|
|
本帖最后由 woikuraki 于 2012-3-31 14:09 编辑
【中文标题】国际足联的内部政治与穆斯林面纱
【原文标题】The politics of FIFA and the Hijab
【登载媒体】外交政策
【原文作者】Curtis R. Ryan
【原文链接】http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/28/the_politics_of_fifa_and_the_hijab
FIFA——国际足球联合会，正准备在近日做出一项将会影响到数十万年轻穆斯林女性生活的决定——是否要推翻赛场上戴头巾和面纱的禁令。事情发生在去年夏天，2011年6月，整支伊朗女足队伍被禁止参加在约旦举办的奥运会预选赛。整支国家队被剥夺参赛权，在一项重大国际比赛前几分钟接到通知，在全世界掀起了轩然大波，人们格外关注头巾、体育和国际政策之间的关系。然而，今天舆论的风向似乎调转了方位。一大批活动人士、运动员和支持者——包括穆斯林国家和非穆斯林国家——似乎已经做好准备抵制国际足联的异议。他们将在3月3日抵达伦敦参加国际足球协会理事会（IFAB），并提出取消这条禁令，让数千名女性有机会参与这项运动。
当伊朗国家足球队在如此重要的奥运会预选赛中，被全部禁止参赛之后，伊朗总统内贾德大发雷霆，他说这项决定是“不人道的”，并且丝毫不具讽刺意味地斥责国际足联是一帮独裁者。在某些人看来，伊朗自身也是有责任的。如果它不是一个性别歧视的神权国家，如果它不立法规定女性的装束，那么这个问题也根本不会发生。但也不完全是伊朗人的问题，3名约旦国家足球队员也不得不离开赛场，因为她们拒绝摘掉头巾比赛。
与伊朗这个几乎在任何问题上都表现得很极端的国家不同，约旦似乎更能代表全世界50多个穆斯林国家。它并未立法要求或者禁止头巾，这种装束完全是个人行为，而不是政府行为（只有伊朗和沙特阿拉伯立法约束女性的装束，当然，沙特没有女子足球队这种东西）。当然，必须承认社会上有强大的舆论和家长式宗族压力，但是在约旦和其它穆斯林国家，有些女人戴头巾，有些也不戴。国际足联似乎对此相当严肃，大笔一挥就摧毁了全世界6.5亿女性登上世界足球赛场的机会。简单来说，这个问题与伊朗总统愤怒的反帝国主义咆哮无关，而是国际足联是否要继续歧视选择自我装束的穆斯林女性。
那么问题究竟出在哪里？从很多方面来看，世界足球，尤其是女性穆斯林运动员，在遭受着反穆斯林主义和在北美、欧洲兴起的文化战争的双重压迫。2007年，魁北克足球联盟禁止在赛场上出现头巾和任何明显的宗教标记。很快，这条规则被强加在11岁的女孩身上，哪怕只有一名球员拒绝摘掉头巾，整个队伍的那场比赛就被判输。同年，IFAB支持了魁北克的判决，并且在全球推广。
两年前的2010年3月份，国际足联对这个问题的态度稍加缓和，允许运动员用帽子遮住头发，但是帽檐不能在耳朵以下，也不能遮住脖子。这样的改变并没有实质性的意义。很多女人之所以戴头巾，就是为了遮住头发和颈部。这根本不是什么明显的宗教标志（在所有穆斯林国家中，都没有任何有关头巾的规定），而是文化和个人性格取向的问题。很多穆斯林女性——或许有数百万人——不戴头巾，但还有数百万人戴头巾。备受质疑的头巾除了符合一块织物的性质以外，别无它义。人们不应当把它与那些强加在女性身上的全身包裹并且具有限制性的服装相提并论，比如伊朗的斗篷和塔利班统治的阿富汗哪种臭名昭著的蓝色罩袍。从来没有人主张女性运动员应当穿戴斗篷、罩袍，甚至面纱，也不会有人认为女人应当被迫戴上头巾，无论是应其祖国或造访国的要求。我们的观点是，要允许女人做出自己的文化和个性选择，而不是让（大部分是男人主导的）管理机构——国家或者国际足联——来为她们做选择。
但如果仅仅是头巾的问题，有又什么大不了的呢？虽然当初的禁令是基于对穆斯林、宗教和文化的误解，但后来重点又转移到运动员的安全上。在一场粗野的身体对抗比赛中，运动员有可能因为头巾被抓住而受到伤害。那么如果头巾在激烈的比赛中会被抓到，头发会不会更容易被抓到呢？按照“安全”的逻辑思路，长发和马尾辫要比头巾更加危险。实际上，扎紧的头巾或许是保护头发和头部的最安全的方法。可惜的是，反对头巾禁令的运动并未提出这个观点，积极人士只是指出安全观点的逻辑性错误和或许存在的阴险意图。
尽管如此，允许头巾的动议严肃回应了国际足联以前所有的反对意见，甚至还为质疑运动员安全的问题提供了解决方案——一种新的、运动版的头巾。简单来说，他们的提议不仅仅是为了解除一项禁令，还包括引进一种专门为足球运动所设计的头巾。运动头巾可以覆盖头发和颈部，非常贴体，使用透气材质和尼龙搭扣。如果头巾被扯住，尼龙搭扣在受力时会松开，以避免受伤。这种新设计将在这周末的伦敦IFAB会议上展出。
