudity taboos. This is just a more extreme example.
I wasn't arguing that it did not have a religious purpose, just that they tried to make it as inoffensive as possible.

It still is a religious symbol. I fail to see what is so hard about that.

What i am actually saying is that, yes, this DOES hurt the womens movement in Iran. Certainly not to the obtuse amount you're claiming here, but all benefits i can see here are negative.
I don't give a damn about the FIFAs intentions until they can demonstrate that there was a legitimate, sports-related reason for this decision.

Whoah now. You were earlier harping on how FIFA should stay neutral and now when they try to do that, you damn them for that? The legitimate reason is "we do not want to infuriate others at our sports games, games for which we are financially liable and games which we have to insure." It is quite high and mighty of you to demand that FIFA only look at this from one perspective and ignore everything else. FIFA has a responsipility to itself, to the fans, to the host countries and to its business partners.

I fail to see how their decision benefits womens football at all.

It keeps the sport neutral and ensures equal treatment for every team. Apparently you disagree with that.

The same applies to flags, especially when adorned with religious symbols. Granted, that with sponsorships was obtuse.

Yes, because everytime there is a religious symbol on a flag, it obviously exists only as a religious symbol. And now you, who complains about the FIFA regulating clothing, argue that FIFA should have the right to decide which symbols of sovereign nations are acceptable to them?

It also shows that the FIFA is not willing to stand in for the rights of minorities (which can also be seen in other cases). Political neutrality is an admirable goal, but it should not replace all morals.

The same argument can be made the other way around. If Fifa would give the Iranians the right to their head dress, that might embolden islamists in other nations to push for more head dresses. After all, Fifa just said that they would allow it, so why shouldn't the players of all islamic nations wear it from now on? Can you see that particular predicament?

[Simon_Jester]

It's not like the Israeli team becomes spontaneously less Jewish by not wearing conspicuous clothing that identifies their religion, or like the Saudi team becomes less Muslim by doing the same. If they can't play football without trying to kill each other over headscarves, they probably can't play football without trying to kill each other over religion anyway.

Yes, because there is absolutely no grey area between "flat out provocation" and "utmost neutrality".

...What?

Thanas, I don't understand what you're talking about. How on Earth do we go from "Iranian women playing football may wear headscarves" to "Saudi and Israeli teams brawling on the field?" Has this happened before? Is there some logical chain of events which leads from one to the other? I am simply not seeing it; I think you are conjuring up imaginary consequences.

The question here is whether football is supposed to be "neutral" in the sense that "members of any religious or political alignment are free to participate," or "neutral" in the sense that "anyone expressing a religious or political alignment is barred from the field." These are not the same kind of neutrality. I think the former kind of neutrality is better than the latter, because it makes football truly independent of religious or political positions.

You cannot really have one without the other. After all, if anybody is allowed to make a statement they wish, you'll probably end up with the Libyan team wearing "Obama is Hitler" shirts next time.

I think this boils down to a mutually incompatible definition of freedom of expression. I argue that it should be legal to express anything that is not a blatant, explicit, easily predicted and explained, provocation. It is not enough to mumble vaguely about how allowing something might cause someone else to perhaps do something that could somehow provoke violence among undisciplined idiots (who shouldn't be on the field in the first place). There must be a clear, logical chain of cause and effect between the article of clothing and some concrete negative consequence.

I mean, from a naive perspective, your argument reduces to the thesis that the only way to have a neutral ground is to prohibit anyone from ever expressing anything at all- that there can be no religious tolerance without a strict ban on religious expression for fear that religious expression might lead to intolerance. Which strikes me as a serious case of destroying the village in order to save it. It is not an act of tolerance on an issue to ban everyone from ever doing or saying anything that might cause the subject to arise- quite the opposite, really.

Am I misunderstanding you?

FIFA reserves the power to ban things that will obviously cause unnecessary provocation, or that are deliberately insulting to the other teams (like an "Obama is Hitler" shirt ). They do not lose this power the moment they decide not to ban things that will not start fights, will not insult or harm anyone, and are done purely so that athletes on one of the teams can comply with their own nation's legal code while participating in the sport.

