Islamic school soccer team refuses to play against a team having two girls—in Canada!

May 30, 2015 • 1:45 pm

A report in City News, an online venue from Toronto, reports an example of insufferable bigotry—the kind of bigotry that one might think would not be tolerated in Canada. Except it was.  A Muslim high school in Toronto was playing football (the soccer kind) against a Catholic High school from Caledon.  The Muslim team complained because there were two girls on the Catholic school team.

A boys soccer team from ISNA Private Islamic High School refused to finish a game on Tuesday because two females were on the opposing team during a Brampton tournament.

Robert F. Hall Catholic School, in Caledon, does not have a girls team so the two females played on the senior boys team, which was approved by the Region of Peel Secondary School Athletic Association (ROPSSAA).

During halftime, the ISNA Private Islamic High School team brought the concern to the referee. Robert F. Hall Catholic School school was winning the game 3–1 at that point.

At that point, of course, the referee should have made the Muslim-school team forfeit for refusal to play. But (as the video below suggests), the girls on the Catholic school team voluntarily withdrew from the field so their team could rack up extra points that they needed to advance. (It seems that a forfeit would not have given them as many points, though I’m not clear about that.) They should not have had to do that.

The girls on Robert F. Hall Catholic School team told CityNews they insisted on sitting out for the second half to allow the game to continue. The team went on to win 6-1 but both teams ended up advancing to the next round.

There is a chance the two teams could face each other again on Monday.

ROPSSAA said their rules are black and white.

But this is uncharted territory for the board so they are gathering their facts and will make a ruling on Friday about how to proceed.

The way to proceed, of course, is to insist that the Muslim-school team play against any and all legal comers, and kick them out of the league if they don’t. They have to abide by the rules, regardless of their religion.  Of course if you watch the video below (go to the link), the Muslim coach, Essa Abdool-Karim, insists that it’s not about gender discrimination, but “religious freedom.” What freedom, exactly, is he talking about? The freedom to discriminate against women?

The coach also said this: “Free mixing is generally something we do not do, more so out of respect than anything.” Seriously? Out of RESPECT? If they truly respected women, they’d play football against them!

Do watch the video, which also has an interview with Carla Briscoe, who’s upset to the point of tears of this kind of unexpected bigotry.

Screen Shot 2015-05-30 at 1.11.07 PM

UPDATE: I wrote this post two days ago, but there’s an update from this morning. The Muslim team has been told to obey the rules, which are province-wide rules on gender equality. In the future, the Muslims must either play against women or forfeit. But look at this masterpiece of waffling and disingenuousness when the school reacted:

In a statement issued Friday night, ISNA [the Muslim school] said its soccer team “regrets the confusion and misunderstandings that have arisen” from the incident.

The school explained that the team’s coach offered to forfeit the game “due to the religious commitment of non-contact with members of the opposite gender who are not family members.”

“The opposing team chose to substitute the female players as opposed to accepting the forfeit. In hindsight, ISNA high school regrets that the female players felt they could not participate,” the school said.

“It was never the team’s intention to exclude female participation, which was reflected in the offer to forfeit. The team sincerely regrets if any team members or participants were hurt or felt discriminated based on their gender due to the accommodation made by the opposing team.”

The school said it “fully respects” ROPSSAA’s rules and plans to consult the organization on whether any accommodations can be sought on the issue.

So they’re still fighting it, for what “accommodation” is possible? As for saying “It was never the team’s intention to exclude female participation,” that’s just a bald-faced lie.


169 thoughts on “Islamic school soccer team refuses to play against a team having two girls—in Canada!

  1. I feel revolted by these kinds of news. Almost the worst part is the insult to logic and intelligence. They don’t want to play against girls but, of course, they don’t want to discriminate. What specious contortions to language… In the end, religion imposes a pollution of the mind.

    1. The underlying truth is that Islam never wants to respect any other religions than their own, even if it is a variation of “true” Islam, as in the case when Sunnis massacre Shiites. Not to mention atheists. They are liars.

    1. Yeah, and accuse the two female football players of being neocons or Islamophobes. Or – gulp – junior members of the AEI.

      1. My boyfriend’s family has a donkey. Why, I don’t know.

        But DonkeyDude loves his noms, and his hugs.

        1. You don’t need a reason to have a donkey. You only need a barn. 😀

          Don’t you love them? (Donkeys, not barns, although barns are nice too.)

