Idiots from FIFA FA ban hijab


by Sunny
6th March, 2007 at 1:29 am    

I cannot imagine what was going through the thick brains of the Football Association FIFA management when they decided to ban women footballers from wearing the hijab. As the old saying goes: when God was handing out brains, did they miss out?

It is not only discriminatory, with no useful consequence whatsoever than make it more difficult for Muslim women to join the sport, but I bet it will be reversed soon enough when they come to their senses. Why? Because I bet the Indians (once they wake up from their slumber over the impact of this decision) will soon enough point out that it also discriminates against Sikh men from wearing the turban on the pitch. As Osama Saeed points out, the key passage states:

A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).

How the hell is a hijab dangerous to others? This is typical of orientalist thinking – that world football should only be preserved for those following western cultural norms. If the woman (or the man) is in normal uniform, wearing the hijab or turban should have little impact on play. Dimwits.
[Update: Apologies, I blamed the FA instead of FIFA]


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Culture,Sex equality,Sports






73 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Matt — on 6th March, 2007 at 1:51 am  

    Suggest you chevk this, Sunny.

    FIFA, not FA – according to your link and Osama Saeed.

    FA imply they do not have a policy.

    Matt.

  2. Dan — on 6th March, 2007 at 2:26 am  

    Yeah, you might want to check that Sunny. I read the story the same as Matt:

    No similar incident has occurred in England and the FA’s view is understood to be to let the referee decide whether to permit it or not.

    If the same does happen here, say goodbye to Efe Sodje’s bandana. Seen him play in this outfit for Southend on several occasions. As far as I could tell, at no point was anybody on (or off) the pitch in any danger.

    Of course, it’s not a hijab. Something his mum told him to wear apparently.

  3. Sunny — on 6th March, 2007 at 2:37 am  

    Whoops! My mistake, have corrected it now. Thanks for pointing that out.

  4. Sahil — on 6th March, 2007 at 8:59 am  

    Okay here’s the FIFA rulebook, page 11 on the PDF is the set of law containing the rules for player’s equipment:

    http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf

    And here are the amendments that have been made:

    http://www.fifa.com/en/history/history/0,1283,2,00.html

    I can’t find anything relating to headgear. Which is strange because I’m sure there’d be something about no Political messages on Bandanas etc. So I don’t really know which rule they are implementing here, could be this one stating the correct and exhausted equipment. But the rules say that they are the basic attire, and I’m pretty sure that a few players wera head gear e.g. Ronaldinho:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/sports/soccer/27soccer.html?ex=1259298000&en=f583eda461e3db70&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

    An interesting side note is that Blatter and co are quite frenchophile, Blatter refused to hand the world cup to Italy in 2006, because he believed that the French deserved to win. Wonder if French education laws are being implemented in football.

    A bigger sidenote, how many muslim women football teams exist and play in live international tournaments? BTW this is quite interesting:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4511680.stm

  5. Bert Preast — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:22 am  

    Is it fair allowing sikhs to play in turbans? It gives extra height, and I’m pretty sure protective head gear ain’t allowed and that’s what it amounts to. Not a problem as long as sikhs are rubbish but if they ever get any good at it, the opposition will complain and they’ll have a point, and the sikh will have to lose the turban or jack in the footy.

    Isn’t there a turban of some sort that the hair can be left out of?

  6. Don — on 6th March, 2007 at 11:14 am  

    Well, FIFA approve protective headgear, in some US states it is compulsory in junior matches.

    And does this constitute headgear?

    http://www.gonna.co.uk/pics/becks8.jpg

  7. Jagdeep — on 6th March, 2007 at 12:58 pm  

    A Sikh wouldnt wear a turban on the pitch he would wear a patka like Monty Panesar or tie his hair back. Way to go — preventing a girl in Canada from playing the beautiful game! Football is saved!

    In the meantime, some West Ham fans were chanting ‘I’d rather be a Paki than a Jew’ at half time against Tottenham.

    Any Hammers fans here?