Sorry, i do not see the slippery slope here, especially since religious iconography is already allowed!

As part of flags. Not as part of gear. The difference is one - one is the symbol of a nation, codified under international law, the other is a purely religious symbol.

The Iranian nation affiliates itself with its own version of the Islamic faith, just as the Soviet Union affiliated itself with its own version of communism. Would you have banned the red flag, red stars, or the color red from Soviet athletic uniforms as a purely political symbol?

If you want to ban specifically religiously designed clothing, not a problem either. As i said, this headscarf was specifically designed to deviate from traditional islamic female clothing. It still covers up the required parts, but i see no reason why this should not be allowed.

This sounds extremely illogical. If it does serve only for the purpose of religion, why is it not a religious symbol?

Because it is not a symbol at all.

Consider the case of trousers. Trousers serve a specific purpose- to cover the legs. It is customary, in most parts of the world, to wear trousers rather than walking around in one's underwear. In many places, at many times, someone walking around without trousers (or equivalent leg covering) would be seen as underdressed.

If my religion demands that I cover my legs in public at all times, do trousers suddenly become a religious symbol? Does my wearing trousers convey a religious message that might provoke other people to violence, as you imply might somehow be caused by someone wearing a headscarf?

Headscarves, shawls, and other similar coverings also serve a specific purpose- to cover the hair. They are not unique to Islam, though Islam uses them a lot more than other religions. They can be practical- to keep one's head warm, to keep dirt out of the hair- or they can be worn for modesty when practical purposes do not strictly require them. However, I fail to see how this becomes a religious symbol that poses some kind of threat.

I mean, can you be specific, Thanas, about who is harmed if FIFA rules to allow headscarves on the field, without prejudice to their ability to ban other articles of clothing later on should they choose to do so?

As for neutrality - banning someone for their gender, faith or ethnicity (or combination thereof) hardly strikes me as neutral, and for all intents and purposes this is what happened here.

Yes, you are completely right. FIFA acted only to stop the poor Iranian team, who of course were set to sweep their division and win the championship, from becoming real contenders. In fact, the conspiracy goes even further. FIFA acted in the full knowledge that this might endanger democratic reform in Iran and FIFA acted with the stated goal of oppressing women.

No, for "all intents" (I love how you disregard the stated intent of FIFA and just substitute your own for it, because that is the only way you could write such a sentence) and "purposes" (ditto).

Nonsense. You have completely misunderstood Serafina.

For one, it is irrelevant whether the Iranian team was going to play well or poorly; what is at stake is whether they should be allowed to play at all. The only reason I see why you even mention their performance is to insert an extra improbable claim into her argument, so as to discredit it.

Nor does Serafina claim that this is some conspiracy by FIFA to oppress women. She claims that it will have the effect of oppressing women, or aiding in the attempt of the Iranian conservatives to oppress women, by giving the Iranians an easy pretext to stop allowing Iranian women to play international football. That is not the same thing as accusing FIFA of a conspiracy. It is possible to help someone do a bad thing by accident, with no conspiracy involved.

The most that Serafina has claimed is that this act is non-neutral- it affects only players from a specific nation, and only female players from that nation, and only affects them because their nation adheres to a specific version of the Islamic religion and demands that the players follow that religion's strictures while playing football. As a practical matter, this ruling does not affect everyone equally, and hurts some people much more than it hurts others.

I would think that this means the ruling fails an important test which should be applied before we say that the ruling is "neutral." Since it hurts only a specific group of people who because of the country they come from are expected by their government to wear headscarves, and since it does not affect anyone else in any tangible way, I can hardly see how it is a "neutral" requirement.


In addition, it would seem that you have misunderstood the meaning of the phrase "for all intents and purposes" in the English language. When I say that "X has, for all intents and purposes, done Y," it does not mean "X intended to do Y," or "the purpose of X's actions was to do Y." It means, "X has, in practice, done Y."