      2. From which we learn that 14th century philosophers were as hopeless as today’s. 😀

        Thanks for that bit of knowledge!

    2. By SJW, do you mean “Social Justice Warriors”?
      I seem to hear this term being used as an epithet a lot lately.

  2. Hey it’s just women so it’s okay. I really feel this is the attitude. Women should suck it up and let religious people feel comfortable.

    1. It wasn’t discrimination it was “out of respect” for the girls, he’s a true gentleman really. It would be discrimination if the boys were forced to carry on playing because then it would be against their religious freedom to discriminate. There is a time limit for how long Muslims can mix with women for, about half a game.

      1. Seems to me they only got “religious” when they were down two goals. Story I read said that was significant in the way the tournament was structured.

        More like a NOT PLAYING FAIR: GIRLS BEATING US and also it is against our [sick, stupid] religion.

        [Bracketed material my opinion, not ISNAs. Their website infliced profound sadness on my atheist soul; Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, I don’t care, might as well be Hitler Youth Camp — brain-dead tyranny.]

        1. Exactly my thought! How could they lose to a team with girls on it and still retain any respect?!

  3. If the two girls benched themselves at the request of the Muslim team, then out of fairness, the Catholic coach should have been given the option of benching two Muslim players of his choice.

    But of course the right thing would have been to forfeit the game, and treat the forfeit as equivalent to a loss.

    1. You missed an important point.

      If they forfeited, the Catholic team would not have advanced to the next round – they needed to win by more than 3-1 goals to qualify.

      That’s why the girls offered to sit out the second half – to give their team the chance of scoring extra goals so they could advance to the next round.

        1. I dunno. Were I the Robert Hall coach, my instinct would have been to force the other team to forfeit (and to tell the opposing coach to take a flying f%ck at a winged horse).

          But I think there’s a competing argument to be made that the girls on the Robert Hall team shouldn’t be denied their agency — their ability to dictate whether their team should retain the ability to proceed by obtaining more points (rather than have that decision dictated to them by their opponent’s unconscionable conduct). That argument may be idealistically overlooking the Realpolitik of the immediate pressures likely brought to bear on the girls, but I don’t think it’s spurious.

          1. Watching the interview with the female player, who did consider the overall needs of her team rather than insisting on making a point, you can’t help but compare her overall ethic with that of the Muslim coach. He does not look good.

            But, as they say, don’t condemn a whole religion just because of a few hundred million bad apples.

          2. Yes, the girls displayed their individual concern and respect for their team, an important aspect of team sport.

            How about team humanity where all players demonstrate the same respect for all other players.

      1. Then in my opinion the rules are broken, if they give a losing team the power to deny their opponents the opportunity to advance through a strategic forfeit in mid-game.

        So I’ll rephrase: if you refuse to play against a legally constituted team, then you lose and the other team automatically advances to the next round.

          1. Verily, I command you; useth not the eth with the noun; nor the adverb, nor the adjective, nor any part of speech thy neighbor might suggesteth, but only with the verb.

              1. That reminds me of many happy hours as a kid melting plastic toy soldiers into weird shapes.

  4. Well, after Villa’s lamentable performance against the Arse in the Cup Final, Carla can come and play for us: she couldn’t do worse. Blatter, the Prince of Darkness, could surely slip a few backhanders to the English F.A. to get the girls playing with the boys.

    Dermot C x

  5. “It was never the team’s intention to exclude female participation, which was reflected in the offer to forfeit. The team sincerely regrets if any team members or participants were hurt or felt discriminated based on their gender due to the accommodation made by the opposing team.”

    What a load of passive-aggressive twaddle.

    ISNA Private Islamic High School’s policy on this is a stinking cesspit of sexist vomit which ought to remove it from sports competition. Please, it is not my intention to exclude this Muslim high school, since I am simply suggesting that all the other teams withdraw from having anything to do with them. I deeply regret if any Muslims are hurt or feel discriminated against based on their barbaric religious beliefs due to the accomomdation made by the opposition of human rights and dignity.

    I mean, I hope they don’t take that the wrong way.

    1. How is it anything other than excluding female participation by offering to forfeit.

      It is exactly what excluding them from playing is.

      Exactly how could the girls ‘participate’ if they were not playing, because the other team refused to play with them by forfeiting.

      That statement is a straight out lie.

      A really unbelievable disingenuous straight out lie.

