I don’t quite understand why that 11-year-old Canadian girl of Egyptian origin was prevented from playing in a soccer match because of her headscarf.
According to the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which sets the rules for all levels of competitive organized soccer across the globe, existing rules are clear on what soccer players can wear on the field. Rule Four lists basic soccer equipment – jerseys, shorts, socks, shin guards, goalie caps and footwear. That’s about it.
Fair enough, but then the IFAB should bar Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech from taking the field because he wears a rugby-style helmet which he donned following an on-field collision with an opponent’s knee that dented Cech’s skull. For wearing protective goggles because he suffers from glaucoma, the Dutch international Edgar Davids should also be barred from playing. That Cech and Davids perform in top-flight football while wearing things other than what is stipulated in Rule Four leaves many wondering why Asmahan Mansour, playing in an amateur under-12 tournament in Quebec, has been singled out for wearing a piece of cloth on her head.
“A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or any other player (including any kind of jewellery). The jewellery part of Rule Four is understandable. Rings, earrings, chains and bracelets are definitely out. But a scarf? The hijab is about as lethal as the bandanas tons of long-haired pros are constantly adjusting.
The referee feared Mansour could be choked if the scarf were tugged on and that it posed a danger to other players. But the only way a headscarf could prove hazardous to the owner or others is if the pins used to hold it down protrude. Mansour was reportedly not using offending metal projections.
Clearly there has been a mix-up. Three members of a Jordanian team were recently allowed to play a match against Japan while wearing hijabs. Dozens of Egypt’s athletes in many sports are covered. British Columbia and Ontario both allow religious headgear. Even Mansour apparently played in other games during the same tournament without complaint from officials. So what happened?
I would rather not believe the banning was racially motivated, as the Egyptian government warned, nor is it a sign of intolerance in Canada (the chief protagonist, the referee who ousted Mansour, is after all, himself Muslim). There is no basis for a human rights complaint nor should the issue be taken up with the United Nations. It’s not about targeting minorities or trying to get immigrants to toe a cultural line.
The explanation probably lies in something much less innocuous than religious conspiracies. The football powers that be are simply not sure how to deal with the matter. Because they have not been put in such a situation before, they are dribbling in unchartered territory. There is no mention of headscarves in Rule Four and, other than jewelry, it does not specify what might or might not be considered dangerous. Rules of FIFA, which governs international soccer play, do not specify a ban on headscarves. Brian Barwick, the chief executive of the English FA and member of the IFAB board, admits the hijab “is not an issue we have much knowledge or experience of.
Such a confession from the IFAB that it doesn’t know much about hijabs and why they are worn and why they aren’t, is an indictment on the state of confusion that Mansour finds herself and her issue in. Until the hijab controversy is settled one way or the other, Mansour will either have to take the hijab off if she wants to continue playing or keep it on and stay away from organized football in her neighborhood.
Or she could take it (her hair) all off for the new Britney Spears look.
