Comments on: Hijab-gate? http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/ Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:25:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.6 Mezba on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1280 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:22:52 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1280 I would think it would be safer for girls to have their hair tucked in (where it cannot be pulled). However, as you say, we accommodate religion all the time - the key is <i>reasonable</i> accomodation. Letting a girl wear a bandanna is not giving anyone an undue advantage or infringing on someone else's rights. I have asked my Muslim readers on my <a href="http://mezba.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">personal blog</a> for their opinion and will post again on the <a href="http://crescentcanuck.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">political blog</a> once the feedback is in. I repeat that this incident has to be seen in light of other immigrant-unfriendly incidents that seem to happen all the time in Quebec and nowhere else in Canada. I would think it would be safer for girls to have their hair tucked in (where it cannot be pulled). However, as you say, we accommodate religion all the time - the key is reasonable accomodation. Letting a girl wear a bandanna is not giving anyone an undue advantage or infringing on someone else’s rights.

I have asked my Muslim readers on my personal blog for their opinion and will post again on the political blog once the feedback is in.

I repeat that this incident has to be seen in light of other immigrant-unfriendly incidents that seem to happen all the time in Quebec and nowhere else in Canada.

]]> Halden on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1274 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:45:32 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1274 I am not creating any false dichotomy. You stated quite clearly that the federation's rules do not allow <b>any</b> headgear for <b>anyone</b> yet are also arguing that <b>some</b> people should be allowed headgear. So you are in favour of a rule with exceptions, this you say is fine because we already do it. I agree that sometimes rules cannot be changed entirely and therefore concessions must be made but in this example it is just as easy to change the rule rather than making exceptions. I think we are arguing semantics as we both agree that the proper outcome of the situation is that the girl and anyone else who might need to should be able to wear headgear. I am not creating any false dichotomy. You stated quite clearly that the federation’s rules do not allow any headgear for anyone yet are also arguing that some people should be allowed headgear. So you are in favour of a rule with exceptions, this you say is fine because we already do it. I agree that sometimes rules cannot be changed entirely and therefore concessions must be made but in this example it is just as easy to change the rule rather than making exceptions.

I think we are arguing semantics as we both agree that the proper outcome of the situation is that the girl and anyone else who might need to should be able to wear headgear.

]]> Joseph on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1273 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:30:53 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1273 Why are you creating this false dichotomy? Nobody at any point has suggested creating a "special case." What makes it special? We make concessions to the rules <em>all the time</em>. Religion is a Charter right, that is a fundamental right which all Canadians are supposed to be free to express... making an exception to the rule allowing religious headdress isn't <em>special</em> anymore than saying cold-medication is banned except for when it used to treat a pre-existing condition, or some such. Why are you creating this false dichotomy? Nobody at any point has suggested creating a “special case.” What makes it special? We make concessions to the rules all the time. Religion is a Charter right, that is a fundamental right which all Canadians are supposed to be free to express… making an exception to the rule allowing religious headdress isn’t special anymore than saying cold-medication is banned except for when it used to treat a pre-existing condition, or some such.

]]> Canada’s Debate » 2007 » February » 27 on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1272 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:26:25 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1272 [...] Recent Comments: In Hijab-gate? Halden: I am not being silly. The privilege would not necessarily be the wearing of a scarf but of the exception to a rule based on your beliefs. I have no issue... In Hijab-gate? Joseph: If you are going to allow headgear that is fine but allow all headgear. That is just plain silly... and I can only assume that you're being silly... In Hijab-gate? Joseph: Mezba, I think you understand me. I believe that the Soccer Federation should change the rules as well; I'm just saying that blaming a part-time referee... In Hijab-gate? Halden: I agree with the referee in that he enforced the rules of the soccer federation. I agree that the rule may need to be changed. I do not agree that the... In Hijab-gate? Mezba: Just because the rules say it is so - or because a Muslim enforced the rules - does not make it any less significant. A hijab is a non-negotiable right... [...] […] Recent Comments: In Hijab-gate? Halden: I am not being silly. The privilege would not necessarily be the wearing of a scarf but of the exception to a rule based on your beliefs. I have no issue… In Hijab-gate? Joseph: If you are going to allow headgear that is fine but allow all headgear. That is just plain silly… and I can only assume that you’re being silly… In Hijab-gate? Joseph: Mezba, I think you understand me. I believe that the Soccer Federation should change the rules as well; I’m just saying that blaming a part-time referee… In Hijab-gate? Halden: I agree with the referee in that he enforced the rules of the soccer federation. I agree that the rule may need to be changed. I do not agree that the… In Hijab-gate? Mezba: Just because the rules say it is so - or because a Muslim enforced the rules - does not make it any less significant. A hijab is a non-negotiable right… […]

