Muslim girl ejected from tournament - II

quote:Would you support without qualification people who wished to participate in activities in a culture in dress deemed inappropriate by that culture?

Would you support those of various religious and other groups that demand to be integrated into activities, like worship, that culturally are mandated to be separate, thus discriminatory? -Jerry West

What are you talking about, Jerry? In Canada, cultural and religious organizations are often exempted from the law on non-discrimination.

Are you saying that taekwondo is a cultural event ? That would be like saying that a school under a Catholic Board of Education is a religious organization. It is not, it is educational. Whatever taekwondo is elsewhere, in Canada it is sport.

What Kropotkin 1951 wrote..

quote:Even if it is a rule that is what is called systemic discrimination i.e. if a rule has one purpose but it also causes discrimination then it is the discrimination that needs to be rectified.

is correct. Discrimination findings are based on the outcome, not the "motive".

[ 30 April 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]

quote:
bohajal:
Are you saying that taekwondo is a cultural event ? That would be like saying that a school under a Catholic Board of Education is a religious organization.

Actually I am speculating on whether or not it has cultural components, which is aside from the issue that safety is being cited. If it does, then whose culture gets respected?

If one thinks that Asian martial arts are merely a sport, one is mistaken.

Personally I don't care whether anyone or their pets where a hijab, a burka, a serape, nothing or whatever, but I do wonder when there are culture clashes in a multicultural society, whose correctness police get to triumph. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

As for the Catholic schools, are you saying that they do not have a special culture or that religion does not play a role?

And why should cultural and religious organizations be exempted from the law on non-discrimination? What is the difference between one form of discrimination and another?

The cultural angle is more interesting. My niece (who is Chinese-American) is involved in one of the martial arts. I have attended events where she has been tested for a higher level belt. The events are very ritualistic—very formal and scripted—presumably mirroring the Asian roots of the sport. All of the students and the teacher are similarly garbed—loose white pants, a white top, a belt and bare feet. I suspect that there is resistance to change to centuries-old rituals—mixed in with xenophobia.

Are orthodox Jews prohibited from wearing yarmulkes when performing TKD?

[ 01 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote: Ever since the beginning of the modern era, progressive elements in Muslim societies have been fighting for the right of women to walk around freely in public without traditional headgear. Kemal Atatьrk, revered in Turkey as the founder of the modern Turkish state, instituted a series of reforms in 1934 that granted full legal equality to women. These reforms included a ban on the wearing of Muslim headgear in public institutions. The ban remains in effect to this day.

How is some guy making a decision to forbid women from wearing something because it is contrary to his socio/political agenda, either liberating or progressive. Some Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab.

The headscarf is a metaphor of the greater degree of sexism found in countries whose policies are dominated by Islam (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia).

And, to claim that women in those countries have the same degree of rights as women do in the average Western country—and I'm not saying that you, bcg, make that claim—is to ignore mountains of contrary facts.

But, what too often happens is that if a Westerner criticizes a country—whose political structure is dominated by Islamic influence—for not giving women more equal rights, or for not giving gays more equal rights, or for not giving everyone more political or religious freedom, then the critique is “racist”, other principles be damned.

[ 01 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

I know feminists who deliberately wear the hijab, when in North America, as a statement about their pride in their culture and their religion. Think about the courage it takes to wear a headscarf in Canada, knowing full well the anti-Muslim racism that's everywhere.

Why oh why the focus on clothing?? When issues such as access to education, access to medical and legal services, and other much more important issues are out there and defined by the women themselves? I say "much more important" based on what women have told me, not my sense of what's important.

More erudite people than I have written about why the West, particularly white Western men and women, have become so obsessed with the frikkin veil, hijab, headscarf. It's damned annoying.

As to the thread topic itself, the common theme is autonomy. And again, listening.

quote:Originally posted by bigcitygal:
I know feminists who deliberately wear the hijab, when in North America, as a statement about their pride in their culture and their religion. Think about the courage it takes to wear a headscarf in Canada, knowing full well the anti-Muslim racism that's everywhere.

Voluntarily wearing a hijab is great. And, getting back to the main topic of this thread for a moment, I assume that the individual wanting to wear the hijab during TKD wants to wear it voluntarily. We have people here at work who want to, and do, wear various head coverings. And, I agree, it takes courage to do that in Canada and the USA, given the degree of animosity that many have to people of different cultures.

quote:Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Why oh why the focus on clothing?? When issues such as access to education, access to medical and legal services, and other much more important issues are out there and defined by the women themselves? I say "much more important" based on what women have told me, not my sense of what's important.

I agree with your earlier comment that the hijab has become a metaphor for the sexism. In some instances that metaphor is accurate (when its wearing a hijab is not voluntary) while in other instances it is not (when worn voluntarily).

quote:Originally posted by Makwa:
When people excuse some act of bigotry or stupidity here - in this particulary country - by saying - oh but they are so much worse elsewhere. We are talking about Canada, not katmandu, or the elisium fields, nor hades, nor any other nation under the sun. It is either right or wrong under current standards that we supposedly live and die by, and not in relation to any other historical or current reality, real or imagined.

At the same, time, if there are countries that do not protect and foster the principles that are at the core of universal human rights—such as gender equality, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, economic freedom, etc.—then those countries should not be spared criticism simply because they are in a culture that is different than that of Canada.

quote:

Some Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab.

quote:
When people excuse some act of bigotry or stupidity here - in this particulary country - by saying - oh but they are so much worse elsewhere

quote: even if I think it has historically been a destructive anti-progressive force such as the Catholic church. To steal a line from the Christian religious right. Hate the religion love the devotees.

kropotkin1951;

Odd that you should spoil and otherwise sensible posting with that quip.

Waaaay back when, you must remember, it was the job and duty of secular government, of political organizations, to finanace the King's Wars, finanace his court and keep his various sons, daughters and bastards living in a condition befitting their position.

Catholic charities are not a modern idea - they were feeding the hungry and educating the masses since the days of Christ. TheKnights Hospitaller was founded as an organization to feed the hungry and treat the ill. The quest for worldly power came after its' beginnings a group of mendicant monks. Even then, its stated purpose was for protection of the poor.

Certainly the Churchwas then, and is now, a part of the society around it - but it is a silly to blame them for all the depredations carried out in its name.

[ 01 May 2007: Message edited by: Croghan27 ]

[img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]