Saudi Arabian Olympian Will Have to Compete Without Her Hijab: Is That Religious Discrimination?

As long as the rules were published and Vizer is following them, then I see no issue. If your religion prohibits you from following the rules then find something else to do. This is similar to catholic pharmacists not dispensing birth control, if you don’t want to do your job do something else.

I think safety and fairness should be priorities in (Olympic) competition. I don’t care if a person’s religious restrictions prevent them from participating. That’s their personal priorities. With that said, I couldn’t care much less about the Olympics.

This reminds me of the sports team that forfeited a championship rather than play against a girl. 

If the rule is not motivated by religious discrimination, but rather by some legitimate argument in favour of the rule, then it is not religious discrimination to enforce that rule, even if it happens to force someone who is religious into a tough choice. I’m not familiar enough with the sport to judge myself whether the hijab would be a risk, but as I understand it the rule is not new one, and I have to imagine that the rule was motivated by safety concerns, absent evidence otherwise.

Unless and until a legitimate argument crops up demonstrating with a reasonable level of confidence that there is no safety concern with the hijab, I don’t think someone should have a right to bend the rules in their favour because of a religious concern.

There have been many times in the past when Christian, Jewish, and Muslim athletes have abstained from competing on their respective sabbaths. That’s their choice to make; but it isn’t religious discrimination to refuse to reschedule an event for this reason.

What’s interesting here, though, is that the sabbath conflicts, IIRC, have been personal decisions made by the athletes. But that may or may not be the case with Shaherkani. Maybe she wants to cover her head; maybe she doesn’t. I haven’t read into it enough to know. But it’s worth noting that the conflict is being imposed on her from the Saudi state (or, at least, its representatives in the form of  Saudi Olympic overseers). Her will, it seems, is to be treated as inconsequential.

The WWE allows their professional wrestlers (they call them WWE Superstars) to wear masks, and they are the professionals (best of the best).  The Olympics should follow suit.

Fuck Islam,  ban these bitches from competing if they’re going to bring their disease (Islam) with them.

If I’m not mistaken, the Saudi’s were given an ultimatum on that this time around – if you don’t let your women compete, we won’t let your men compete.

Again, it’s a matter of religious action versus religious belief. Whenever there is a valid secular reason to restrict an action, it should take precedence over belief without being treated as discrimination. A Catholic business that wants to operate as a business has to provide its employees with the same insurance as any other business… the religious action of the owner is trumped by secular needs. A Saudi athlete that wants to compete in an international forum has to follow the international rules. She can believe whatever she wants, but her actions are constrained if she chooses to participate (and nobody is forcing her participation).

I would really love to hear the breakdown of how a head covering is a safety concern across all events. Archery? Triathlon? Weightlifting? Shooting? High jump? Long jump? Any jump really.
How long ago was it that the Olympics allowed runners and swimmers to cover their whole bodies including their head? In the winter Olympics the speed skaters still wear the full suits.

Not a hijab though, it could wrap around their necks and hang them accidentally while spiking a volleyball. You never know when a head covering is gonna get caught up in the wind and suffocate a sprinter. Or perhaps when they get sweaty the lose parts become whip-like and cause eye injuries to other competitors.

Can there be no leniency?
What if the head covering was specially made to be super duper safe just for the incredibly dangerous Olympic games? Which I guess is inherently more dangerous than being a police officer, as many regions have legalized turbans worn by Sikh officers.

There may be some legitimate reasons to not have them in some sports, but if its not one that already requires the use of a helmet, just how serious of a threat is it?

I’d buy that if the rules being adhered to bear some similarity to sense. It is beyond ridiculous to argue that any and all headwear is a danger to the safety of Judo competitors; nobody will be accidentally bludgeoned to death by a yarmulke or a fedora during a throw. Now, it is likely the case that the rules were intentionally drawn broadly so that borderline cases could be comfortably and unambiguously excluded, but in light of that, when a reasonable competing interest crops up that makes an argument for narrowing the overbroad rule slightly to accommodate that interest, it deserves at least a hearing on the merits. The question is not whether it is permitted or forbidden by the rules as written, but rather if the integrity of the contest would be compromised by varying the rules in a very specific way.