这样的决定对国际足联来说并不是一个好的时候，它已经在缠杂不清的种族丑闻中越陷越深了，包括永久性地解除前亚足联主席穆罕默德•本•哈曼的职务。国际足联上层的动荡，让这个组织几十年来第一次接纳了新鲜的血液。2011年1月，在代表亚洲的国际足联副主席职位的激烈竞争中，约旦王子侯赛因•伊本•阿里以25票对20票击败了富有名望的韩国候选人——郑梦准。侯赛因王子立即承诺要为国际足联带来卓越的改变，首先在亚洲更加深入地开展年轻和女性足球运动。在一项尚未被欧洲和拉丁美洲统治的运动中（尤其是女子世界杯），要更加积极地让亚洲足球进入一个新领域。值得一提的是，女子足球的地域差别目前还并不明显，前几届世界冠军分别是美国、中国和日本。
阿里王子打造了一支年轻、专业的团队——包括一些非常有才华的约旦前外交官——来推动亚洲的改革。现在，他在试图扭转国际足球中一种下意识的性别歧视倾向。其中一个举措是在互联网上掀起名为“Let Us Play”的运动，其facebook主页迅速吸引了65000名关注者。
2011年11月，亚足联（AFC）在马来西亚吉隆坡举行的执行会议中批准了结束头巾禁令的提案。亚足联要求阿里王子把这份提案带到11月在东京举行的国际足联执行委员会中。下一步是3月份在伦敦举行的国际足球协会理事会，这次会议要决定全世界足球规则的修改方案，其决议将会影响到世界各地的足球规则。
变革的呼声从亚洲传向西方，逐渐赢得了一些非穆斯林国家的支持，包括新西兰男子足球队队长Ryan Nelson和前女子国家队中场队员Michele Cox。世界职业球员协会也批准了这项运动。最近，日本女子世界杯夺冠队伍大和抚子也宣布支持。
呼吁接受头巾的运动内容相当彻底——甚至包括了教育、扩大女性的参与权、在穆斯林国家和非穆斯林国家寻求支持。现在，国际足联和国际足球协会理事会必须要做出一个重大的决定。他们必须要留意国际足联的使命，其中包括扩大女性参与这项运动的机会。
解除这项禁令恰恰会实现这个目的，它会让女性有更多的机会参与世界上最受欢迎的运动。文化保守与社会进步应当是可以并存的两种事物，让我们抓住不多的机会来纠正错误吧。解除禁令，并且引进一种特制的运动头巾——无论女运动员决定使用还是不使用——都会增强女性的力量。同时，女人有了自我选择的机会，而不是让国际足联替她们来选择。
球现在已经传到了国际足联的脚下，让我们看看他们如何处理吧。
原文：
FIFA, the international federation for world soccer, is poised to make a decision in a few days that will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Muslim women -- whether or not to overturn the current ban on the hijab, or headscarf. Matters actually came to a head last summer, in June 2011, when the entire Iranian women's soccer team was prevented from playing in Olympic qualifying matches held in Jordan. The ouster of an entire national team, minutes before a key international match, led to a resurgent global debate on the relations between the hijab, sports, and international politics. Today, however, the winds of change seem to be blowing back in the other direction, as activists, athletes, and allies -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- appear to have met every FIFA objection and will arrive at the March 3 London meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) with a proposal to lift the ban and allow thousands of women an opportunity that is blocked under current rules.