  8. Kulvinder — on 6th March, 2007 at 1:23 pm  

    Is it fair allowing sikhs to play in turbans?

    They wouldn’t play in a turban, they’d probably wear a patka, which basically covers the head but allows the hair to be scrunched up into a ball so its out of the way – just as panesar or harbhajan singh.

  9. Kulvinder — on 6th March, 2007 at 1:26 pm  

    meh, beaten. (thats what happens when you leave browsing windows open a long time)

  10. Jagdeep — on 6th March, 2007 at 1:31 pm  

    Always second best to me Kulvinder, always second best.

  11. Jagdeep — on 6th March, 2007 at 1:34 pm  
  12. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 1:59 pm  

    seems unnecessary all the same, even if the turban analogy was wide of the mark

  13. Random Guy — on 6th March, 2007 at 2:48 pm  

    There is a potential human rights issue here. If FIFA cannot provide a justification, they are liable to be prosecuted (AFAIK). What boggles the mind is how they can even be allowed to make such a decision, especially in light of articles like this:-

    [link]http://fifa.com/en/development/index/0,1219,117726,00.html?articleid=11[/link]

    Moreover, an idiotic move like this will drive all muslim women who wear a hijab away from football. Way to go for integration eh?

  14. Random Guy — on 6th March, 2007 at 2:51 pm  

    Fixed link (I hope)

    [url]http://fifa.com/en/development/index/0,1219,117726,00.html?articleid=11[/url]

  15. Fe'reeha — on 6th March, 2007 at 3:14 pm  

    Muslim women have already been segregated and discouraged to join the mainstram from their community. Out of the fear of losing their daughters to Western culture, the parents keep them in their own protected worlds and do not give them freedom to move about. Now, organisations like FIFA have joined hands with the extremist maulvis to keep women separated from the mainstream world. It is their way of saying an EXTREME NO to Muslim participation. My heart bleeds!

  16. Sunny — on 6th March, 2007 at 3:47 pm  

    Random, you can use basic HTML like imbedding a link instead of using BBscript.

  17. lithcol — on 6th March, 2007 at 4:21 pm  

    “This is typical of orientalist thinking – that world football should only be preserved for those following western cultural norms. If the woman (or the man) is in normal uniform, wearing the hijab or turban should have little impact on play. Dimwits.”
    What western cultural norms? What about all those south americans, Chinese and others, and many muslim communities that do not wear it. Can’t wait for the first ninja team to make their appearance.
    All I can say is that any body covering their head playing football will get incredibly hot, and as a result probably lose. Who cares anyway, a typical none issue.
    Do they share a bath after the match? That is the important question. Really need to for team bonding.

  18. ZinZin — on 6th March, 2007 at 6:18 pm  

    Do they share a bath after the match?

    Lithcol a communal bath is not a good idea. Young men sharing a bath, farting contest ensues someone follows through and then everyone rushes out. I suppose women can use a communal bath as ladies don’t fart never mind shit.

    Can somebody explain the meaning of the term orientalist?

  19. lithcol — on 6th March, 2007 at 6:38 pm  

    ZinZIn,
    Orientalism has come to be a term of abuse for those western scholars who dare to study and write on matters concerning the middle and far east. The late scholar Edward Said was instrumental in promulgating this view. Typical of postmornernist thought. Crap!
    Hey, women do fart. They are just more discreet. Personally, a really loud fart is music to my ears.

  20. Sahil — on 6th March, 2007 at 6:53 pm  

    “Typical of postmornernist thought. Crap!”

    So I guess that middle-eastern scholar daring to question western preconceptions about the middle east just talks crap right?

    ZinZin, I have a link to Forbes (yes I know, not very academic) that discusses many of the conclusions of Orientalism that especially now have some great resonance.

  21. Sahil — on 6th March, 2007 at 6:55 pm  
  22. lithcol — on 6th March, 2007 at 7:12 pm  

    Sahil,
    A scholar is a scholar wherever they come from. They stand and fall on the quality of their scholarship, which is of course open to question by all. Yes, postmodernist thinking is crap. It was invented in the west and is thankfully dying in the west. Why, because it just doesn’t stand up to rational thought.