Or, maybe in light of the rules as they exist excluding an entire demographic (women from a large and quite populated swath of the Earth) being anathema to an event which proclaims its intent to be universally accessible and an expression of the entirety of humanity, it isn’t simply a question of whether the rules or the religion are more important. 

Not to mention the fact that none of these women established the ruling interpretations of the religion that are causing the conflict with another set of rules that they had no input in forming, much less in many cases actually had a real opportunity to choose to believe in a different religion or no religion at all (considering the sociopolitical reality of the Middle East). So I think it is really silly to make this about the woman choosing whether the Olympics or their religion is more important to them, since all the impediments to their competing were placed there by other people’s choices.

It is not even their religion that prevents them from participating. It’s the ludicrous laws imposed by their misogynist government, not their personal choice. 3lemenope said it far more eloquently.

There are other sports at which she could have gone for, but that would deprive her of the sport she enjoys and excels at. Maybe IJF has a good reason and maybe not and the rule can be looked at. This is not a case of the Olympics excluding her from competing on the world stage, but the code of her sport at the international level. I am trying to read the manual, so far can only find that coaches cannot wear head coverings, although it is worded:

The following are forbidden at any time: shorter trousers, undressed upper body, any
kind of head caps and cover, jeans, sweaters or similar sports unrelated dress, flip-flops.

This is found under provisions for coaches. There are other strict provisions for the judogi and how it’s constructed but I am finding it difficult to find any other rules of dress, like bare feet (I’m assuming?) or no head covers. So while the coaches may not wear a hat of any kind, that is more obviously a rule of propriety and not safety or unfair advantage. I think then it’s a matter of their own nonsensical traditions, in which case, two nonsensical traditions at odds should allow the head scarf, for crying out loud.

I think it’s absurd to restrict social interactions, at a world event intended to create just such interaction.  Safety and equality come first.  Whether an objection is religious or not shouldn’t come into it.

I oppose strict dress codes (including national team uniforms… this isn’t supposed to be about countries fighting each other) and it might be reasonable to allow hijab and turban sort of wear in several events.  Decisions should be based on evidence, available to the public.

While we’ve made progress on women’s inclusion in sport, with some lesbian visibility, it’s too bad apparently only three  countries are sending one openly gay male athlete each (I believe they are Netherlands: Edward Gal, Great Britain: Carl Hester, Australia: Matthew Mitcham).  There are certainly hundreds more hiding in the closet.  Not even one from the USA?  I know you’re reading this, USA.  Come out, man.

 I think it is because it can get around your neck in the middle of all the wrestling and grappling and pretty much choke you.

Actually, having trained in Judo and other fighting arts that involve throws, *any* headwear can be quite dangerous, usually to the one wearing it, but in rare circumstances to the opponent.

There’s no “wrestling” or grappling in Judo as it consists, in essence, of throws and falls. However, as many of the grasps used to setup throws happen around the neck, involve the collar of the jacket, etc., a hijab would present some exceedingly dangerous conditions for the wearer. Worse, the hijab could actually be inadvertantly responsible for cutting the skin at the neck if it were incorporated into a grasp and a throw.

Thank you for pointing out what so many are missing about this. Religious discrimination, by definition, is when someone is treated *differently* based on their religion. This is a case of everyone being asked to adhere to the *same* rule and is therefore *not* discrimination — at all.

 Actually there is a lot of “wrestling” and grappling in Judo.
newaza is about half of it.
The ref usually stands up the opponents pretty quickly though so you seldom see it in tournament.

I can see the discrimination. Same thing happens when they keep me from using my holy motorcycle in the 400.

Forgot,

One way of winning in judo is choking someone out until they pass out or tap out which ever comes first. In response to 3lemenope, a head scarf (worn around the neck) could definitely  change the effectiveness of a choke by spreading the force out over a larger area. It would also make it more difficult to find the caratoids (contrary to popular belief the most effective chokes are blood chokes, not adams apple chokes which are more painful/dangerous than effective). At the top levels, the difference between success and failure is very, very thin. So in response to 3lemenope, yes – a head scarf changed the integrity of the contest – it is not as he/she jokingly says something you would use to accidentally bludgeon someone to death with.

