Christ, I posted this story and I've gone back and forth on it ever since. This isn't a simple issue of either safety or racism. The problem appears to be that the tournament rules -- presumably sanctioned by the Quebec Soccer Association, although not necessarily -- do indeed contain a phrase that appears to be both inflammatory and completely devoid of anything resembling the FIFA ruling, the offending phrase being "the wearing of the Islamic veil or any other religious item is not permitted". Everyone who plays organized football (soccer) anywhere in the world comes under FIFA jurisdiction, so I'm not sure why local associations feel the need to add their creative little sub-clauses. Compounding this problem is that many reporters who have covered this story have referred to slightly outdated FIFA laws. For instance, the CBC website quoted the following:

FIFA Law 4 - The Players' Equipment

• A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewelry).
  
• All items of jewelry are potentially dangerous. The term "dangerous" can sometimes be ambiguous and controversial, therefore in order to be uniform and consistent, any kind of jewelry has to be forbidden.
  
• Players are not allowed to use tape to cover jewelry. Taping jewelry is not adequate protection.
  
• Rings, earrings, leather or rubber bands are not necessary to play and the only thing they can bring about is injury.

But the FIFA site itself is significantly different:

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 to be dangerous and are therefore permitted

New technology has made sports spectacles much safer, both for the players themselves and for other players

Note that second clause. Common sense would dictate that the sports hijab already linked to in the story would come under this provision, and since it uses velcro, it is a lot less dangerous than the actual collar of most soccer shirts. I don't believe the motivation here was racism or prejudice -- although I'm not completely discounting it on the part of the local soccer club (not the referee, though, he's just trying to enforce what he believes are safety rules) -- it's just that not everyone appears to have been apprised of up-to-date FIFA rulings. Sikh kids in our local British Columbia league often wear religious headgear, and when it hits those sub-zero temperatures, referees have never, to my knowledge, prevented kids from wearing toques (although never ball caps or anything else with a peak or brim*). When you look at the professional game, glaucoma-sufferer Edgar Davids has always been allowed to wear special eyewear, and there have been instances in which players have worn protective masks and other head gear.

So, like I wrote in my original story -- common sense application of the current FIFA rules would have solved this situation. The coach should never have sanctioned a walkout, but things should never have reached that point unaddressed in the first place.

*Due to glare, however, goalkeepers are yet another exception, so none of this is cut and dried.

I'm reminded of another athelete whose religious beliefs were in conflict with a sport. Instead of demanding the sport accomadate him, he accomadated himself to the sport, and elected to sit out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it coinciede with Yom Kippur. That athelete's name? Sandy Koufax! Which is why I have zero sympathy for this girl in the jibjab. If it is against your religion to wear a sports uniform, not only shouldn't you be playing sports, you shouldn't be living in countries where normal people wear shorts when they play kickball.  

And the league had told organizers about the rule -- "The wearing of the Islamic veil or any other religious item is not permitted" -- before the game.

Asi's team was aware of the rule, but didn't expect it would be enforced.

So when it was, many players and adults were outraged.

This, I don't get. Since when is "how dare they enforce the rules we were made aware of in advance?" a justifiable position?

Safety issue.  End of story.  If they allow the girl to play and her hijab gets caught on another player and she chokes or something, that would not be acceptable.  The rule is there for safety.  If she wants to play soccer, then she can take off the hijab.  She can put it back on when the game is over.  This is not discrimination.  

Quebec's Premier Jean Charest immediately supported the ref's decision to ban some poor Ontario kid, trying to make points with the racists who live in the regions (the regions are everywhere in Quebec that isn't along the St.Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec City). He was ambivalent on the whole Hérouxville declaration (now know as the Reasonable Accommodation debate), so now he's trying to score political points on the back of some 11-yr old girl. For those not in the know, the Quebec Premier is from the Liberal party, but his closest allies are in the Conservative party of Canada... I'm voting for the separatists again.. they at least have decent politics.

Tipping Sacred Cows

   To repeat: the political protests of school children are rarely very complex, or even that interesting. That said, they aren't very guilty, either-- "youthful exuberance" will take all kinds of shapes, and not just ones that are smart or deep. It should be a mark of shame for adults, actually, that this story got any national- now international, I guess- attention at all.
   I don't know about anyone else, but the first comparison that sprang to mind was that story about some high school Christian kids who got their picture taken out of the yearbook because they lined up shirts for a group photo to spell out a religious message. (Was that here or Plastic? I can't remember, and don't care to search.) The kids, and probably many of their parents, wanted to think of this as a religious issue-- who knows, David Limbaugh may have filed it away for a his sequel to Persecution, for all I know. Yet you didn't have to be an atheist to grasp that letting kids hijack group photos like this was just asking for trouble; given the last three years, think how many principals would be dealing with "Bush Sux!" staring back from assembly pictures. (Not to mention the ubiquitous "Weed rocks!" and its variations.) Personal freedom is not absolute, even in a democracy, and even if it hurts your feelings once in a while.
   On the flip side, though, I will be incredibly suspicious of anyone who tries to make more of this than meets the eye. Is this another instance of "Islam vs the West"? Hell no, at least no more than the high school case is an example of "Christianity vs secular authority."* The French ban on scarves, that was a serious issue-- this is closer to a kid getting sent home for refusing to take off a Tool shirt, say this one.
    Freedom is the freedom to be wrong, so let's not make more of this than it is, eh?

   *Although it is interesting to consider the volume of literature implying, or even openly stating, that Christianity is incompatible with the secular state, and that the latter might be better discarded. Go poke around the Religion section at your local used book store and you might be surprised at what you can find.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

...the ones linked to in the original sub. Hell, that Polarfleece jobbie looks nice. I may get one myself next winter.

I wonder what the motives of the girl who decided to leave are. I wouldn't leap to the assumption that they were political. She may have simply felt too uncomfortable without her hijab, if she wears it all the time. I would probably leave a game if someone insisted I play it in shorts and an athletic bra. That's just not a level of uncovering that I am used to.

Safetywise, it seems to me that if you're engaging in a sport that involves bouncing a ball off your head, maybe a headscarf isn't such a bad idea.

I should also add that "the Islamic veil" mentioned in the tournament rules is by no stretch of the imagination the same thing as the hijab. The latter allows peripheral vision, whereas something like this does not. The burqa is definitely inappropriate sports wear, but the hijab does not affect movement or vision or indeed, given the availability of sports versions, safety.

... is being played up in Canada at this time of year?  One hopes the matches take place indoor.  I have a solution to this whole thing -- have them adopt Olympic rules.  No, not current Olympic rules -- have them adopt the rules of the ancient games where all the athletes had to perform in the nude.  I'll bet it would boost attendance also.

Tending to final details.

What's a Freudian slip?