  6. “The team sincerely regrets if any team members or participants were hurt or felt discriminated based on their gender…”

    “if”! There is no if, discrimination based on gender happened. An apology with ‘if’ after the apology is not an apology, it does not show regret, it shows they have no idea why they were offensive.

    I don’t know how the Muslim team managed to get through half a game before deciding that playing with mixed team was a problem. They were down 3-1 so just sore losers and needed an excuse to punish the other team?

    There is no accommodation suitable for this problem. Either the Muslim team forfeits the tournament (which would be a shame for the boys but at least it could be their choice not to play) or they carry on discriminating (I mean exercising their respectful religious freedom).

    1. They needed an excuse for being beaten by a team with girls on it imo. I bet they would have kept going without complaint if they were winning. They’ll probably use the presence of the girls as an excuse for their loss.

    2. “An apology with ‘if’ after the apology is not an apology, it does not show regret, it shows they have no idea why they were offensive.”

      Oh, I think you’re being way too generous. It shows they can dissemble with the best of them when necessary. (And I totally agree with your first clause!)

  7. Islam is a cancer. The world needs a cure.

    Last week, a youth Palestinian soccer team stopped playing in the middle of the game, because the Israeli team tied the score. Then Palestinian players and Palestinian fans physically beat up the Israeli team, breaking bones and knocking out teeth.

  8. To too many, Freedom of Religion seems to mean the Freedom to Impose My Beliefs On Others, usually to their detriment. This whole situation is disgusting.

    I suggest these Muslim boys borrow some giant body condoms from the ultra-Orthodox Jews and play in those. They’ll probably have to sterlize them with prayer first though to make sure they don’t touch something a Jew has touched. F**kwits. (That seems to have become my favourite word this week. And while I’m at it, why do Americans leave the u out of favourite?)

    1. Your new favorite expression is to be expected. They’re in season. Kind of like pollen. Except dumber.

    2. “Freedom for me, and not for thee.” Now cover yourself and sit quietly in the corner… so I can respect and protect you from a safe distance. I agree with fuckwits, it’s a terrific word.

    3. Yes, let’s bring the Jews into this stream, too! Let’s bring them into every stream! There must be something we can deride them for, over and over, as though an extremist fringe represents them all.

      Soccer vs. air planes and driving rights, what’s the difference?

      Oh, yeah: The Islamic soccer team is made up of impressionable children being actively indoctrinated, not adult women who’ve the right to walk away from abuse or public airlines who’ve the right to say, “Take your seat and be quiet or find another way to travel.”

      1. No, it wasn’t Jews in general Heather was invoking, it was specifically the ultra-orthodox ones who specialise in exactly the sort of sexist discrimination this muslim team did. There seems to be very little difference between the two. (Question – are there any ultra-orthodox soccer teams? Just wondering what they do…)

        1. You beat me to it. Heather explicitly stipulated ultra orthodox Jews.

          About whom I’m sure all sensible religious Jews feel exactly like we atheists(including untold numbers of cultural Jews) do.

          1. I’m sure sensible Jews do.

            It would be nice to think there are sensible Muslims out there who think this team is daft, too. I hope so, anyway.

            1. Jews have good reasons for being vigilant. And it’s so easy to misread posts here, esp. if you try to speed through them like I do.


        2. First, the rules, regs, and other legalities would have been read, vetted, and turned down in advance.

          Then, if that bit about boys playing against girls had somehow (unlikely) been missed, the team would have forfeited from the start.

          I’ve heard of ultra-orthodox Jewish adolescents playing lots of basketball, rather than soccer. I suspect it’s because so many are in NYC, where land is at a premium and weather could be a problem.

          Incidently, Jews seem to cluster in big cities because there are so very few. Immigrant Jews who went to places like North Dakota gave it a good try, but their kids, in order to meet and marry someone who at least understood their cultural background, left for college, they didn’t return. Others who did return or never left usually intermarried, with the children going to the locally dominant religion.

          Just as Native Americans hope and strive to maintain their culture, so do Jews, whether religious or not, and so do most others in general. I think PCC has a term for it, something like “kin selection.”

          1. It’s quite likely the rules made no mention of mixed-gender teams, because no-one would have seen it as relevant. Also quite likely the Muslim team weren’t expecting to encounter any mixed teams.

            (I quite agree this reluctance to compete against girls was silly).

            I can understand why the tournament rules might give more points for a significant ‘win’ over a win by default. However someone tries to produce a ‘fair’ set of regulations, there will be cases where it is skewed by circumstances.