I think this will be more interesting when a uniform requirement that is NOT safety related conflicts with religious requirements.

I’m looking at you Beach Volleyball.

This is the kind of response I’ve been looking for. 🙂 Yes, if it can be shown that full-body dress disturbs the integrity of the contest, then it should not be allowed. Then the question becomes, is there a way to alter the head gear so it will still serve its religious function but not disturb the integrity of the contest? Perhaps a head covering that does not wrap around the neck?

I’m not saying there’s an easy solution. I’m saying people should look for one, and make the Olympic games as inclusive as they are claimed to be. The general attitude about this issue seemed to me to revolve more around two unpleasant attractors: unthinking rules worship, and the fact that Islam is, like all religions, really rather silly. Actually when to take the first in light of the second, the whole thing becomes bizarrely ironic.

The Olympic rules are not written on stone tablets. They were written with certain goals in mind and can be tweaked to better serve those goals while minimally impinging upon others. Sometimes an accommodation cannot be produced, in which case, it’s unfortunate for those who wish the variance, but they’re out of luck. But I don’t see any reason to shut down the conversation with “but the rules say so, so shut up, and if you don’t like it, quit and find a new hobby” which seemed to be the way this thing started.

While that may be true of the art of Judo, very little ne waza is used at the Olympic event. What you’ll see is made up almost entirely of nage waza (throws) and kaeshi waza (counters, mostly to throws).

I don’t think his/her point was that it doesn’t confer an advantage, so much as that it doesn’t confer an unfair advantage. The reasons for sartorial shenanigans in sports and war have several reasons behind them; to psych out an enemy/opponent, to visually belong to a team (keeping up that ol’ esprit de corps), to psych oneself up–because psychology and sociology aside, in combat people wanna feel badass, and looking badass helps that along–as well as more obvious pragmatic/functional concerns.

Rules limit this behavior, because on the margins it can veer into dangerous territory. It would be unfair if you’re in a contact sport and you were allowed to affix spikes onto your uniform, for example. However, within those limits there is still usually plenty of room for optimization and advantage. And, as I noted, those rules usually reach far outside the actual zone of foreseeable danger to exclude many things that, upon case-by-case analysis, may not be such a big deal.

Now, Richard Seibel, downthread, actually made a persuasive argument for how a hijab might actually interfere with the integrity of the sport (by making certain grapples and throws more difficult for an attacker to execute). The question then remains is there any give in the rules for traditional headgarb from the religious POV that would be able to address those concerns while still fulfilling their religious function.

 What?!   Next thing you’ll guys will be telling me is it’s fake!

The Olympic rules are mostly about sports. Sometimes, they aren’t. For example, the original Olympic games to which the modern games are eponymous successors were generally contested in the nude. That would be against current Olympic rules, but not for any sporting reason; rather, rules against contestant nudity are a nod to prevailing cultural inclinations about the appropriateness of being clothed in public. A person who comes from a culture with sartorial rules that differ from the prevailing Western-dominated norm may look askance at those rules; are they wrong to do so? Rules that require covering the breasts are going to strike some cultures as oddly prudish, while to others revealing any skin below the neck would seem too prurient. 

Which brings me to point the second, which is that while the Olympic rules may by-and-large be about sports, the Olympics themselves are profoundly not just about sports, as in the contest thereof. They are explicitly about bringing nations together peacefully in the name of good-will and all that stuff, to strive not just for personal achievement but also for national pride, spectacle, and the elevation of the esteem of the sport itself. Having rules that have the practical effect that “Muslim women need not apply” really puts a crimp in international good-will and elevation of the sport and all that.

It is emphatically not the case that simply because a regulation is facially neutral that it is actually so. A rule of a political body, say, that said it would only conduct business on Saturdays would be facially neutral. After all, what is one day compared to any other? Except that such a rule would exclude all practicing Jews from participating in any issues before that political body; the rule will have quite effectively discriminated against them. Such as it is with hijabs and sartorial rules. 

I don’t buy the slippery slope arguments regarding reasonable accommodation, mainly because as a matter of social history there are oodles of examples of accommodation working–and well–in analogous situations. The limits of accommodation are quite simply the limits of the integrity of the activity; a circumstance can be accommodated if the values that the rules were set up to protect are still protected given the variance. If it can’t, it can’t. But as I said upthread, the rules of sports, never mind the rules of the Olympics, are not carved in stone, were written (many of which, quite recently) with specific goals in mind, and are amendable to amendment if someone finds a better way to achieve those goals.