When the Iranian national team was collectively forbidden from international competition, at a key moment in Olympic trials no less, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fumed that the decision was "inhumane" and, with no apparent sense of irony, railed against FIFA as a group of dictators. For some, Iran itself was to blame. If Iran were not such a gender-regressive theocracy, legislating how women must dress, then the problem might never have occurred. But the problem is actually not about Iran. Three women on the Jordanian national team also had to leave their home field, as they too refused to remove their hijabs in order to play.
Unlike Iran, an extreme case in almost every sense, Jordan is more representative of the over 50 countries worldwide with majority Muslim populations. It does not legislate for or against hijab. The decision is a personal matter, not a governmental one. (Only Iran and Saudi Arabia legislate restrictions on women's clothing, and not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia has no women's soccer team whatsoever). And yes there are strong social and even patriarchal pressures in many places. But in Jordan, as in most majority Muslim societies, some women wear the hijab and some don't. But by choosing to legislate the matter, FIFA in the stroke of a pen banned approximately half the 650 million Muslim women worldwide from the opportunity of playing soccer at the global level. The issue, in short, is not about the anti-imperialist bluster of an Iranian president. The real issue, instead, is whether FIFA will continue to discriminate and exclude Muslim women who choose to wear hijab.
So what was the tipping point here? In many ways global football, and more importantly female Muslim athletes, have been trapped between rising anti-Muslim sentiments and the larger culture wars being fought mainly in North America and Europe. In 2007, the Quebec Soccer Federation banned the hijab and any explicit religious symbols from the playing field. Shortly thereafter the rule was enforced against 11-year-old girls, forcing teams to forfeit games if even a single player refused to remove her hijab. That same year, the International Football Association Board backed the Quebec ruling, effectively internationalizing it.
Two years ago, in March 2010, FIFA softened its stance to allow some form of cap to cover hair, but not below the ears and not covering the neck. However, this didn't help matters. For women who wear the headscarf, the entire point is to cover the hair and neck. It is not an explicitly religious symbol (there is no agreement whatsoever across the diversity of the Muslim world regarding the hijab), but rather more of a cultural matter and personal approach to modesty. Many Muslim women -- millions, in fact -- do not wear the hijab at all. But millions of others do. And the type of hijab in question is simply a headscarf, nothing more. It should not be confused with more all-encompassing and restrictive clothing imposed on women in some societies, such as the chador in Iran or the infamous blue burqas associated with Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. No one is arguing that women athletes should be wearing chadors, burqas, or face veils of any kind. Nor is anyone proposing that any woman should be forced to wear hijab, either by her home country or as part of the visiting team in a Muslim country. The argument instead is to allow all women to make their own cultural and personal choices, without governing bodies (mostly male) -- whether states or FIFA -- making the decision for them.
But if it is just a matter of a simple headscarf, then what exactly is the problem? Even if the original objections were largely over misunderstandings regarding Islam, religion, and culture, the emphasis soon shifted to concerns for player safety. In a rough and very physical game, players could be pulled by their hijab with the risk of serious injury. Yet if a hijab can be grabbed in the heat of a game, isn't hair even more likely to be grabbed? By the "safety" logic, long hair and ponytails are far more dangerous than a hijab. Indeed, a tight-fitting hijab might even be the safest way to protect the hair and the head. The movement to lift the hijab ban makes no such claim, however. Rather, advocates simply point out the inconsistency and perhaps even spurious nature of the safety argument.