  9. I’m angry that they are accommodating them even to the extent they are. If this was a Catholic team being unwilling to play against Muslims, or a team unwilling to play women without using the religion excuse they’d be booted out of the tournament.

  10. To put the decision on Carla to “voluntarily” withdraw to allow the team to continue to play was utterly reprehensible by the Catholic school coach. What a coward. How can they say they volunteered when they were put on the spot, otherwise, they would have let down the team; so much for team solidarity. I guess winning and progressing to the next round is more important than principle.

    1. You are making assumptions about what was said. We have no transcript so we don’t know if what the coach said was utterly reprehensible. I imagine he was in a very difficult situation with very little time to properly think this through.

      1. That’s correct. I have played team sport and it is important to do things for the team.

        I suggest, without knowing that they very well did volunter to do what was good for team.

        But as I alluded to above good sportsperson stuff goes up the tree as well, so the competion must sort out the other teams unsportsperson like behaviour.

    2. Assuming Carla and the other girl were able to resume playing when they reached the next round, it might very well have been their first choice, however demeaned they felt at the time. Success is the best revenge.

      1. I think the girls did absolutely the best thing for their team, and probably for themselves. If they had not withdrawn, their team wouldn’t have scored enough points to progress to the next round. With their withdrawal, at 3-1 up already, their progress to the next round (where it seems likely the girls will get to play) was fairly assured.

        And I can’t blame the coach for putting them in that position, the situation was not of his making. It’s still unfortunate they were put in that position.

        Whether there’s something wrong with the tournament points system whereby a team withdrawal can disadvantage the opposition, it’s hard to say – no system can be foolprooof against freak cases. It can often happen in tournament play whereby a good (or bad) performance by one team can have an unintended effect on the chances of some team in a different draw entirely.

  11. This recalls the 1941 lacrosse match where the Naval Academy refused to play Harvard’s racially integrated team. The Harvard coach and players voted to forfeit the game rather than play without their black teammate, but its athletic director told the coach to send the black player home. Before the coach could refuse to do so, and before his teammates could go through with the forfeit, Harvard’s black player, Lucien Alexis Jr., voluntarily left the team.

    The incident caused a big stink (eventually leading FDR to sign an executive order prohibiting racial discrimination throughout the defense industry). The next week, Harvard had a lacrosse match at West Point. There, Lucien Alexis and his teammates received a rousing welcome, led by The Academy’s contingent of black cadets.

    Every since learning about this incident, I’ve rooted for Army against Navy in everything. And now Robert F. Hall Catholic is my favorite high-school soccer team on the North American continent. Go Wolfpack! Beat ISNA!

  12. According to this report, the girls agreed to be benched in the second half not out of respect for the Muslim team, but because they were worried about goal differential:

    “We were only two goals ahead. I didn’t want to ruin the game for the rest of the guys. We just couldn’t let them forfeit the game because we needed the extra goals to advance,” the 18-year-old said.

  13. throw ISNA Private Islamic High School out of the conference. It is the 21st century not the 11th century.

  14. I’m going to step in it here and say that they were not, in fact, trying to exclude the girls.

    Remember, we’re the ones who say we should believe Muslim terrorists when they explain their religious motivations.

    I see no reason why we shouldn’t believe these peaceful Muslims here, where they say they simply don’t want to make physical contact with females, due to religious beliefs.

    That’s not the same as not wanting females to play, even if it leads to the same end result. Motivations matter. The veracity of theirs would be evident if the same situation occurred with another sport that doesn’t allow for the possibility of physical contact. If they objected on the same grounds then, they’d be full of it.

    They should not, of course, be given accommodation of any sort. Regardless of their motives, the end result is a type of discrimination which we find unacceptable, and religious beliefs must be on the bottom rung of the ladder when they clash with the rights of others.

    But let’s not do our best to adopt the most uncharitable possible interpretation of their actions and vilify them unduly.

    1. “I see no reason why we shouldn’t believe these peaceful Muslims here, where they say they simply don’t want to make physical contact with females, due to religious beliefs.”

      I don’t think any of us think otherwise. When a racist says he doesn’t want to play soccer with black people for example his motivation isn’t to exclude black people, his motivation is he’s a racist who doesn’t want to have to touch black people. THAT, like these Muslims not wanting to touch women IS the problem.

    2. “they simply don’t want to make physical contact with females, due to religious beliefs…That’s not the same as not wanting females to play”

      Okay then…

      They don’t want the females to play because they don’t want to make physical contact with females because of their religious beliefs.