It is an unnecessary burden, and potential legal liability, for the governing board of a sport to attempt to determine if any particular headgear or garment is or is not safe. It is eminently reasonable for them to set a single standard (in this case, no headgear) and stick by it.

If that rule conflicts with the cultural sensibilities of a small minority of potential participants, so be it. It’s no different than a handicap limiting somebody’s ability to engage in certain activities. It’s a big, diverse world. Sometimes entities can adapt, sometimes individuals need to. I think the situation under discussion is an example of the latter.

I take it you’ve never ridden a bicycle naked?

Seriously though, I’m sure you’d agree that whatever rule you have, it should be gender neutral.  In beach volleyball, the women are required to wear those speedo things, and the men are required to wear board shorts.

If it’s such an onerous burden to vary rules to accommodate contestants, what explains the competition runner that doesn’t have legs who will be allowed to compete this year?

The fact of the matter is, institutions make accommodations in service to competing values that they are designed to uphold. That requires trade-offs, variances, and analysis of special cases. I get the sense, somehow, that the reason this particular accommodation bothers folks here but the guy with no legs being an Olympic sprinter doesn’t is that it has to do with religion, which as a thing-unto-itself we have little respect for as a matter of course. It doesn’t at all follow that because we atheists think that religion is silly that others should too, especially when the values they are attempting to wrangle and balance are different than ours.

I want other people to respect my religion, therefore I try to respect others. If this is part of their religion I think it would be nice if they could make an exception. I do think running the hundred meter would be easier and faster without the extra material, but what safety issues is the olympics worried about?

Im a boy.

If the rule is not motivated by religious discrimination, but rather by some legitimate argument in favour of the rule, then it is not religious discrimination to enforce that rule, even if it happens to force someone who is religious into a tough choice.

This about sums it up, imo.  Having said that, I think it’s perfectly fine to review and discuss current rules to determine whether or not their inclusion is legitimate.

the Olympics this year, among other things, is featuring for the first time an athlete with actual bionic prosthetics that allow him to run without having, you know, legs. Obviously that takes a buttload more variances of rules and considerations about unfair advantage than a head-scarf, and yet, here we are.

On another board I frequent, a man with precisely the same prosthetic legs commented that he thinks this guy has an unfair advantage over those without them (and gave a detailed description of why)

 religious people are often the first to claim gays are asking for “special rights” and the first to ask for special rights for themselves.

It would not be “nice if they could make an exception.” It would be wrong to make an exception.

Just as it is wrong to allow pharmacists to decide what pills they want to dispense.

Each sport is governed by its own body. They may choose to make accommodation in special cases, or not. The question asked here was whether this Judo example constituted discrimination, and I’m arguing that it does not. The rules for Judo are old- based on a combination of tradition and safety. Judo is a “uniformed” sport, and it makes sense to level the playing field by highly regulating that uniform.

Athletes have chosen to skip their events because they were scheduled on their particular sabbaths. Very few saw it as religious discrimination when officials refused to reschedule. The Olympics are international, and necessarily involve athletes with a huge range of cultural tradition. It’s impossible to accommodate everyone. People simply have to be flexible. If their traditions are so rigid as to prevent flexibility, they probably should not be competing at all.

And mistakes can be made… the case of the legless runner being an excellent example. I predict that’s an accommodation that will not persist.

Personally, I’d argue for going back to naked competition for all events where the a uniform or safety equipment aren’t functionally required, and if it excludes the prudish cultures or individuals, so be it. The Greeks had it right. The Olympics is a private operations; its operators can do whatever they want.

Wouldn’t the extra clothing give the athletes more ways to conceal drugs that could be taken just before competing?

One thing about the hijab is that it’s only required to be worn in the presence of men who are not family members.  If, as I suspect, sports in Saudi Arabia are highly segregated, with women competing only in the presence of other women, she would not have to wear a hijab.

That’s a good point. On the other hand, I’d be surprised if she didn’t practice in what would be her competition uniform at least some of the time, just to get used to the difference.