For example, take the Munich conference of 1938. In practice, after the conference, Britain and France were unable to do anything to stop Hitler from taking first the Sudetenland, then taking the core territories of is now the Czech Republic after the war, and finally turning Slovakia into a puppet state. In practice, the effect of the Munich conference was to make it impossible for Czechoslovakia to resist Hitler's aggression, by isolating them from any foreign allies that might intervene to save them.

One could say afterwards "Chamberlain has, for all intents and purposes, allowed Hitler to annex all of Czechoslovakia." This does not mean Chamberlain desired that Hitler would annex all of Czechoslovakia, that Chamberlain wanted to give Czechoslovakia to Hitler, that Chamberlain's purpose in signing the Munich agreement was to make sure Hitler would get Czechoslovakia, or any such thing.

It means that, once we remove all the rosy fog of rhetoric and good intentions and optimism, in practice Chamberlain had agreed to stand by while Hitler devoured Czechoslovakia.

Similarly, in practice, or "for all intents and purposes," FIFA has guaranteed that Iran will not participate in international women's football, that Iranian women's football will be weakened as a sport, and that this will contribute (in a small way) to the oppression of women in Iran. These are predictable consequences of FIFA's decision, even if FIFA never said that FIFA wants them to happen, and even if FIFA themselves do not know or care that they will happen.

All in all, this argument is getting increasingly ridiculous.

[Thanas]

...What?

Thanas, I don't understand what you're talking about.

I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend my arguments.

How on Earth do we go from "Iranian women playing football may wear headscarves" to "Saudi and Israeli teams brawling on the field?" Has this happened before? Is there some logical chain of events which leads from one to the other? I am simply not seeing it; I think you are conjuring up imaginary consequences.

Yes, exactly those "imaginary" consequences FIFA is supposed to prevent by banning religious or political statements.

Honduras and El Salvador met in the second North American qualifying round for the 1970 FIFA World Cup. There was fighting between fans at the first game in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa on 8 June 1969, which Honduras won 1–0. Immediately following the match an eighteen-year old Salvadoran girl Amelia Bolaños shot herself in the heart, and was subsequently regarded as a martyr in El Salvador, with her funeral being televised and the El Salvador president and national football team walking behind her coffin. The second game, on 15 June 1969 in the Salvadoran capital of San Salvador, which was won 3–0 by El Salvador, was followed by even greater violence. A play-off match took place in Mexico City on 26 June 1969. El Salvador won 3–2 after extra time.

No, seriously, I cannot see why the Fifa would ever play it safe.

I mean, from a naive perspective, your argument reduces to the thesis that the only way to have a neutral ground is to prohibit anyone from ever expressing anything at all- that there can be no religious tolerance without a strict ban on religious expression for fear that religious expression might lead to intolerance. Which strikes me as a serious case of destroying the village in order to save it. It is not an act of tolerance on an issue to ban everyone from ever doing or saying anything that might cause the subject to arise- quite the opposite, really.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes and I wonder how you could ever happen at that naive (and absolute reading), as I know how much you read my posts and reply in ever-so-wordy posts to them. Both things are opposites and both are also tools by the state (see Art III of the German constitution and the corresponding laws) to ensue religious freedom.

However, in this case, FIFA decided it did not want to run the risk. And I tell you what - had they judged otherwise they would have been complicit in the suppression of women. After all, they just told the Iranian state that it would be okay to oppress them because FIFA would acquiesce to them. Funny how nobody brings that up though, no?

They do not lose this power the moment they decide not to ban things that will not start fights, will not insult or harm anyone, and are done purely so that athletes on one of the teams can comply with their own nation's legal code while participating in the sport.

See above. And I love how you have the certainty to decide what will and what will not start a riot.

The Iranian nation affiliates itself with its own version of the Islamic faith, just as the Soviet Union affiliated itself with its own version of communism. Would you have banned the red flag, red stars, or the color red from Soviet athletic uniforms as a purely political symbol?

Are you an idiot or are you really suggesting here that FIFA should decide what is and what is not the emblem of a sovereign state?

Because it is not a symbol at all.

The headscarf is a religious symbol. It has been specifically described as such. See for example why it is such a big deal if the wife of President Erdogan wears one or not.