      A difference without a difference.

    3. Yeah, let’s duly vilify them for wanting to avoid physical contact with females.

      What I don’t buy is the ISNA coach’s mumbo-jumbo jive about doing this out of respect for the girls.

      1. That’s the “velvet screw” part: He offers it as though it’s respect, a complement in the form of respect that is supposedly high regard, when, in fact, it is not. High regard and respect would permit equality.

        1. Just like the proverbial putting women on a pedestal. Hey, it’s pretty isolated up there…

    4. That would have been fine if they hadn’t waited until half time to make their objections.

      1. I have been thinking on that as I scroll through thecomments.
        It does seem strange.
        Shades of honor culture perhaps, shades of isis fighters running away from kurdish women soldiers (I don’t know if that is true, but it sounds good)

          1. Maybe we could accomplish that quickly by outfitting the men on our side with hijab and a little western makeup.

        1. Exactly — it occurred to me that the Catholic team should have given the girls possession as often as possible, since the ISNA team wouldn’t have wanted to risk contact by tackling them.

  15. I’m surprised no one has aksed why the Catholic school doesn’t have a girls soccer team, or asked why there are only two girls on the existing team. Seems like the Catholic school is guilty of quiet, but no less bigoted, discrimination against women.

    The other question I have is why is soccer still segrated into girls and boys teams. Surely this is not necessary, so why condone it at all.

    I do agree that the Islamic HS team should be given no accomodation. Their choice should be play all comers or leave the league.

    1. That is a question — but back in the old days, and still in rural America and Canada, too — there are 7 and 9 person football teams, not 11, because the schools are too small to field a full team. Maybe there is not enough interest in this community to field a girls team.

      My question, when reading the league rules, was whether there was an equivalent rule allowing boys on girls teams if there wasn’t a boys’ team. Like lacrosse or synchronized swimming. And if not, why not?

    2. You’re contradicting yourself — arguing on one hand that soccer shouldn’t be segregated into boys and girls teams and, on the other, faulting Robert Hall High for not fielding both boys and girls teams. (You’re also assuming facts not in evidence. Maybe there were an insufficient number of girls going out for soccer for Robert Hall to have an all-girls team, or maybe the school didn’t have the financial wherewithal to field two teams.)

      The reason soccer (and almost every other sport) is segregated by sex is simple: human sexual dimorphism. Few girls are big enough, or strong enough, or fast enough — as the two girls currently on the Robert Hall High team are — to compete on equal footing against boys. If teams aren’t segregated by sex, very few girls will get to compete in sports. That’s why girls should have their own sports teams, including in soccer (although girls who are physically able to compete against the boys should certainly be allowed to do so).

      1. +1 The tired old argument about segregated teams just denies reality. Although, I think the men’s teams should be open to the women who are able to compete at that level.

        1. It’s not a tired old argument, it’s a valid observation.

          Should womens teams be open to men?

          1. Only if we apply the same sort of criteria that allow women to compete on men’s teams. If there are a few women who are powerful enough to compete with men on an equal footing, then men should be allowed on women’s teams if they’re not powerful enough to compete with the average male in the sport. You can see why that would be problematic for some guys.

            Too bad, though, when you think about it. Think of all the “undersized” guys who’ll otherwise never be able to make varsity…Perhaps teams should be based on strength, or biomass or some such, not sex. There’s actually a sort of precedent for this in wrestling or boxing, where contestants vie according to weight class.

            And of course there are those whose skills outstrip their physical characteristics…they should probably be able to play on whichever team they choose.

            1. Re precedent: majors vs minor league, varsity vs junior varsity, etc. Most anything that involves teams seems to incorporate this idea already. I imagine it wouldn’t be all that difficult to sell people more generally on the idea.

            2. It would difficult to determine characteristics suitable to qualify, going backwards.

              If guy’s couldn’t make the big boys team and therefore became eligible for the girls team they may still a disparity that would be hard to adjust for.

              But, does it really matter until one gets to the top levels.

              Playing sport is good fun if you like it and everyone should be able to play. Trying to work out fair grading’s in competitions is always happening so gender neutral grading’s for most sports shouldn’t be too hard.

              Hopefully this doesn’t sound too contradictory.