]]> Halden on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1271 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:24:30 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1271 I am not being silly. The privilege would not necessarily be the wearing of a scarf but of the exception to a rule based on your beliefs. I have no issue if they change the rule but change the rule do not make special cases. I do not think the Hijab or the albino lads hat is an imposition on the rest but I do fell if they can wear scarves, hats or bandannas then everyone should have the right whether they are doing it for health, religion or preference. I am not being silly.
The privilege would not necessarily be the wearing of a scarf but of the exception to a rule based on your beliefs. I have no issue if they change the rule but change the rule do not make special cases. I do not think the Hijab or the albino lads hat is an imposition on the rest but I do fell if they can wear scarves, hats or bandannas then everyone should have the right whether they are doing it for health, religion or preference.

]]> Joseph on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1270 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:11:30 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1270 <em>If you are going to allow headgear that is fine but allow all headgear.</em> That is just plain silly... and I can only assume that you're being silly deliberately to make some sort of point about inclusion. Playing with a scarf wrapped around your head is a privilege? You want to explain that me? Let me put it this way... suppose the kid, instead of being a muslim, was a bald albino and needed some sort of covering to prevent herself from being badly burned. Would wearing some sort of scarf represent an imposition on the rest, and a privilege to the girl, or would it be a <em>reasonable accommodation</em> because the girl needs to wear it, while others do not? If you are going to allow headgear that is fine but allow all headgear.

That is just plain silly… and I can only assume that you’re being silly deliberately to make some sort of point about inclusion.

Playing with a scarf wrapped around your head is a privilege? You want to explain that me?

Let me put it this way… suppose the kid, instead of being a muslim, was a bald albino and needed some sort of covering to prevent herself from being badly burned. Would wearing some sort of scarf represent an imposition on the rest, and a privilege to the girl, or would it be a reasonable accommodation because the girl needs to wear it, while others do not?

]]> Joseph on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1269 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:07:42 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1269 Mezba, I think you understand me. I believe that the Soccer Federation should change the rules as well; I'm just saying that blaming a part-time referee for enforcing them as they stand is silly, <em>especially</em> given the current Quebec "interest" in enforcing rules. Mezba, I think you understand me. I believe that the Soccer Federation should change the rules as well; I’m just saying that blaming a part-time referee for enforcing them as they stand is silly, especially given the current Quebec “interest” in enforcing rules.

]]> Halden on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1268 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:34:17 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1268 I agree with the referee in that he enforced the rules of the soccer federation. I agree that the rule may need to be changed. I do not agree that the rule needs to be changed to make religious concessions. If you are going to allow headgear that is fine but allow all headgear. You do not make an equal society by allowing those previously oppressed more privileges, you make it more equal by everyone having the same privileges. I agree with the referee in that he enforced the rules of the soccer federation. I agree that the rule may need to be changed. I do not agree that the rule needs to be changed to make religious concessions. If you are going to allow headgear that is fine but allow all headgear. You do not make an equal society by allowing those previously oppressed more privileges, you make it more equal by everyone having the same privileges.

]]> Mezba on Hijab-gate?by: http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1267 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:47:23 +0000 http://www.canadasdebate.com/2007/02/27/hijab-gate/#comment-1267 Just because the rules say it is so - or because a Muslim enforced the rules - does not make it any less significant. A hijab is a non-negotiable right for a woman and in this case the rules of the Quebec Soccer Federation must be changed to allow religious headgear. Women in Iran play soccer with headscarves, men in India play cricket, soccer with turbans and no one is getting hurt. That's what is 'reasonable accommodation' and it seems to be a problem in Quebec. Just because the rules say it is so - or because a Muslim enforced the rules - does not make it any less significant. A hijab is a non-negotiable right for a woman and in this case the rules of the Quebec Soccer Federation must be changed to allow religious headgear. Women in Iran play soccer with headscarves, men in India play cricket, soccer with turbans and no one is getting hurt.

That’s what is ‘reasonable accommodation’ and it seems to be a problem in Quebec.

]]>