  23. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 7:45 pm  

    Yeah, they specialise in silent but deadly
    death by egg mayonnaise

  24. Jagdeep — on 6th March, 2007 at 9:52 pm  

    Guess what? Ronaldinho and one other Barcelona player were both wearing bandanas in the Champions League match tonight.

  25. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:01 pm  

    Ooops, out this on wrong thread

    El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 8:07 pm
    Is Barcelona’s Rafael Marquez a sikh?
    I think we should be told

  26. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:04 pm  

    You must be happy Jay, I mean Jag

  27. Jagdeep — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:12 pm  

    I support Wolves El Cid. My brother-in-law’s got an executive box at Molineux.

  28. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:18 pm  

    done me like lemon :)

  29. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:21 pm  

    a lemon (whatever that means)

  30. daily — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:32 pm  

    this thread is about sunny trying to please the Muslims now after his continuous persecution?

    Its still not working.

  31. Sid — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:37 pm  

    suck me daily.

  32. El Cid — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:40 pm  

    “the” Muslims
    is that some Indie or Grime outfit?

  33. lithcol — on 6th March, 2007 at 10:59 pm  

    No El Cid, they are a really Heavy, Heavy Metal Band. Don’t invite them into your living room. They will trash it just for the hell of it.
    Personally I prefer the Mormons. These guys are seriously heavy with a more contempory sound.

  34. ZinZin — on 6th March, 2007 at 11:28 pm  

    Rock and roll is the devils music so less of this frivolity.

  35. lithcol — on 6th March, 2007 at 11:35 pm  

    Now there is a great name for a heavy metal group.

  36. Kismet Hardy — on 7th March, 2007 at 12:32 am  

    What? What? I don’t understand. Sleep deprived and weird in the head but what? Football players want to wear niqabs? What? What does that mean? Why for god’s sake?

  37. Kismet Hardy — on 7th March, 2007 at 12:34 am  

    Oh hijab. Not niqab. I get it. It makes more sense now.

    See if you think about it, it makes sense.

    But if you don’t think about it, it doesn’t.

    One of those lessons in life things.

  38. Kismet Hardy — on 7th March, 2007 at 12:35 am  

    I always wanted to start a heavy metal band called Animal Husbandry. Or an autobiography

  39. mirax — on 7th March, 2007 at 6:07 am  

    http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070227_100426_7612

    The above link highlights the Quebec incident that led to the IFA decision. The discussion that follows the article is very intelligent, light ages ahead of Sunny’s sputterings such as ” This is typical of orientalist thinking – that world football should only be preserved for those following western cultural norms”

    Headgear in itself is not banned by IFA but there do seem to be longstanding safety considerations that have prohibited the wearing of neck jewellery and headgear that wraps around the neck. Hijabs cover the ears and neck. Sikh sportsmen compromise by wearing the patkar, I have seen muslim sportswomen in tight beanie/cap compromises in my neck of the woods. There are yet sports where even this compromise to ‘modesty’ and ‘faith’ will not work but that is all about western cultural imperialism and arrogance innit? Or nefarious intentions to ghettoise a religious minority…

    Point of interest 1: it was a muslim referee that sent the kid home and started this latest brouhaha.

    Point of interest 2: There are other provincial FAs that do ignore IFA’s rulings in the interest of inclusion and accomodation like Ontario. That option seems open to state FAs and it appears premature to go into hysterics about the IFA ‘idiots’ hijab ban.

    Personally, while I feel very sorry for the child that was sent off the field, it is her/her family’s decision to wear the hijab that actually circumscribes her life – and not just on the sporting field either. But let us forget all about that – religious obduracy rules!

  40. mirax — on 7th March, 2007 at 6:13 am  

    Curious to know if Sikh men carry the kirpan onto the playing field…

  41. Sunny — on 7th March, 2007 at 6:24 am  

    There are yet sports where even this compromise to ‘modesty’ and ‘faith’ will not work but that is all about western cultural imperialism and arrogance innit? Or nefarious intentions to ghettoise a religious minority…

    What are you blabbering about Mirax? there’s no safety consideration, even most of the media and respondents underneath the article think the referee and FIFA are being absurd and frankly I don’t care if the referee was Muslim. Anything intelligent to add?