I mean, can you be specific, Thanas, about who is harmed if FIFA rules to allow headscarves on the field, without prejudice to their ability to ban other articles of clothing later on should they choose to do so?

Women in islamic countries who try to go without the headscarf or where the headscarf is a matter of contention?

All in all, this argument is getting increasingly ridiculous.

On that we agree.

[atg]

I don´t know. Players are allowed to wear helmets. Why shouldn´t they be allowed to wear other head gear if it doesn´t breach reasonable safty regulations?

With regard to the safety aspect of this I'd like to point out that FIFA recently banned players in the English Premier League from wearing the 'snood' thermal scarf based on safety grounds. To me this issue of banning the headscarfs seems to be consistent with that policy rather than anything else.

[Simon_Jester]

How on Earth do we go from "Iranian women playing football may wear headscarves" to "Saudi and Israeli teams brawling on the field?" Has this happened before? Is there some logical chain of events which leads from one to the other? I am simply not seeing it; I think you are conjuring up imaginary consequences.

Yes, exactly those "imaginary" consequences FIFA is supposed to prevent by banning religious or political statements.

I am extremely skeptical of the idea that this war started because of the game, rather than because of underlying tensions. If men will kill each other over football, I'd think that they'd find an excuse to kill each other whether they have football to do it over or not. The whole notion that this war was somehow football's responsibility strikes me as a massive case of post hoc ergo propter hoc

Is there some special and compelling reason to think that the Football War could have been prevented by FIFA refusing to allow players to wear national flags? Or by banning anything else that they actually have the authority to ban? They don't have the authority to ban, women committing suicide at their games, or funerals being held for the women, or El Salvador cutting off diplomatic ties with Honduras.

So how, precisely, is FIFA playing it safe? What is the danger? Is there some reason to expect a war to break out because of the headscarves worn by the Iranian women's football team? If so, where?

I mean, from a naive perspective, your argument reduces to the thesis that the only way to have a neutral ground is to prohibit anyone from ever expressing anything at all- that there can be no religious tolerance without a strict ban on religious expression for fear that religious expression might lead to intolerance. Which strikes me as a serious case of destroying the village in order to save it. It is not an act of tolerance on an issue to ban everyone from ever doing or saying anything that might cause the subject to arise- quite the opposite, really.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes and I wonder how you could ever happen at that naive (and absolute reading), as I know how much you read my posts and reply in ever-so-wordy posts to them. Both things are opposites and both are also tools by the state (see Art III of the German constitution and the corresponding laws) to ensue religious freedom.

I am not bound to agree with the German constitution, and FIFA isn't either. I do not believe that banning all expression secures freedom. I am not made more free by being unable to tell you what I think. I am not made more free by being unable to do what I please.

If what I want to say or do in some way hurts people, then you can make an argument that it would make them less free. But I am not made more free... and in the case of the FIFA decision, no one else is either, not in a concrete way that justifies effectively disbanding the Iranian women's football team.

However, in this case, FIFA decided it did not want to run the risk. And I tell you what - had they judged otherwise they would have been complicit in the suppression of women. After all, they just told the Iranian state that it would be okay to oppress them because FIFA would acquiesce to them. Funny how nobody brings that up though, no?

So, it is better for the Iranian government to oppress them by not allowing them to play than for the Iranian government to oppress them by forcing them to wear headscarves while they play?

Because those are the choices on offer, at least the ones available to FIFA. Do you really think those women will be less oppressed by not playing at all? Or that this is somehow a victory for Iranian women's liberation, now that one of the few ways Iranian women were allowed to put themselves in the public eye on the international stage is banned because their government now has a pretext to stop them from playing?

Your definition of oppression and freedom makes no sense to me. You're arguing that "Do this if you want, but you have to wear a hat" is more oppressive than "No! Doing this is strictly forbidden, because the foreigners will not permit you to wear a hat!"

