FIFA Human Rights Violation … My (Gr)ass

Mulder

One organization says some must wear the hijab for religious reasons, while some may not.

One organization says they must not wear the hijab for safety reasons and it applies to EVERYONE.

Now whom do YOU think the human rights complaint will be filed against?

This is one of those cases when we just need to stop and slap ourselves.

“I think this is something that needs to be taken up with the United Nations in terms of human rights violations,” Anisa Ali of the United Muslim Women of Canada told CTV Newsnet on Saturday. “We, as Muslim women, have a right to participate in sporting activities just like non-Muslim women.”

Her group will be taking action “ASAP,” she said.

I think what any human rights group’s response to this type of complaint should be that Muslim women are not being prevented from playing soccer, but instead it should be viewed that ALL humans are being prevented from playing soccer with a headscarf.

Since EVERYONE is affected by the no headscarves rule, the only possible human rights violation would be the requirement that all Muslim women HAVE to wear a headscarf when Muslim men are exempt.

Aye, there’s the rub…

Carbon Offsetters Fooling Themselves And Us

Mulder

When the Tories released their Clean Air act, the biggest shot across the bow that the other parties made had to do with the reduction of green house gases with targets going out to 2050.

Well Lorrie Goldstein has done a bit of very smart math that may make people like Elizabeth May head for a washcloth to wipe the egg off their faces.

“Green” celebrities often claim to reduce their carbon imprint to zero when flying around the world by buying “carbon offsets”. One popular way of doing this is by planting trees.

Let’s do the math. It takes 15 trees 40 to 50 years to absorb five tons of carbon.

A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger. Carbon dioxide takes 50 to 200 years to dissipate naturally.

Therefore, to absorb most of the carbon dioxide caused by one passenger taking one domestic round-trip flight across Canada in 2007, requires planting 15 trees today that won’t complete the job until, assuming none is destroyed by fire, disease or insects. If they are, they’ll release their carbon back into the atmosphere.

(bolded emphasis mine)

This is one of those tidy little facts you keep in your pocket for when an environmentalist complains about the Tory play taking 45 years to reach fruition.

And if you happen to be one of those who believes that offsetting is a good plan then I highly urge you save your soul by taking part in my very own OfficiallyScrewed Offsetting Program.

FIFA Board Agrees With Me – Soccer And Hijabs Don't Mix

Mulder

Today in Manchester, England, FIFA soccer legislators ruled that a hijab is not allowed under rule 4 of the FIFA succer rules.

An 11 year old soccer player from Ottawa says she hoped her case would make a difference. But now, Asmahan Mansour says she is disappointed following today’s meeting of FIFA soccer legislators in Manchester, England.

A week after she was ordered off the field at a tournament in Montreal for wearing a hijab, Mansour was hoping the International Football Association Board would rule it’s O.K. to wear her headscarf.

However the board states, the issue of a head scarf is covered under rule four of its soccer laws.

The rule says players cannot wear anything that is potentially dangerous to themselves or another player.

This is exactly what I had stated in my blog post earlier today. Rule four does not specifically mention headscarves, but it does have safety guidelines which seem to be the basis for the ruling, and rightfully so.

I can empathize with the young lady who was disallowed from playing, but I played competitive soccer for well over a dozen years and as the father of a soccer player, I know that safety is always of the highest concerns. This decision may not be a popular one, but it is the right one.

Can Soccer And Hijab Mix?

Mulder

Oh no, not another story about the young lady kicked off the soccer field for wearing a hijab!!!

Wait!! Don’t leave. This one is different.

In every story I have read in the press about Asmahan (Azzy) Mansour, the argument surrounds the religious argument, the safety, and FIFA. We hear about the referee being Muslim. We hear about the rules, and we hear about FIFA letting women wear Hijabs in soccer games in Pakistan and Iran.

But do we even know what the rules are there for and if they apply? The answer to this is no, because no one has ever addressed what a hijab is or how it is worn to see if it constitutes a safety risk.

