It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iranian women’s soccer team forfeits 2012 qualifier over head scarves

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
This is bad for another reason. It distracts from legitimate cases of oppression of women in Iran. Wearing a headscarf should be no problem and a team who has worked to come that far should certainly not be disqualified for it. The real problems are other ones. What about the women who are beaten and tortured for not adhering to the ultra-strict rules in Iran?




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Interesting take on the banning on the snood... and how in several seasons, there isn't one "SRI" Snood Related Incident.


www.footballfancast.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Christians are not allowed to wear crucifixes around their neck, or rosary beads. I don't see them forfeiting games over it.

I know it's a cultural issue, but wearing a Hijab to play football in is ridiculous. Common sense denotes that a player should wear the minimum equipment necessary that is essential to the game.

If the Iranians cannot relax their uber-strict laws to let their women enjoy football, then perhaps they should stick to more 'modest' games such as chess or cards.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by confreak
 

Studded boots are there for a very important safety reason, already pointed out to you.

I already mentioned that in my post, why are you repeating yourself instead of posting a proper counter. I already mentioned that spikes are more dangerous than headscarves.


Everybody wears football boots. Only a small minority wear head scalves.

And that is suppose to justify the ban of headscarves? What if everyone wore headscarves, would that make a difference?



Studded boots are essential to the game. Head scalves are not.

You are changing your argument without admitting your previous argument was flawed. Isn't spikes more dangerous than headscarves? You were arguing that headscarves are banned because of safety reasons, now you are arguing that headscarves are banned because they are worn by the minority and is not essential.



What part of this non-issue are you struggling with? Or are you trolling? I can't figure it out.

.....
edit on 8-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 



So found this.....

What's changed since this?

www.rohama.org...


Politics on both sides, read my post on page 1.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Zamini
 




Yeah I've read your posts...and what?

You talk on page 1 about vision, that has nothing to do with it... they're saying it's a safety issue.,... strangulation and so on.... and yes, that I can see.


It is very odd.... there's something not right about the whole thing and while I think that there is something not right, I still think that if any team wants to play, they should play the same way as everyone else, same kit, same everything.


Boots have been in football since almost the very beginning.... people wear shin pads to protect themselves from the studs.... however, most now wear these..



Blades... which are plastic.


Anyway, sport should NOT bend and change because of religion.... it is separate from religion.

If religious people want to play sport, then they need to put their religion to one side for 90 mins....

It really is a simple solution.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeissacred
 


If their "religuous duty" conflicts with the rules of a sport, to the extent that they do not get to play, then what the hell did they even make the trip for?

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

MOTF!



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I was disappointed at first for them.
but they just cover there Hair!
what's the big deal?
they must have been told the rules.
they could have just taken them off.
it is a political statement.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
To argue whether a football boot is more dangerous than a head scarf is a logic fallacy… both are as dangerous as each other dependant in which context you employ to them.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I agree that FIFA can make what ever rules they want, if people oppose those rules, they shouldn't play, or stop opposing it.. Or wait for the rules to change and change should be encouraged by the opposition of the rule.

When I say they shouldn't play, I don't mean they shouldn't play soccer anymore, I say they shouldn't play in FIFA tournaments anymore.

They can create their own organization with different rules. It doesn't take an Einstein to solve this problem.

Iran is making a big deal out of this issue mainly because they think bigotry is involved. I agree with Iran, but Iran hasn't threatened to invade FIFA for banning head scarves, rather Iran refused to play as expected, they have other tournaments which they can play in.

The Iranian Women's team already plays in West Asian Football Federation Championships and have come second twice, considering that the Iranian women's national football team was only established in 2005, they are doing pretty well.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 



1 - Iranian regime likes to take stabs at organizations like FIFA.


So instead of the hair covers they used before(the one you linked), they have a plan this time to make a political statement(Iranian regime). So they order their team to dress one way, and I'm almost sure they knew FIFA was going to disqualify the team. So what statement are they trying to make and to whom?


2 - Iranian regime wants to be an example for Muslims worldwide.


There you go. This is organized religion trying to prey on the beliefs of many worldwide.

And since FIFA is by default anti-Iranian regime they can now politicize this issue, or let it be politicized. Even though the FIFA ruling now has nothing to do with the regime but with the headscarves.

Both sides gain face value in their own corner, only the Iranian regime instigated this for theirs.


If religious people want to play sport, then they need to put their religion to one side for 90 mins....