FIFA is trying to tell the Iranian government "Well, if you won't let them play with their heads uncovered, you don't get to have a women's football team! How do you like that?" The problem being that the Iranian government will probably like that just fine, whereas the Iranian women's football team is harmed. No one is made more free, or more happy, by the decision.

They do not lose this power the moment they decide not to ban things that will not start fights, will not insult or harm anyone, and are done purely so that athletes on one of the teams can comply with their own nation's legal code while participating in the sport.

See above. And I love how you have the certainty to decide what will and what will not start a riot.

You're the one claiming this will start a riot. I would think that you would have to be the one to prove that women wearing headscarves will start riots, not the other way around.

The Iranian nation affiliates itself with its own version of the Islamic faith, just as the Soviet Union affiliated itself with its own version of communism. Would you have banned the red flag, red stars, or the color red from Soviet athletic uniforms as a purely political symbol?

Are you an idiot or are you really suggesting here that FIFA should decide what is and what is not the emblem of a sovereign state?

No, I'm suggesting that you're being foolish. If FIFA can ban arbitrary things on the grounds that they are religious symbols, it should be able to ban arbitrary things on the grounds that they are political symbols. Why can it ban symbols of Islam but not symbols of Communism? Is Communism inherently less likely to provoke riots and political dissension than fundamentalist Islam? Do people not fight over communism?

My point is that your argument leads to absurdity. If FIFA has such a broad mandate to ban "religious symbols" for fear that any and all expressions of religion might lead to riots or wars, then surely its mandate extends to banning political symbols. Logically, FIFA should be able to ban, for example, swastikas.

But if FIFA has the authority to ban swastikas, why shouldn't it have the authority to ban big red stars? There are people who are just as strongly opposed to communism as the average person is to Naziism. Why wouldn't FIFA worry about those people being provoked by big red stars, as it would worry about people being provoked by swastikas?

Sure, the USSR could say "but big red stars are one of our national symbols, recognized by international law." And FIFA could just as well say "yes, but you're not allowed to put them on your athletes' uniforms if you want to play at our tournaments. You might start a riot in an anticommunist country."

That would be stupid, and blatantly biased against the communist bloc, and senselessly punitive against the football teams from the communist bloc. No sane person would want FIFA to have done such a thing.

And yet the argument that headscarves should be banned as "religious symbols that could start a riot" would seem to apply quite well to things like red stars, hammer-and-sickles, and other symbols of international communism, which are certainly political symbols and could just as easily start a riot.

Your argument can justify doing foolish things very easily.

I mean, can you be specific, Thanas, about who is harmed if FIFA rules to allow headscarves on the field, without prejudice to their ability to ban other articles of clothing later on should they choose to do so?

Women in islamic countries who try to go without the headscarf or where the headscarf is a matter of contention?

No. Why would seeing Iranian women in headscarves play football reinforce the government's authority to force women to wear headscarves? Why would it do so any more than seeing Iranian women not playing football in headscarves because FIFA bans headscarves?

And why are headscarves a more important issue than a woman's right to participate in sports or other daily activities? If, as you say, headscarves are such a potent symbol of women's oppression in Islamic culture, why is the symbol more important than the oppression itself? When did the map become more important than the territory?

[Cosmic Average]

This isn't new. FIFA banned the headscarf back in 2007.

LAUSANNE, Switzerland -- The IOC has supported FIFA's decision to bar Iran's girls soccer team from the Youth Olympic Games in a dispute over players' rights to wear Islamic head scarves.

The International Olympic Committee said governing bodies are responsible for establishing and applying their sport's technical rules.

FIFA's decision "is in line with the rules of the game, which have been communicated ... to the Iranian Olympic Committee," the IOC said in a statement issued late Tuesday.

FIFA barred hijab scarves -- which protect the modesty of Islamic girls and women -- in 2007 for safety reasons and to prevent political or religious statements on the field.

Thailand will replace Iran in the girls' tournament at the games, which are being staged in Singapore Aug. 12-25.

Link

[Simon_Jester]

The appeal to safety would make more sense if FIFA is willing to permit players to cover their heads if that head cover meets safety standards.