From FIFA’s own website, the latest rules state:

Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment

SAFETY

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

…

BASIC EQUIPMENT

The basic compulsory equipment of a player comprises the following separate items:

* jersey or shirt;
* shorts – if thermal undershorts are worn; they are of the same colour as the shorts
* stockings;
* shinguards;
* footwear

…

NON-BASIC EQUIPMENT

*A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself/herself or another player
*Modern protective equipment such as headgear, facemasks, knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight padded material are not considered dangerous and are therefore permitted

Now my quest was to determine “is wearing a hijab dangerous?” so to do so, I had to see what a hijab is and how it is worn so I did some googling and found a video series put on by The Canadian Muslim. The speaker is clear, articulate, and provides many types of demonstrations on how to wear various kinds of hijabs, oblongs, shaylas, etc.

The two things I noticed about wearing a hijab that had me most concerned are:

a) the pins and b) the wrapping of the hijab around the neck.

There are one or several pins used to keep the hijab in place. Since there is no rule on pins, the only two areas that might address this are the section on Jewellery (which states under no conditions is any jewellery to be worn) and the section on safety. In my mind, the pins alone would be enough to constitute the hijab as a risk to the wearer and, possibly, other players.

The video link below will show you how the hijab is typically worn. I watched both Part I and Part II and for the most part, the hijab is draped over the head with the ends coming under the chin and then being pulled back above the head over the ears (where they are pinned, or they can be draped over the shoulder. In addressing the positions, I came to the conclusion that each and every way the hijab was worn, there is a risk of a third party grabbing it in a way that would create a choking hazard.

In light of these two reasons, I would, personally, say that the hijab should not be worn on the soccer field AS IT IS TRADITIONALLY WORN. Note the emphasis. If there is a style of hijab or a way to wear it that does not use pins, or if there is a way for it to fall apart with absolutely no risk of choking, my view would change. But from what I have seen, I do believe they constitute a safety risk and should not be allowed on soccer fields.

I hope this article sparks someone to develop an “athletic hijab” the way others have developed athletic shoes, athletic bras, athletic socks, etc.

You can see “How to wear a hijab: Part I” by clicking Here.
You can see “How to wear a hijab: Part II” by clicking Here.

Get Out The Vote

Mulder

Suzuki PollI think there could be more categories in this poll, but I think the fourth choice is the closest to my view.

I wonder if David Suzuki would change his view if no one cared. I find it quite a relief to see no one cares for carbon credit programs. That’s a big sigh of relief.

Go vote!!

H/T to Kate at SDA

ADDENDUM: I love the internet. I went to bed last night at 11:30 shortly after posting this, and the blogosphere has reacted dramatically to Kate’s call for a vote. It is now about 5:50 am, a mere 6 and a half hours later and the poll results are below. Quite a dramatic jump in the fourth answer!!

Suzuki Poll Results 2

Yet Another Liberal Flip Flop – Tenth Time Is The Charm On Anti-Scab Legislation

Mulder

Say No To Bill 267Bill C-257, which gave me waking nightmares, appears to be more than just a private member’s bill designed to cripple the Canadian economy. It is another example of Liberal’s flip flopping and another example of just how far left Stephane Dion really is.

He has moved so far left that centrists don’t even recognize him. But why?

First of all we have the Conservatives showing they are truly a modern party and not the extremist, right wing, scary Party the Liberals have painted them to be for a decade. This has given the Tories growth towards the Liberal center.

Then we have the NDP, who showed a bit of strength when they held up Martin’s minority government the way an emphysema sufferer is held up by a green oxygen tank outside the hospital doors. Lend Jack your vote and he would chomp a bit of the left leaning Liberals over to the NDP.