      2. But why single out gender specifically if the argument is about competitive skill? There are enthusiastic no-hopers at varying skill levels who won’t get to compete in sports because of their natural disadvantages. Surely, the least arbitrary form of discrimination would be to have tiered unisex teams divided according to skill level, rather than two teams divided according to what sex you are.

      3. Whilst at high school my son played hockey in the only mixed team in the league. At least five girls had to be on the turf at any time for it to be a mixed team.

        The complaints came because of the size of some of the girls – fit, healthy, 80-90 kg Polynesian girls were up against 40-50 kg European boys.

        The boys didn’t like it.

        The coaches liked it even less when the mixed team repeatedly won the league!

  16. If the two teams do meet again… I can see a wonderful scenario: the two girls advance the ball, untouched, unmolested, and score goal after goal after goal. When the score reaches 30-0, they can retire to the bench … out of respect.

    1. Interesting term!

      Thankfully the number of female physicians seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. (As does the number of male nurses. Who already make significantly more than the females.)

      1. No leaps and bounds, I’m afraid. The gender gap in the world of medicine, particularly in the male dominant fields, is still awful — with the one exception of ob/gyn, which women started taking over in the 1980s.

        And, there are still loopholes used to oust women after they’ve graduated, whether from medical school, from internship, or from residency. There is at least one group of women surgeons who communicate through a website to discuss these issues and how to get around them.

        1. I should have known I was being too optimistic. Probably still remembering all the local female pediatricians from when my children were little.

          Recently I’ve run into several female European physicians. My primary care doc is a woman from the Czech Republic.

        2. May I know that website?
          I don’t buy the gender pay gap argument in general.
          Not that there is might not ne a gap, as there is between my salary and others.

          If you can show a pay gap after ‘all’ factors are accounted for, hours worked, sick leave, qualification, experience, shifts worked, weekends worked, union membership, then you should bring it to the authorities, because it is illegal and back pay may be due.

          In my work we all get exactly the same basic rate (for whatever qualification group we are in) but, due to flexibility and choices etc we all don’t get the same overall pay.

          Both my parents were registered nurses and I trained for 18 months as one.
          Then I became a dock worker, which was male only, and when mechanisation took over, women came in and we all get the same.

            1. That difference is fairly easy to explain. Only about 6% of nurses are men, but 49%. for example, of Nurse Anesthetists are men. Most specialty nursing fields are disproportionately male, and those fields are paid significantly more. It’s not as it might appear from reading that article that you have male, and female nurses doing to same jobs for different pay.

            2. Another factor may be that patients often prefer same gender nurses, particularly when intimate care is involved. I would imagine that would result in male nurses being more actively recruited, and paid higher, to satisfy that preference.
              My wife is a nurse in a nursing home, and they are constantly struggling to get new patients in to fill beds. Perhaps having male nurses on staff brings more customers.

              1. “patients often prefer same gender nurses, particularly when intimate care is involved.”

                Do they really? I must be odd then, because I find that, when I’ve got myself into a suitably detached mood, I can’t say it makes any difference to me. If anything, I’d expect female nurses to be more sympathetic.

              2. “Do they really? I must be odd then, because I find that, when I’ve got myself into a suitably detached mood, I can’t say it makes any difference to me.”

                I agree, and have no particular preference, but my wife. who as I mentioned is a nurse, has said the same, and what studies I could find online before adding that comment supported that.

              3. I don’t think most guys would prefer a male nurse, if they cared at all.

            3. Yes I had read that article, and others. One of the first thing they do is adjust for some factors and the gap halved. There are other factors to consider too. I noted some of them.

              So, the headline is dishonest, it is pandering to a narrative that is not true, and they prove in the next paragraph.

              If there is still a gender pay gap after a reasonable assessment it needs to be looked at and, as I said, is illegal, but look at ‘all’ factors.

              It is the dishonesty of the rhetoric I am getting at, and it is not the only dishonest rhetoric going around

  17. “What freedom, exactly, is he talking about? The freedom to discriminate against women?”

    Yes, Jerry; that’s EXACTLY the kind of “freedom” he’s talking about- the problem is that the Islamic version of “freedom” is, “I’m free to do whatever I want, but you’re NOT.”

  18. This is, first and foremost, a travesty against the girls on the Robert Hall High team. But it is also a pity for the Muslim boys on the ISNA team, being denied the frisson of competing with and against healthy athletic women on the field of play, tending to doom them to adult life with a crabbed view of both human sexuality and gender relations.