Thanks!

I look at it like this.  If your religion forbids you to eat pork, don’t eat it or go into an establishment that serves it.  If your religion demands you wear a specific type of clothing and the establishment doesn’t allow it, then don’t go.  Personally, if they want to wear their headgear, I couldnt’ care less and we should let them.  But when someone demands I must respect their religion, then we can say they must respect our rules of our culture and our games or don’t play.  If they wear their headgear in judo, I would surly not change the rules of the game and if such headgear were used to get the advantage, it would be respected by those wearing headgear that those are the rules of the sport.  it is an interesting topic and i wonder what will actually happen during the games.  has anything happened already?

Nice try, but no. A while back–way back–there was a question of allowing handicapped golfers to compete with non-handicapped ones by permitting them the use a motorized wheelchair to get from hole to hole. As was pointed out at the time, that’s grossly unfair to the other competitors.

If the rule said, this Olympic event is open to participants from every part of the world, except from Saudi Arabia, you’d have a point. However, the rule says, this is the dress code you must adhere to. That is all.

Nice try, but no. A while back–way back–there was a question of allowing handicapped golfers to compete with non-handicapped ones by permitting them the use a motorized wheelchair to get from hole to hole. As was pointed out at the time, that’s grossly unfair to the other competitors. 

Of course, the obvious compromise there was they could just let everyone used motorized carts to get from hole to hole, as long pastoral walks are not integral to the game of golf, as is amply demonstrated by the vast proliferation of golf carts in regular use during the normal playing of the game in most parts of the world. Did that not occur to anyone?

If the rule said, this Olympic event is open to participants from every part of the world, except from Saudi Arabia, you’d have a point. However, the rule says, this is the dress code you must adhere to. That is all.

So what you’re saying is that the consequences of a rule (intentional or otherwise) cannot be taken into account in judging the wisdom of a rule so long as the plain text of the rule itself seems kosher?

That strikes me as a really bad way to do rules analysis.

 I’m torn on issues like this. On one hand, if it truly is a danger to the athletes, then I don’t think they should be allowed to wear it. I also know there have been problems in the past with women’s soccer teams not being allowed to wear hijabs. It all reminds me of the ban in France. I can’t stand that the women are forced to subscribe to these misogynistic rules, but banning the head covers for whatever reason (safety issues, trying to advance women’s rights) only tend to harm the women again.

I do understand the safety issues and the reason behind the rule, and that should come first. That being said, it saddens me that the person caught in the middle of this is Shaherkani. It must have taken so much grit and strength to get to this position as a Saudi woman. Now, she’s told she can’t wear the headscarf, which could have serious consequences for her when she returns home, assuming she’s allowed to compete at all.  

If this comes up in the future, I think the IOC should compromise to the greatest degree possible. If a hajib doesn’t create competitive inequity, it should be allowed so that more Saudi women can compete.  

 Wildcard invitations are offered to competitors by the IOC who didn’t qualify via normal channels.  I don’t know what the IOC’s selection criteria is, but two of the women from Qatar are at the Olympics because of wildcard invitations.  I couldn’t find information on how the judo player qualified though.  The Independent Athletes are a different thing.

Actually the rules don’t exclude them. They are no more excluded than than by the rules for wet T-shirt, bikini, or beauty contests. Self imposed restrictions don’t amount to exclusion. They are acting like a vegetarian at a hot dog eating contest. They are welcome to enter their dogs in our dog shows, and participate in our bacon eating contests. That they chose not to is not because they are being excluded.

Cool!  Thanks, I love getting educated!
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/life/fashion/extra-coverage-an-option-for-olympics-beach-volleyball-uniforms-645965/ 

Shaving the hair and applying a thick layer lof latex paint should solve the problem. No danger of some Muslim male spotting her hair and getting an erection. Well, except for the fact of every other female contestant there not being covered. Not sure why they allow any Saudi men out of the country whatsoever.

.. And not surprising if the Saudi men didn’t give a damn about her safety. These kinds of rules allow the locking of women in burning buildings to protect their modesty.

except that 2nd-4th legs get a running to start to match speed.  Although I don’t see how that would be enough to cause significant lactic buildup, so my main thought is ‘citation needed’.