So Dion steps in stuck between a Rock and a somewhat hard place. Where is he going to get his votes? Does he fight the right in a battle of wits with a seasoned warrior like Harper who is pummeling him in Question Period day after day after day? Or does he look for the low hanging fruit, and try to steal back the NDP voters who do not want Harper in government no matter what?

My guess is the latter.

This is why the Liberals have flip-flopped again and chosen to support anti-scab legislation.

At first, few took the bill seriously.

The handiwork of Bloc Quebecois MP Richard Nadeau, the proposed legislation was introduced as a so-called private-member’s bill, one of dozens of draft laws floated by backbench MPs that go nowhere, quietly dying on the Commons order paper.

Nadeau’s bill was also the tenth attempt by an opposition MP to introduce anti-scab legislation in recent years, all of which failed to materialize under previous Liberal governments.

But a funny thing happened on the Grits’ way to the opposition benches.

When the bill came to preliminary votes in the Commons, it was suddenly backed by the Liberals, along with the Bloc, New Democrats and even a few Conservative MPs from Quebec (who have since recanted) — more than enough to pass through the minority parliament.

I guess the TENTH time is the charm.

So after nine failed attempts at having anti-scab legislation go through the house under the Liberals watch (with support from the Tories to stop it each time), Dion has chosen to forsake the Canadian economy, the way he would by shutting down industry to meet Kyoto, and support the tenth attempt at getting anti-scab legislation through.

Stop Bill C-267. Write your MP. If he/she is a Liberal, write him/her and get a few friends to do the same. This legislation is just plain wrong and a Liberal flip flop on this needs to be addressed.

CBC Has Dirty, Filthy, Nicotine-Stained Secret

Mulder

This morning on the radio, I heard a short clip about a dirty little secret the CBC has. Or more accurately, two dirty little secrets.

There are apparently video and/or photos taken with a hidden camera of two smoking lounges located in the CBC’s Toronto facilities. Smoking lounges with nice, comfy sofas and ashtrays packed with cigarette butts.

It’s nice to know that private corporations in Ontario are legally mandated to be smoke free but the precious CBC can have not one, but TWO smoking rooms.

I have yet to see this in print, but as soon as I do, I will add to this blog post. You can read about this in the National Post.

Stay tuned.

(Note: I am not against smoking, as I, myself, smoked for over 18 years. I just think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Keep your eyes open for a public announcement that these smoking rooms have been officially closed.)

Al Gore Wins Booby Prize (Right After Winning Oscar)

Mulder

Not 24 hours after Al Gore’s movie won an Oscar, he gets awarded the big booby prize. The hypocrisy that this man shows is on the grandest scale.

Last night (Feb. 25, 2007), Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

(bolded emphasis mine)

I have reprinted the entire article above, a rarity for me, because the URL to Drudge seems to be one that may change.

H/T to Chris in Middle Earth.

I Had A Waking Nightmare…

Mulder

Say No To Bill 267…that I went to the hospital but the nurses were on strike … and the NDP anti-scab legislation wouldn’t let the hospital hire people to fill in.

…that I walked my kids to school through a foot high pile of trash, fighting off the seagulls, and hoisting my daughter on my shoulders so the rats wouldn’t bite her ankles … because the NDP anti-scab legislation means when the city garbage men went on strike we couldn’t hire replacements.

… that a blogburst to stop the NDP anti-scab legislation didn’t work.

When a man or woman belong to a union, they have a right to strike. They have a right to step up and say to the man “I don’t want what you’re giving.”

But on that token, I would never, ever, ever want to tell someone who runs a company or organization that they can not ensure they operate by hiring whomever they want.

And I would never, ever, ever want to tell someone who has been out of work that if an opportunity came along for them to find a half decent job to help pay the bills or put food on the table for their family that they can’t take that job because of Jack Layton’s anti-scab proposed legislation.

Just Say No To Bill C-257. Call your MP to let them know what you think about this bill that takes the freedom to work away from people who want a job.

Visit Clear Conservative Thought or the National Citizen’s Coalition for more information.