There is such a thing as optimal clothing for sporting events. Hence the absurdity of burka clad Muslim women participating in sports. Similarly, a Catholic nun in traditional habit, while she might somehow be able to play in a game or compete in a running event, would be hobbled by her garments. Preferred sports wear is not arbitrary; there are reasons for everything you see at a competition. Sports clothing optimizes athletic achievement and also, certainly in some sports, has safety advantages. Not to follow sports clothing protocol is not very smart. Sports uniforms also help foster feelings of team unity; "there is no I in 'team' " For an athlete to insist on wearing religious garb while taking part in a team sport is to violate the purpose of team sports itself. It also sets bad precedent in terms of psychology. Religious garb sets some athletes apart from others and puts them in the category: "Exceptions are made for ME." No-one forces Sikhs to play soccer. Sports has its own imperatives. If turbaned Sikhs wish to play the sport, they are free to start their own all-Sikh team or league. Other teams might then play the Sikhs, as a team of Sikhs, and that would simply be that. There are numerous examples of religion-based teams, as in American football -even if, these days, the religion may be pro-forma. How many Catholics play for Notre Dame? Still, we may presume that nearly all players at BYU are Mormons and that most players at Baylor are Baptists. No-one should object if someone wears religious garb in private contexts, or in ordinary "fee citizen" contexts. If a Sikh wears a turban while walking in the park, so what? But no sports team should be compelled to accommodate itself to religious clothing preferences. Sikh turbans may "look cool" in some contexts. But they are dysfunctional in other contexts and a non-Sikh should have complete freedom as a sports official or coach , etc, to prohibit wearing of religious garments or such things as crosses, pendants, and so forth, if these items might impede sports performance or represent some potential for injury -or team disunity. Why isn't all of this obvious ? And if I owned a business that included relations with customers what I would not tolerate would be distinctive religious garb while on the job. I think that I would easily win any lawsuit if someone was so foolish as to seek such action. What I object to about Sikh turbans are the preposterous claims made about them as enhancing spirituality. That is total nonsense. As a fashion statement that is another matter altogether. Billy ---------------------------- National Post / Canada Jonathan Kay: Quebec’s turban panic epitomized its two great collective neuroses: cultural insecurity and separatism
_Jonathan Kay_ (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/author/jonkay88/) | 13/06/16 In the grand scheme of world events, the Quebec Soccer Federation’s short-lived ban on turbans may not seem like much. But this controversy is symbolic of a larger, disturbing trend in Québécois public life: the gratuitous antagonizing of minority communities under the pretext of Québécois “ secularism.” It is a highly selective doctrine: The Quebec government has made clear, for instance, that its planned secularism “Charter” will not be used to go after, say, explicitly Christian symbols in public places. As exemplified by the turban episode — during which Premier Pauline Marois cheered on a plainly discriminatory Quebec Soccer Federation (QSF) decision — this intolerant tendency within Quebec nationalist circles is an embarrassment to the province. The rest of Canada once went through its own turban panic. But that was a quarter century ago: In the late 1980s, a furor erupted over the question of whether Sikh Canadian men should be permitted to wear the head covering as part of an RCMP uniform. Eventually, the Canadian government approved changes to the RCMP’s rules, and turbaned Sikh men now appear in many public roles — from MPs, to RCMP officers, to hockey announcers. It has become just another part of Canada’s cultural landscape, including our nation’s soccer fields. The Quebec Soccer Federation (QSF) based its original decision to ban turbans on the flimsy pretext that this was about “safety” — even though no one could point to any evidence suggesting that turbans presented a danger on the soccer field. A more credible explanation is that some members of the QSF, like RCMP traditionalists a quarter century ago, find vestiges of Eastern religiosity to somehow be un-Canadian (or, if you prefer, un-Québécois). Whether or not the QSF decision fell under the category of “racism” is a question best left to readers — but it certainly must have come across that way to Sikh parents, who suddenly were asked to decide between their religious beliefs and their sons’ sports programs. On Saturday, the QSF reversed itself, and declared that it was rescinding its turban ban. The decision, which is welcome, came in response to a declaration from the world soccer authority, FIFA, to the effect that turbans are valid for official matches. But the Canadian Soccer Association already had pronounced on turbans, and had suspended the QSF for not following the pro-turban national policy. Why, we all might ask, would the QSF have refused to follow the CSA on this one, particular issue — despite the fact that the QSF’s own bylaws declare it to be “under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Soccer Association and … subject to its rules unless it has received a specific exemption”? The QSF declared in a Saturday press release: “If we have offended or appalled some people, please know that it was not intentional nor voluntary and we are deeply sorry.” This is a classically tautological non-apology. No official ever acts “intentionally” to offend or appall. In this case, the offense actually was caused by an ignorant decision that many see as being motivated by xenophobia. That is what the QSF should be apologizing for. But they haven’t. And no doubt, they never will. It is understandable that Quebec generally would be more touchy on the issue of multiculturalism than the rest of Canada: Unlike all the other provinces, Quebec is home to many strong nationalists who see their province as culturally besieged by North America’s Anglo behemoth. Unfortunately, the obsession with their own minority status causes some Québécois nationalists to fear immigrants as a diluting agent within French culture. From such insecurities, other uglier sentiments often follow. The province also is afflicted with a government that exhibits an almost comic desperation to use every issue — real or imagined — as a rallying point for sovereignty. On the turban issue, Ms. Marois played true to form, demanding that Quebec soccer officials be treated as “autonomous” agents, answerable only to FIFA itself. In this way, the turban controversy tapped into not one but two overlapping sociological pathologies in Quebec: cultural insecurity, and separatist agitation. Fortunately, both issues eventually can be addressed through the democratic process. When and if the next referendum comes, I expect the PQ-led forces will once again go down to defeat — in large part, no doubt, because of the tawdry race-baiting stigma they are attracting through episodes such as these. On voting day, Sikhs and other minority communities, in particular, will remember what Ms. Marois said and did regarding the right to wear a turban. As well they should. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