SCOTUS disagrees with you  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGA_Tour,_Inc._v._Martin

SCOTUS makes all sorts of illogical decisions. For example supporting clearly unconstitutional (and insanely irrational) asset forfeiture laws.

Yeh, duh, I feel pretty stupid now. :(. … and I used to race the two mile relay. I have a hard time thinking it effects the calf muscles that much. It’s likely most about the energy that can be stored in the springs.

You still didn’t give a reason for why Saudi custom should win out. You merely poopooed one tradition, which I can do to the idea women should cover their hair so men don’t rape them. Why not abandon other traditions in the sport of Judo in favor of non-Islamic local traditions. Make them all fight in burkas. You know the kind that look like potato sacks with a mesh covering the eyes. Another Saudi supremacist solution is to ban all men from observing any sport a Saudi woman participates in.

That doesn’t make any sense. If there’s a purely traditional reason for something, there’s no reason not to accommodate other traditions. If it’s a tradition that we all are led in prayer by the public school principal, it merits challenge as to its inclusion of all people. People can still pray in school, but it’s not mandatory. It’s not that one tradition “wins” and everyone has to comply with the most restrictive tradition in order to accommodate the one person for whom it is important.

If there’s some other reason where a hijab will upset the balance or safety of a competition, then it’s tough for the hijab wearer. I fence, I posted a link to an article about an American Muslim who covers her hair, who chose fencing as one sport where that would not interfere with the rules. We have a tradition of opponents saluting with masks off prior to the bout. Masks are for safety, the tradition is that you face your opponent with your actual face. I think in a high-level competition, people can be assured that their opponent is who they’re supposed to be and don’t have to see for themselves, but they still do it. What if someone wore not just their hair covering but a full-face covering – as long as their vision is not impaired, it should not be a problem. I don’t know whether the FIE has something to say about that or if it’s been challenged. After the bout, you shake hands, your bare offhand, not your gloved weapon hand. This means that right-handed fencers shake with their left hand and some cultures have superstitions about that. Is physical contact the most important part? It is just show of respect and good sportsmanship, so I don’t think shaking hands should be required. Respect is the purpose of this ritual, and if it disrespects someone to do it, it negates the traditional purpose in favor of offending someone.

Neither one is right, not the ethnocentric rules-maker nor the outsider for whom these quaint rituals conflict with their own. Japanese traditions take the sport of judo back to its origin, but once in the global realm should be able to accommodate people from other cultures and more than happy to include more athletes than exclude them because they don’t shake hands or they cover their hair.

Keep in mind, I think for judo it’s a legitimate safety issue, but in theory if it’s just a matter of tradition, one’s quaint tradition should not exclude someone for having a different quaint tradition, nor does inclusion or accommodation of the latter do any sort of forcing all the competitors to now cover their heads. If it’s optional by tradition, then it doesn’t change anything. If it’s a safety or balance issue, then of course no hijabs, sorry.

OK, about this article… It is clear that her wearing her hijab in Judo would absolutely cause, at a minimum, a safety risk to her. Cut and dry, it should not be allowed. As far as all the people who want to change the rules go… Are any of you football fans or are you all far to intelictual and base too much of your lives on arrogant speach to debase yourselves so far as to encourage such barbaric activity? The way the rules in the NFL have changed over the last couple of years is ruining the sport. Yes, it is violent. Yes there is a high risk of injury. The players are VERY well compensated for said risk. But to make it all but illegal to touch the quarterback, or “hitting a defenseless reciever” makes it into another sport all together. The individuals that participate in the sport know the risks associated and make a decision to participate based, I would hope, on a weighing of those risks versus their desire to compete and the compensation that they receive. So, changing the rules does change the sport. As someone else here put it, if the greatest quarterback ever seen only played flag football would we completely revamp the NFL rules so that he doesn’t have to wear pads or a helmet and that he is not allowed to be tackled? No, it wouldn’t be safe for him, and it would absolutely take a sport that is already caving to the “hold everyone’s hand and not hurt anyone’s feelings” crowd and make it a mockery of it’s former self.