  19. As a girl I was taught to defer. Defer to my elders, defer to my father, defer to the boys. I was taught to do this to “keep the peace”, to “be polite”, to not be agressive. I think many girls are still encouraged to defer their own wishes in favor of the males. As a woman who was young when feminists were fighting for equality, this makes me very sad.

    Imagine this: if the team had been made of of equal parts men and women, and the muslim school had only women, you can bet your boots the men on the team would not have settled peacefully on the bench. They would have cried foul and the muslim school would have been force to forfeit.

    1. +1 my thoughts exactly. Don’t make a fuss and don’t make people feel bad. I still hate it when I feel bad for making someone feel bad who should friggin’ feel bad!

      1. Being deferential is a hard habit to break. There’s a lot of positive reward for it, and very little approval of bucking the system.

    2. I was brought up the same way Jean, and with three brothers, by a mother who had two brothers. Keep the peace…

    3. “Imagine this: if the team had been made of of equal parts men and women, and the muslim school had only women, you can bet your boots the men on the team would not have settled peacefully on the bench. They would have cried foul and the muslim school would have been force to forfeit.”

      I can’t make sense of this. The men on which team would have cried foul? The all-women Muslim team?

      1. I’m afraid I had the same problem. I’m sure Jean can let us know what we’re missing here.

      2. It is my thinking that Ms Hess is applying to this Canadian crud what I call the Flip / Reverse: flip / reverse the genders in the Canadian case on both teams.

        Then since the genders must be, per Islamomuckin’ Power and Control by Males Only, the all – female muslim school’s team would have to forfeit because the males on the catholic school’s team were going to go off of the pitch .NOT. at all, much less off of the pitch in order to be .deferred. onto its team’s bench. For that particular game’s second half.

        O no, from the git – go of the catholic team coach’s (hypothetical) directive to do so? They, its males, were going to defer of their own personae not one damn inch .off. of that game’s pitch.

        But — since religion, thus genders’ separation yet the males of the catholic team aren’t going anywhere .separated. — must be ‘honored’, then: the all – female muslim school’s team must forfeit.

        Not, Ms Hess ?

        For egalitarianism’s take, one can apply the Flip / Reverse to nearly any scenario, at least those involving humans. Over all the World over all of Time.


    4. Jean, that’s how I remember it, too. Unfortunately, as much as I tried to break the chain with my daughter, she acquired the deferential attitude from all the other encounters in her life.

  20. @ #9 NewEnglandBob said:
    “Islam is a cancer. The world needs a cure.”

    And there are people who still insist that there’s no such thing as Islamophobia. Amazing.

    1. Unless you call NewEnglandBob’s sentiments a “fear of Islam,” no, it’s not Islamophobia. It is instead a profound dislike for the religion itself. (Which I share, along with similar feelings towards Mormons, Scientologists, etc.)

      How can you defend the doctrine?

      1. Not just fear, though it sounds like he fears it, comparing it to cancer. – “hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture”

        Wikipedia – “Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.”

        Why would you think I defend the doctrine?

        1. I’m sorry to learn the dictionary has added Muslims to the definition, but do have to admit that that’s certainly common usage. Here we make a distinction between Islam and Muslims, and agree that the doctrine is as useful as cancer. (And also with winewithcats suggestion about Jerry’s meaning.)

          None of us would support Muslimophobia.

  21. If consenting adults wish to believe in illogical things, perform weird rituals and abide by a set of strange rules that is fine by me: that’s religious freedom. If they wish to impose their rules on anyone else that is an entirely different matter. If this team wishes to participate in a football tournament they should do so in accordance with the same rules as everyone else and it is appalling that they succeeded in imposing their demands on another team that was playing fairly by the rules.

  22. Ok so daft of me to apply some logic but I’ll try…

    On many occasions Islamic men have been given the OK to skip Ramadan so they play football during tournaments.

    Surely these precious little lads can be given the same kind of dispensation for playing against females!

    But it will not happen, throughout history people have used religion for many ideals we see today as a bit mad

  23. It is not about respect, it is about fear and bias.
    It is not respectful by making a person feel less worthy.
    As Carla said, she didn’t feel as though she had made the progress she had thought she had.
    And she raised another valid point in worrying about other girls not trying some thing they might like because of discrimination.
    It can’t be much fun knowing that some groups won’t want to play with you.

  24. I’m amazed that the muslim team’s sense of honour didn’t extend to voluntarily playing two players down, to match the concession the other team had made.