    And by the way, the patka isn’t a compromise, it is what kids wear before they wear a full turban. And kirpans only need to be carried by baptised Sikhs. There are plenty of Sikh footballers in the UK who wear more than a small patka on their heads.

    Yes the decision to uphold the ban was orientalist IMO.

    it is her/her family’s decision to wear the hijab that actually circumscribes her life

    So what? Does that mean she should be banned from playing football? Sheesh. To think you used to make intelligent comments once.

  42. Katy — on 7th March, 2007 at 7:59 am  

    Er, excuse me, but when I was at school we weren’t allowed to wear anything that went round the neck because it was deemed a safety risk. If someone’s hand became trapped in a necklace or scarf during a team game, the person wearing the necklace or the scarf might be choked. That’s why I was forced to remove my Star of David before any team sport. If only I’d thought to sue them, eh?

  43. Katy — on 7th March, 2007 at 8:00 am  

    I always knew that Barnet LEA was orientalist. Oh the bastards.

  44. Katy — on 7th March, 2007 at 8:03 am  

    Sunny, is what Kulvinder and Jagdeep said above, that Sikh sportsmen often choose to wear a patka instead of a full turban, not right?

  45. Katy — on 7th March, 2007 at 9:13 am  

    Actually that was unfair of me, she isn’t suing anyone.

    There are sports hijabs that can be worn, apparently:

    http://www.thehijabshop.com/capsters/index.php (still covers neck)

    http://www.modestclothes.com/islamic/clothing/hijab-islamic-headscarves.html#capsters (possibly what Mirax was referring to when she said that some Muslim girls wear caps for sport).

  46. Sahil — on 7th March, 2007 at 9:49 am  

    I agree with what you’re saying Katy, especially about the possible neck strangulation, but this seems to me a spat between two trenchant positions (referee and 12 year old teenager) and I don’t have a clue why FIFA got involved in this. I’m still clueless as to whether this was a competitive game under FIFA coverage or just some amateur game. I also find it amazing that the girl’s parents let her play footy, but would have issues about wearing the hijab or not. Completely bizzare event that’s been blown out of proportion by inept FIFA handling.

  47. soru — on 7th March, 2007 at 10:55 am  

    ‘Yes the decision to uphold the ban was orientalist IMO.’

    I don’t know of any definition or common usage of the word orientalist that can be stretched to cover what you are talking about there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

    ‘the study of Near and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages and peoples by Western scholars’

    ‘a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident”

    The orientalist view would be more ‘look at the picturesque ancient costomes of those native girls running round being all authentically vibrant and sensual. I think I need a lie down’.

  48. sonia — on 7th March, 2007 at 10:56 am  

    i think sahil makes a good point in raising the fact that the parents are willing to let her play footy but would have issues about the hijab.**

    again it might actually be a case of the girl in the middle with two sets of opposing authority points. parents are like : “you can only play footie if you wear your scarf outside!” Football officials: “you can only play footie if you take that scarf off!”

    stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea?

    ** it reminds me of the Pakistani maulanas writing about ‘purdah’ in the 1920′s – as not just a covering up – but seclusion. Remember according to purdah principles a lot of mosques in bangladesh and pakistan don’t even let women in the mosque. their opinion is that a woman/female’s place is in the home, inside, hidden away from even the male servants.

  49. Amrit — on 7th March, 2007 at 11:33 am  

    Wow… sports hijabs.

    I feel almost that no comment is necessary. I couldn’t help thinking of those thingies… what WERE they called?! – that they have coming out of submarines in cartoons (‘seeing-eye,’ or something?), the way those sports hijabs hugged their heads.