The "prevent political and religious expression on the field" argument makes no sense to me at all, because the most charitable description of it I can think of is that FIFA considers the symbol of Islamic fundamentalist oppression of women to be more important than the oppression itself. That it's fine for the women to be oppressed, as long as no one has to see evidence that they are oppressed on FIFA's soccer field.

Arguably this should be the other way round- they should want the oppression to be visible, rather than having it hidden within Iran's borders and behind closed doors. Seeing women wear headscarves in public forces the public to acknowledge and discuss the matter; having women kept cloistered because the foreigners won't let them wear headscarves doesn't.

[atg]

The appeal to safety would make more sense if FIFA is willing to permit players to cover their heads if that head cover meets safety standards.

Don't they allow players to wear the 'padding helmets' if they've had a head injury? Or am I confusing it with something else?

[Thanas]

I am extremely skeptical of the idea that this war started because of the game, rather than because of underlying tensions. If men will kill each other over football, I'd think that they'd find an excuse to kill each other whether they have football to do it over or not. The whole notion that this war was somehow football's responsibility strikes me as a massive case of post hoc ergo propter hoc

How good for you that I claimed none of that. However, rioting with massive amount of dead people due to political statements did happen so I cannot fault FIFA's no tolerance policy.

I am not bound to agree with the German constitution, and FIFA isn't either. I do not believe that banning all expression secures freedom.

How good for you that I did not claim that either. Shall I refer to your position as "imaginary Thanas" from now on?

So, it is better for the Iranian government to oppress them by not allowing them to play than for the Iranian government to oppress them by forcing them to wear headscarves while they play?

No, it is better for FIFA not to bow to the demands of an oppressive regime.

Or that this is somehow a victory for Iranian women's liberation, now that one of the few ways Iranian women were allowed to put themselves in the public eye on the international stage is banned because their government now has a pretext to stop them from playing?

Do you think bowing to the demands of Iran is a win for democracy?

FIFA is trying to tell the Iranian government "Well, if you won't let them play with their heads uncovered, you don't get to have a women's football team! How do you like that?" The problem being that the Iranian government will probably like that just fine, whereas the Iranian women's football team is harmed. No one is made more free, or more happy, by the decision.

Neither would the reserve be true, for it would show that dictatorial regimes can dictate FIFA policy.

You're the one claiming this will start a riot. I would think that you would have to be the one to prove that women wearing headscarves will start riots, not the other way around.

No, I am claiming that allowing religious symbols in general can lead to that, which is why FIFA has that no-tolerance policy so that they can avoid any such possible situation.

No, I'm suggesting that you're being foolish. If FIFA can ban arbitrary things on the grounds that they are religious symbols, it should be able to ban arbitrary things on the grounds that they are political symbols.

So you are arguing that FIFA should have the power to change sovereign flags.

Logically, FIFA should be able to ban, for example, swastikas.

It has. It would however not have the power to ban a national flag with a swastika on it.

No. Why would seeing Iranian women in headscarves play football reinforce the government's authority to force women to wear headscarves?

Because it lends credence to two arguments:
- it shows westerners have no trouble with Islamic countries forcing women to wear headgear
- it shows that FIFA will bow to such demands
- it shows that wearing such headgear is no real hindrance for women.

Voila, you just shot the practical, the public opinion and the power argument against moderate countries introducing such stuff in the foot.

Why would it do so any more than seeing Iranian women not playing football in headscarves because FIFA bans headscarves?

Because nobody will see them wearing headscarves?

Why would showing them play in headscarves be a win in your opinion anyway, when it is nothing but a regression?

If, as you say, headscarves are such a potent symbol of women's oppression in Islamic culture, why is the symbol more important than the oppression itself? When did the map become more important than the territory?

How is letting them play in headscarves a great blow against oppression when it is just FIFA caving in?

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, because everytime there is a religious symbol on a flag, it obviously exists only as a religious symbol

Yes. Why not? I take issue with you being so quick to defend flags. How is a flag with a star of David not a religious symbol? It doesn't matter if you place it on a flag. Same with the Christian cross or the Muslim crescent. They are religious symbols. After all, even "Red Cross" which is "Red Crescent" in Islamic nations recognizes that a religious symbol remains one regardless of where and how you place it.