So now, the woman in question here… Whether the restrictions are put in place by her personally of the country she chooses to represent (remember the other female athlete is a student in the US and has dual citizenship), then she has to realize if she wants to follow those restrictions then she cannot compete at the highest levels of the sport. She has to make her own decision based on the risks versus gains. Maybe she is the greatest female Judo fighter in the world. She has to weigh the risks of dis-honoring her religion versus her personal and national glory on the Olympic field.

This is Jackie Joyner Kersee in Barcelona Olympics in 1992 wearing a top the size and shape of a sports bra:
 http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletics/u-s-a/jackie-joyner-kersee-702/defends-olympic-heptathlon-title_a08575/

Not a requirement but not banned.

Look you are already wrong for safety issues. On this thread we are discussing traditions. Not every tradition is compatible nor can they all be accommodated to each other. just because Some Muslims are willing to execute women over these things doesn’t make their traditions more valid. You are acting like there is some universal non-arbitrary way to decide between traditions. What if it were the Japanese willing to go to war over the dispelling of their traditions. Judo is a Japanese traditional sport, not a Saudi one. That’s one non-arbitrary way to decide. Yet, even non-arbitrary reasons can conflict.

The question was whether this was religious discrimination and that was the basis of the objection. It isn’t, they are wrong, end of case. These are voluntary participatory sports, and if you don’t like wearing the traditional judo uniform, which is integral to the definition of the sport and NOT worn for purely safety reasons then don’t join the sport. The uniform does not have a hat, sorry.

If Japan were going to go to war over dispelling their traditions, I’d cut the sport from the Olympics and nobody gets to play.

I already agree with a lot of your other posts and we are not discussing that. We are discussing sports changers and you fail to recognize that such changers are modifications of what are arbitrary rules. Even rules about safety are arbitrary because the level of risk depends on the sport. There are sports that are to the death. Remove that risk by changing the rules and you have a sports changer. The fact that one of these arbitrary rules was written down is a big hint that it defines the sport. Judo includes a rule not to wear head gear. The Judo ruling body thinks that is important. Case closed, and it doesn’t matter what their reason so long as it is not an artifice designed to discriminate, like the stupid Saudi rules imposed on women.

It does matter what the reason is. It may not be designed to discriminate against anyone, and it may be due to a valid reason, but rules can discriminate and exclude someone without thinking. Like the rules made by privileged Christians in the US, some enforced by government until someone said it’s not inclusive and it doesn’t need to stand. Even if it’s one of the commandments not to murder, it’s not like taking the 10 Commandments out of school makes it then ok to murder. Being envious of your neighbor, not so much. I think capitalism actually relies on it. But you don’t have to be.

No, I don’t think all rules are “end of story.” Rules are constantly being modified and refined, I mentioned fencing, there is a rule that you have to be fencing. You would think it is obvious, but two fencers can just stand waiting for the other to move. There are strategies involved in doing that, but some take it too far, and hurts some fencers by refining that rule in the recent version, since it takes away one of their strategies. Maybe they can be appealed to change it back and maybe everyone will just have to adjust. Either way, they made fencing a sport because it’s fun and people should enjoy it without risking death. Electricity changed the sport, there’s a good example. There is no “end of story” in any rulebook. They changed the masks for foil fencers so the bottom half of the bib matches the line of the collar of the lamé, this involves an extra cord, makes it so the actual torso is the target and not get a free pass just because a touch lands on the bib of the mask.

So maybe we should cut all female participation in the Olympics because Saudi traditionalists might get a bug up their ass an fund some terrorists so that such shameful western traditions don’t pollute their culture? Does your decision only depend on a full scale war or do cold wars, guerella wars, and war via terror count?

Saudi traditions are meant to take offense so I don’t see why we need to accommodate them.

Note that you could have just accommodated the Japanese, what happened to your accomdationist notions? You are willing to bend to the Saudis so they can maintain their oppression of women, yet aren’t willing to accommodate the Japanese to prevent war. Now you’ve got the Japanese pissed and sharpening their blades because of one single country not willing to play by the rules of Judo. Luckily not everyone is unreasonable as the Saudis.

So you with the big endians or the little endians because when you have conflicts of tradition that is what it amounts to when you try to accommodate where there is unresolvable differences. I think the better solution is to allow games in from both countries and let them decide whether they are willing to abide by the sport.