      1. Don’t know if the Catholics had a couple of reserves, but anyway, at 6-1, they obviously outclassed the Muslims by a mile.

  25. “due to the religious commitment of non-contact with members of the opposite gender (sic)who are not family members.”

    I was taught at school that football, unlike rugby, was not a contact sport, so there should have been no problem. Of course, in practice ‘Rugby is a beastly game played by gentlemen; soccer is a gentleman’s game played by beasts’ (excuse sexism in modern context).

    1. Nice quotable phrase.

      But ‘non-contact’ is nonsense. Golf is a non-contact sport. Croquet is a non-contact sport. Tennis, mostly. But not soccer.

  26. How about any Muslim players who don’t want to play have to get off the field, and if that results in the other team having an empty field to score goals against for the rest of the game, well, that’s what happens?

  27. Simple solution: Next season, every team in that league (except the muslims) should have at least one female player. Then the muslim team will be 0-16 (or whatever). Even the teams they traditionally beat will win by forfeit. If this happened, the muslims could then only play teams of other muslims or orthodox Jews.

    1. I heartily agreed — except for the part that the kids are essentially chattel whom adults are manipulating, in this isolationist and gender-biased direction, in the name of religion. It’s a very logical start, anyway.

      Question: Does anyone think such religious extremism would exist if religion were abolished — at least as a literally legal “get out of jail free” card? Did any such behavior occur in major communist countries during their anti-religious generations?

    1. The article states: “The U.N. along with the U.S. and its allies must be doing more…”

      This pretty much implies a new military intervention. I don’t think that’s going to happen. It appears that the only way this can resolve itself is to wait for it to burn itself out. Unfortunately, that means a lot of people are going to suffer for a very long time.

        1. Yes. Think of the 30 years war. People hacking each other with swards and pickets for 30 years. You’d think they would run out of targets. We might hope that enough people get fed up that they just go back to making a living. Or maybe another Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti will emerge as a savior.
          And then there’s the internet.

    2. Horrible beyond words! Far and away beyond anything any other religion seems to have been credited with doing to women anywhere, anytime — at least, that I’m aware of.

      Were it not for the civilians, one could certainly make the argument for dropping a bomb on ISIS that would wipe out the entire “caliphate.”

      1. I’d agree with you about ISIS, if one just could kill them all – and today rather than tomorrow – it’d be a damn good thing. (And I wouldn’t say that of any other group I can think of. ISIS seem to deliberately make themselves as disgusting as they possibly can).

        But that sort of thing is regrettably not new and they may not even be the worst. I was just reading a historical brochure about the Albigensian Crusade – one sentence chilled me – “D’avance, le pape promet a cette armee des indulgences plenieres pour tous les crimes qu’elle va commetre” (‘In advance, the Pope promised this army plenary indulgence [whatever the hell that is] for all the crimes it was going to commit’, I think). Could there ever be a better invitation to war crimes? The army promptly massacred the entire population of Beziers, 30,000 people.
        So much for religion being moral.

        For some reason ISIS remind me most of mediaeval savages like that.

      2. Yup, it’s vile, doc, but it obviously brings to mind Joshua crossing the Jordan and all the subsequent massacres of the Canaanites etc. You know the ones which make William Lane Craig weep for the butchers and for which there is no historical evidence.

        This ‘women as war booty and the object of horrific sex and slavery atrocities’ is a main theme of Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’. He deals with it by holding an urbane metaphorical Georgian nose at the centuries-long stench of Christian female enslavement.

        The monotheisms have an ancient and proud tradition of femicide. The difference is that it’s almost impossible to imagine such obscenities nowadays under the banner of Judaism or mainstream Christianity.

        Allele akhbar x

        1. I am currently arguing with some twits at Secluar Pro Life Perspectives over whether or not abortion = genocide.

          I am explaining to them that rape and forced pregnancy are integral to genocide, as a means to wipe out the genetics of the conquered people (kill all the men, take the virgins as wives – Amalekites) and to raise the babies born in the culture of the conquerors.

    3. I hope, when this thing is won, and it will be, we make significant efforts to find and try these people for war crimes.

  28. Were I the ref, my ruling would have been simple: “If any on the Muslim team are uncomfortable playing against girls, those players are welcome to sit out the match. The game will still be played, however, with whomever (if anyone) is left on your team. If all of you sit out, the Catholic team can shoot goals unopposed for the entire time period of the match.”

Leave a Reply