[Todeswind]

I think you're all being too quick in dismissing the theory that this actually is a legitimate dispute over uniform regulations. Apparently IFA had already designed a headscarf deemed safe for playing soccer, but the Iranian team declined to use it. FIFA was worried about players being injured if the hijab wrapped around a player's neck and constricted their airways. Given the very physical (and sometimes violent) nature of soccer, this is a realistic possibility. So the issue is less one of "banning the headscarf" and more one of "Iran being unwilling to wear a headscarf that is slightly less loose around the players head and face."

This is the scarf that Iran wears at the moment.

http://media.greenradio.topscms.com/ima ... 4476b.jpeg
See how it wraps around the neck and throat, potentially getting constricted.


]The Fifa approved headscarf that Iran refuses to wear is apparently this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yFS0R4SsYzQ/T ... psters.jpg


Can someone please tell me what is so wrong with the FIFA approved scarf other than being an idea of the west? Supposedly it doesn't cover the throat enough but I'll be damned if I can see the difference.

[Simon_Jester]

I can see the logic behind the safety argument.

I simply do not see the logic behind the political arguments- that headscarves might cause riots, or that FIFA is more complicit in the oppression of women by allowing women to play in headscarves than by banning women from playing in headscarves, knowing that they will thus not be permitted to play at all.

[Serafina]

Safety and fairness are perfectly good reason to ban things in competitive sports.

And frankly, if the FIFA does allow the special headscarf posted by Todeswind, this changes the whole situation. If this is the case, they indeed accommodate women of islamic faith and their modesty requirements.

So unless i find out that Todeswinds post is inaccurate, i hereby revoke my previous statements about the FIFA.

[2000AD]

The appeal to safety would make more sense if FIFA is willing to permit players to cover their heads if that head cover meets safety standards.

Don't they allow players to wear the 'padding helmets' if they've had a head injury? Or am I confusing it with something else?

Correct, probably the most famous example of recent times is Petr Cech the Chelsea goalkeeper. He got a nasty skull fracture during a game and since he recovered he's been wearing a custom head protector, basically a Rugby scrum cap with extra padding where he had the fracture.

Other pieces of safety equipment have included:
- Those face masks people where when they have facial injuries
- Edgar Davids special sunglasses after he had some eye problem

[Big Phil]

I can see the logic behind the safety argument.

I simply do not see the logic behind the political arguments- that headscarves might cause riots, or that FIFA is more complicit in the oppression of women by allowing women to play in headscarves than by banning women from playing in headscarves, knowing that they will thus not be permitted to play at all.

Homey... it was the people criticizing FIFA's decision who first brought up oppression and politics.

[Simon_Jester]

That's because this decision does have political consequences- it effectively disbands the Iranian women's football team, which I suspect the Iranian government is happy to accept a pretext to do.

And the political arguments in favor of accepting those consequences are weak- "headscarves might start riots," or "allowing the Iranian women to wear headscarves would make FIFA complicit in their oppression" really aren't very strong arguments.

[Thanas]

Neither is "allowing them to play with state-dictated wear will galvanize reform" a strong argument.

[Serafina]

Neither is "allowing them to play with state-dictated wear will galvanize reform" a strong argument.

Really?
So publicly visible, pretty independent women playing a traditionally male sport does nothing to enhance their cause?
Or do you think that public visibility of minorities has no impact on their causes?

Yes, the team on it's own won't make a dent into Iranian patriarchy. But they can certainly be a source for both positive rolemodels and strong spokeswomen. But i suppose having those is totally unimportant.

[Simon_Jester]

FIFA isn't in the business of only allowing teams to play if it will trigger social reform in the team's home country. There do not need to be strong political arguments for allowing a national team to play football; that's the default condition. There need to be strong arguments against allowing a team, to play to justify banning them.

"Their uniforms are unsafe" can be a strong argument; "their uniforms display political symbolism we dislike even though we can't explain how it will actually cause problems" is not.