Straw man. No one said they have to all wear a scarf. 

If the Muslims invented a sport for men, and interest had been taken in it worldwide and in free countries allowed women to play and it was entered in the Olympics, and the Saudis would not allow women’s teams to play their sport at that level, I’d say fuck your sport, it’s not in the Olympics. It’s about sharing and competing, not about excluding and being an asshole about something that doesn’t matter to anyone else. That’s all, you’re way too dense to get through to. So misinterpret what I’ve said, make some more straw man arguments, I’m done trying to spell things out for you.
 

You don’t know what a straw man is. I’m not trying to define your position. I’m trying to make you see something. I didn’t say the rules forced them to wear a scarf. That’s a straw man. Once you allow scarfs the play is still balanced between opponents because they choose whether to wear one or not. just as they can choose to train or not, or use a particular move or not. You are not however playing the same sport as before with scarves.

You can call this situation a balance issue if you want. I call it a game play issue. It turns into a different game.

The rules of chess are arbitrary as are the rules of checkers. You can convert one to the other by changing the rules. There are a near infinity possible games and you can even move from one tomthe other via multiple single rule changes

I’mnot trying to define your pos

I don’t see why every willfully self-isolating minority group has to be accommodated in every single event. It was bad enough we let Sikh applicants to the RCMP wear the turbans. Knowing that I have no power to affect any outcome, I must put my foot down in this case.

That was my only concern: That the safety requirement was fabricated.

What you’ve said sounds reasonable enough – so long as that’s accurate, I think it settles the issue on my end.

In that context, if anything prevents Shaherkani from competing, it will be Saudi Arabia’s ideological restrictions that are at fault – not the policy regarding head covering.

I don’t see why every willfully self-isolating minority group has to be accommodated in every single event.

And I never argued they should. What I have been arguing is that when a case of conflict occurs, it is worth it for a supposedly pluralistic society/institution to take a quick look at the rules causing the conflict to see if an amenable solution can be found. If it turns out there is none to be had, then at least you can say you tried. 

I really, really, really just cannot wrap my head around the galloping flaming status quo bias that has been burning through this whole thread. Rules are simply tools to achieve institutional or social goals; they were written by people because at the time they were written it was thought they would be the best specific tools to approach achieving specific institutional goals. Rules change with practice, they change over time, they change in reaction to the discovery of latent ambiguities not contemplated by the rules’ authors, or in reaction to situations unanticipated by or not encapsulated by the specific reason that motivated its writing in the first place. They also change in response to shifting values and goals in the organization and among the wider society.

In light of all that, I really do not understand all the gnashing of teeth resulting from someone suggesting that rules are not sacrosanct and can be looked at and reviewed and possibly modified or varied.

It was bad enough we let Sikh applicants to the RCMP wear the turbans.

Bad enough? What, precisely, is so horrible about mounties with turbans?

I agree. I think if the rule regarding this particular case is earnestly analyzed and it turns out (as I think is probable) that a neck-wrapped headpiece could pose a safety hazard, then the compromise must then come in part from the other direction. Kodie, I think it was, further up the thread, suggested that someone design a religious headpiece that doesn’t cause the same problems–a “sports hijab” analogous to a sports bra–which shouldn’t be impossible. That would be the responsibility of the Saudis. Then they come back and say, hey, we addressed your safety issue, now it’s your turn. 

And go from there. 

No it’s not discrimmination but Liberation you know those women no longer want to wear those things they want to dress like the rest of the world only the oppressive men want them to be unfree! Africans use to run around with no clothing now they wear clothing it’s a fear of change and too much pride why there’s a big deal about what these people should wear! And the only reason why they dressed that way to begin with was to shield them from The Sandstorms the Sandstorms have ceased and The Word has changed over the time so change with them! Common Sense will save one’s soul! Why dress that way aint no more sandstorms going on that we’ve heard of on CNN and if we did hear of one it’s one in a million! No different from any other storms we wear umbrellas and rain gear during the rain to shield the rain but not every damn day dang! Catch up with the rest of the world and stop imposing your way of life and killing those who disagree! You were born alone and you die alone! Free Will! You can’t live for me and I can’t live for you It is between You and God!