  50. sonia — on 7th March, 2007 at 11:40 am  

    ive just thought that katy’s pointed something out – which i hadn’t considered before. given what i saw happening on the pitch last summer on tv all these people grabbing other people’s t-shirts what have you, if you had a scarf on someone might pull hard on it while you’re running. it could be a bit dangerous.

    now people can disagree on whether they think that’s the reason, or it’s because of this perceived ‘orientalism’. i remember when i was growing up in kuwait, the chemistry dept. at Kuwait University asked female students to comply with safety regulations. which involved a range of things from ensuring they didn’t have long hair left open or hanging about. that it would have to be tied up etc out of the way, discouraging long flowy hijabs ( they recommended the egyptian way of tying a kercheif over your hair which is a bit more turban like so less material flowing down) and the wearing of labcoats. This did create quite a to-do as some of the girls wearing niqabs protested and said it was unfair and not allowing them to be ‘modest’, and they didn’t like the labcoats, and it was all because the university wanted them to be unnecessarily ‘modern’. the hardliners of course supported them in this accusation of ‘enforced modernity’ and so ended up into a fight that was cast in the bipolar ‘tradition/modernity’ terms. As these things often disintegrate into.

    I daresay that these people in Kuwait University weren’t as easy to describe as ‘Orientalists’ but the us/them accusation was there,given that compared to hardliners who are effectively what we called in Kuwait ‘pro-Saudi types’ you can imagine a bunch of secular academics looked quite ‘modern’ in juxtaposition! {especially when a lot of them were women who generally campaigned for voting rights etc. so quite often fell foul of the hardliners)

    though they found it easier to dismiss them to some degree – ‘we’re all muslims here’. In the end it went something along the lines of ‘look don’t be silly, we’re not interested in you as sexual creatures, if you want to come to university and use your brain and study, please do so and stop being so fussy, we’re concerned about your safety not trying to strip you’. And that was that. hoo ha died down, some people were still resentful, and no doubt heard lots of snidey ‘well would you prefer if it were more like the university in saudi arabia, you can sit behind a thick polythene sheet and no one will see you’ type comments.

    anyway, i guess what im highlighting is that there institutional tensions in a lot of different cases: institutions don’t like bending rules or in general treating individuals in individualistic ways. leaving the question of ‘culture’ out, the parents of the girl could be expected to be a bit more accommodating because she is their daughter, not some random ‘football player’ who’ll move on after a while. the institution could be expected to be accomodating as well, but are under no “obligation” to do so. clearly a lot of ‘moral pressure’ is being brought to bear upon them now..

  51. Kulvinder — on 7th March, 2007 at 1:02 pm  

    It isn’t as important an issue as say education, and since its FIFA’s game (so to speak) they can make the rules as they wish. I’m unclear why exactly it was banned, it could have been a legitimate H&S issue, but to be frank theres ways around that – the sports hijabs Katy pointed to or ones designed on similar principles to clip on ties.

    As with the other hijab threads i think out right bans are a counter productive way to encourage participation and cohesion; I hold that view regardless of someones religious ideology or political philosophy.

  52. Sahil — on 7th March, 2007 at 1:28 pm  

    Oh just for a laugh, enough yesterday’s mayhem :D

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JBbUaSlmLk

  53. Kulvinder — on 7th March, 2007 at 1:47 pm  

    Although im not one to normally call for action from the police, my sympathies with multimillionaire footballers is so low that in these types of cases i do. If anyone in the street, let alone fans in the stands behaved like that they’d be arrested by the police and probably prosecuted. Brawling on the football pitch is strangely tolerated.

  54. Sahil — on 7th March, 2007 at 1:56 pm  

    Well Inter can’t stand to lose, AC Milan always whip their ass (BTW I’m an AC fan ;) ). I remember a few years ago where there was serious crowd trouble:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWMWA5j45Os

    My mate told me that someone actually got a Vespa into the stadium and threw it down the galleries on AC supporters. Its nuts!!

  55. ZinZin — on 7th March, 2007 at 4:15 pm  

    Sahil
    Which part of Milan are you from again?

    Also we are missing the main point here; womens football is rubbish.