Some people are made to believe they can never part from their sets of dogma. Else they get hurt, their families get hurt and whatnot.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Zamini because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
I was disappointed at first for them.
but they just cover there Hair!
what's the big deal?
they must have been told the rules.
they could have just taken them off.
it is a political statement.


Some people don't live according to your norms, your statement resembles the statement below:
"Why are they covering their breasts, what is the big deal?"

If FIFA banned the covering of breasts then I suspect many Westerners would join in the making of the big deal, but African tribes who have a norm of not covering their breasts would say "what's the big deal?"



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 



"Why are they covering their breasts, what is the big deal?"


Do you know what a sport bra is? They have reasons for that.

Stop defending a political move that only hurts people who want to play the sport. These girls had the chance to play against girls from all over the globe, I bet it was like a dream come true for them, and for the regime to take that chance away from these girls because they like to play dirty politics. F them.

May I advise you to quit while you are ahead and haven't been taken up completely by any twisted theocratic government?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
I agree that FIFA can make what ever rules they want, if people oppose those rules, they shouldn't play, or stop opposing it.. Or wait for the rules to change and change should be encouraged by the opposition of the rule.

When I say they shouldn't play, I don't mean they shouldn't play soccer anymore, I say they shouldn't play in FIFA tournaments anymore.




FIFA is the law when it comes to football and FIFA are as corrupt as they come... I don't like FIFA, but I don't like them because they are corrupt, not because of the laws of the game.

If you don't play in FIFA tournaments then you don't really play in "proper" football tournaments... believe me, the English FA would have left FIFA by now if this weren't the case.






Iran is making a big deal out of this issue mainly because they think bigotry is involved. I agree with Iran, but Iran hasn't threatened to invade FIFA for banning head scarves, rather Iran refused to play as expected, they
have other tournaments which they can play in.




There is no bigotry though, there is the the exact opposite.... there is Equality.
I'm sure the women would much rather play without the scarves.... it's pretty hot I'm sure running around in that heat.

This is something that FIFA should not back down on.





The Iranian Women's team already plays in West Asian Football Federation Championships and have come second twice, considering that the Iranian women's national football team was only established in 2005, they are doing pretty well.




en.wikipedia.org...]


So in the Women's FIFA affiliated tournaments, since this ban has been implemented, have women worn these head scarves or not?
Or is this the first tournament since the ban became effective?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Zamini
 


My comment wasn't directed at you, if you are gonna reply to my comment at least have the courtesy to hold on to its context.

I was replying to the claim that it isn't a big deal, I compared it to a scenario where African tribal women saying covering your breast is not a big deal. The whole world doesn't live according to your norms, you need to get that in your head even if you have a thick one.

Bigotry is illogical, that's why you can't defend it.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by fooks
 


It's a piece of cloth, it doesn't harm anyone, hence there is no reason for prohibiting it.


ya it got them really far didn't it!


don't get ahead of yourself.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup




FIFA is the law when it comes to football and FIFA are as corrupt as they come... I don't like FIFA, but I don't like them because they are corrupt, not because of the laws of the game.

If you don't play in FIFA tournaments then you don't really play in "proper" football tournaments... believe me, the English FA would have left FIFA by now if this weren't the case.

Are you suggesting football isn't football without FIFA? I'm not convinced.




There is no bigotry though, there is the the exact opposite.... there is Equality.

If there wasn't any bigotry then you would be able to explain a logical reason behind the ban, but up till now I haven't seen any logical reasoning.



I'm sure the women would much rather play without the scarves.... it's pretty hot I'm sure running around in that heat.

Yeah, they play soccer in winter too.



This is something that FIFA should not back down on.

I think they should.







en.wikipedia.org...]


So in the Women's FIFA affiliated tournaments, since this ban has been implemented, have women worn these head scarves or not?
Or is this the first tournament since the ban became effective?



The ban came to effect in 2007 (not quiet sure though), but Iran played in the West Asian Football championships at 2010 also.

The team already played three games and moved to the next round, FIFA invited Iran to the game knowing the conditions of the Iranian team. This is obviously bigotry because no cases of injury was reported in any of the games which Iran played, and obviously headscarves are not any more dangerous to the neck as a shirt is.


edit on 8-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Any grament worn loosley around the neck presents a choking risk and or may create offence if tampered with in a religous context. Logical ?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatInABox
Any grament worn loosley around the neck presents a choking risk and or may create offence if tampered with in a religous context. Logical ?


If that is the logic used, then it would be illogical to not ban shirts, as shirts also present a choking risk, not to mention sweat bands, long hair and ever Goal nets.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
so with your logic 2 wrongs make a right?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join