  56. Sahil — on 7th March, 2007 at 4:30 pm  

    ZinZin I’m not from Milan. i remember when I was fresh off the boast from India @ age 7 in Holland, and I watched the DREAM TEAM of Maldini, Tassoti, Baresi, Costurta, Rickard, Gullit, Van Basten etc, play Napoli with Maradona, and everone already had a team, so I decided from then on that Milan was mine.

  57. ZinZin — on 7th March, 2007 at 4:45 pm  

    Fresh off the boast?
    It was an excellent team but it was funded by that crook Berlusconi.

  58. Jagdeep — on 7th March, 2007 at 10:18 pm  

    Cheer yourself up with this funny thing:

    Benny Hill Remix of Valencia-Inter brawl

  59. Jagdeep — on 7th March, 2007 at 10:24 pm  

    Bayern Munich versus Real Madrid was the tie of the round — Bayern go through on away goals on an aggregate 4-4 score was watching it online brilliant match went right to the wire.

    Three English teams in the final eight. Who does everyone reckon is going to win the final? These are the teams through:

    ====

    AC Milan – Valencia – PSV Eindhoven – Manchester United

    Liverpool – Chelsea – Roma – Bayern Munich

    ====

    Tough one to call.

  60. Sahil — on 7th March, 2007 at 10:29 pm  

    MILAN!!!! if one of our strikers can actually score for once. And another Berlusconi classic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2TRnDBI2o4

  61. Jagdeep — on 7th March, 2007 at 10:50 pm  

    I hope an English team wins — but I think Bayern Munich will be pumped up for this trophy big time after that match.

  62. mirax — on 8th March, 2007 at 5:45 am  

    “This is typical of orientalist thinking – that world football should only be preserved for those following western cultural norms”

    Still obsessing with your ‘orientalist’ trope, Sunny?

    The hacks at the al-watan newspaper in S Arabia seem to have a more nuanced (to use of your favourite words) understanding of the sublimely ridiculous than you. Enjoy:

    A Fatwa on Football

    In the name of God the merciful and benevolent:
    1. International terminology that heretics use, such as “foul,” “penalty”, “corner,” “goal”, “out” and others, should be abandoned and not said. Whoever says them should be punished and ejected from the game.

    2. Do not call “foul” and stop the game if someone falls and sprains a hand or foot or the ball touches his hand, and do not give a yellow or red card to whoever was responsible for the injury or tackle. Instead, it should be adjudicated according to Sharia rulings concerning broken bones and injuries.

    3. Do not follow the heretics, the Jews, the Christians and especially evil America regarding the number of players. Do not play with 11 people. Add to this number or decrease it.

    4. Play in your regular clothes or your pyjamas or something like that, but not coloured shorts and numbered T-shirts, because shorts and T-shirts are not Muslim clothing. Rather, they are heretical and western clothing, so beware of imitating their fashion.

    5. If you have fulfilled these conditions and intend to play soccer, play to strengthen the body in order better to struggle in the way of God on high and to prepare the body for when it is called to jihad. Soccer is not for passing time or the thrill of so-called victory.

    6. Do not play in two halves. Rather, play in one half or three halves in order to completely differentiate yourselves from the heretics, the corrupted and the disobedient.

    7. If neither of you beats the other, or “wins”, as it is called, and neither puts the leather between the posts, do not add extra time or penalties. Instead leave the field, because winning with extra time and penalty kicks is the pinnacle of imitating heretics and international rules.

    8. Young crowds should not gather to watch when you play because if you are there for the sake of sports and strengthening your bodies as you claimed, why would people watch you? You should make them join your physical fitness and jihad preparation, or you should say: “Go proselytise and seek out morally reprehensible acts in the markets and the press and leave us to our physical fitness.”

    9. You should spit in the face of whoever puts the ball between the posts or uprights and then runs in order to get his friends to follow him and hug him like players in America or France do, and you should punish him, for what is the relationship between celebrating, hugging and kissing and the sports that you are practising?

    10. You should use two posts instead of three pieces of wood or steel that you erect in order to put the ball between them, meaning that you should remove the crossbar in order not to imitate the heretics and in order to be entirely distinct from the soccer system’s despotic international rules.

    11. Do not do what is called “substitution,” that is, taking the place of someone who has fallen, because this is a practice of the heretics in America and elsewhere.

  63. Sid — on 8th March, 2007 at 8:47 am  

    On al-Watan from wiki:

    It received some notoriety when its editor, Jamal Kashoggi, was fired for speaking out against the country’s hardline Islamist clerics because they refused to denounce the May 2003 Riyadh compound bombings.

    So there you go, not so mad as a ‘mentalist, as they say in Riyadh. However, the next person to use the word ‘trope’ will be taken out and shot.

  64. bananabrain — on 8th March, 2007 at 9:51 am  

    mirax – is that a joke? if not, then they’re more nuts in saudi than i thought.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  65. sonia — on 8th March, 2007 at 11:14 am  

    bananabrain – have you ever been to saudi arabia? if they let you in – worth a vist. if only to see how crazy things are.

  66. Kulvinder — on 8th March, 2007 at 11:51 am  

    mirax – is that a joke? if not, then they’re more nuts in saudi than i thought.

    Possibly, it appeared on an internet forum at a time the Saudi government was (and probably still is) campaigning against frivolous fatwas. Al-watan didn’t compose it and apparently publised it tongue firmly in cheek.

    It’s unclear whether the original authors were making a parody in line with contempory issues (reading it i think its fairly clear they were) in which case the joke is on anyone who takes it seriously, or whether they were serious and everyone is laughing at them.

    Anyhoo i support this

    9. You should spit in the face of whoever puts the ball between the posts or uprights and then runs in order to get his friends to follow him and hug him like players in America or France do, and you should punish him, for what is the relationship between celebrating, hugging and kissing and the sports that you are practising?

  67. Jagdeep — on 8th March, 2007 at 12:30 pm  

    As far as I know, the football playing hijabi girl in Canada didnt subscribe to the kind of thinking mirax blockquotes, so I don’t know what relevance it has to this thread, amusingly demented though it is.

    Oh yes of course it’s a way to make snide comments about Sunny and his vocabulary.

    Anyway, Orientalism is an idea and word that I think is bandied about too often without being properly understood by people on both the left and the right, and that probably damages the power of the ideas behind it by devaluing it and reducing it to simplistic rhetoric.

  68. Jagdeep — on 8th March, 2007 at 12:32 pm  

    Yeah Kulvinder it reads like a parody to me too.

  69. soru — on 8th March, 2007 at 12:32 pm  

    ‘Do not play in two halves. Rather, play in one half or three halves’

    One guy I knew got several years of piss-taking for innocently asking ‘how many quarters are there in a game of american football?’ back when the game was first shown on C4.

  70. Sahil — on 8th March, 2007 at 1:05 pm  

    “One guy I knew got several years of piss-taking for innocently asking ‘how many quarters are there in a game of american football?’”

    LOL

  71. Sunny — on 8th March, 2007 at 1:50 pm  

    It’s a parody article mirax! Been doing the rounds for ages afaik. Please get over yourself. And as Jagdeep pointed out, I don’t see what relevance this has. We’re talking about a 11yr old girl from Canada not the Saudi family mouthpiece.

  72. mirax — on 9th March, 2007 at 6:21 am  

    Yikes! Some of you lot really need comprehension classes or er, a god to hand out brains like Sunny so touching believes- of course I know the the piece is a parody and I clearly said so when I compared the al-watan journalists favourably to Sunny’s shoddy thinking. That parody is the natural answer to piss poor argument about cultural imperialism and ‘orientalism’ in football. None of this has anything to do with the poor 11-year old in Canada but do remember that, Sunny never made any mention of her, just ‘idiots’ and western cultural imperialism and it was too delicious not to send up!

  73. mirax — on 9th March, 2007 at 6:24 am  

    mmm, I do close correctly with the italic tags but it just doesn’t seem to work. Sorry.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.