Nonetheless, the initiative to allow the hijab has taken all of FIFA's earlier objections seriously, has addressed them, and even has a solution to the question of player safety -- a new, sport-friendly version of the hijab. They propose, in short, not just an end to the ban, but the introduction of a hijab designed specifically for sport and especially for soccer. The sport hijab is designed to cover the hair and neck, is very close fitting, but is made of breathable material fastened by Velcro. If the player is grabbed by the hijab, it is designed to come off, sparing injury. The new designs will be displayed at the London meeting of IFAB this weekend.
FIFA, the international federation for world soccer, is poised to make a decision in a few days that will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Muslim women -- whether or not to overturn the current ban on the hijab, or headscarf. Matters actually came to a head last summer, in June 2011, when the entire Iranian women's soccer team was prevented from playing in Olympic qualifying matches held in Jordan. The ouster of an entire national team, minutes before a key international match, led to a resurgent global debate on the relations between the hijab, sports, and international politics. Today, however, the winds of change seem to be blowing back in the other direction, as activists, athletes, and allies -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- appear to have met every FIFA objection and will arrive at the March 3 London meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) with a proposal to lift the ban and allow thousands of women an opportunity that is blocked under current rules.
When the Iranian national team was collectively forbidden from international competition, at a key moment in Olympic trials no less, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fumed that the decision was "inhumane" and, with no apparent sense of irony, railed against FIFA as a group of dictators. For some, Iran itself was to blame. If Iran were not such a gender-regressive theocracy, legislating how women must dress, then the problem might never have occurred. But the problem is actually not about Iran. Three women on the Jordanian national team also had to leave their home field, as they too refused to remove their hijabs in order to play.
Unlike Iran, an extreme case in almost every sense, Jordan is more representative of the over 50 countries worldwide with majority Muslim populations. It does not legislate for or against hijab. The decision is a personal matter, not a governmental one. (Only Iran and Saudi Arabia legislate restrictions on women's clothing, and not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia has no women's soccer team whatsoever). And yes there are strong social and even patriarchal pressures in many places. But in Jordan, as in most majority Muslim societies, some women wear the hijab and some don't. But by choosing to legislate the matter, FIFA in the stroke of a pen banned approximately half the 650 million Muslim women worldwide from the opportunity of playing soccer at the global level. The issue, in short, is not about the anti-imperialist bluster of an Iranian president. The real issue, instead, is whether FIFA will continue to discriminate and exclude Muslim women who choose to wear hijab.
So what was the tipping point here? In many ways global football, and more importantly female Muslim athletes, have been trapped between rising anti-Muslim sentiments and the larger culture wars being fought mainly in North America and Europe. In 2007, the Quebec Soccer Federation banned the hijab and any explicit religious symbols from the playing field. Shortly thereafter the rule was enforced against 11-year-old girls, forcing teams to forfeit games if even a single player refused to remove her hijab. That same year, the International Football Association Board backed the Quebec ruling, effectively internationalizing it.
Two years ago, in March 2010, FIFA softened its stance to allow some form of cap to cover hair, but not below the ears and not covering the neck. However, this didn't help matters. For women who wear the headscarf, the entire point is to cover the hair and neck. It is not an explicitly religious symbol (there is no agreement whatsoever across the diversity of the Muslim world regarding the hijab), but rather more of a cultural matter and personal approach to modesty. Many Muslim women -- millions, in fact -- do not wear the hijab at all. But millions of others do. And the type of hijab in question is simply a headscarf, nothing more. It should not be confused with more all-encompassing and restrictive clothing imposed on women in some societies, such as the chador in Iran or the infamous blue burqas associated with Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. No one is arguing that women athletes should be wearing chadors, burqas, or face veils of any kind. Nor is anyone proposing that any woman should be forced to wear hijab, either by her home country or as part of the visiting team in a Muslim country. The argument instead is to allow all women to make their own cultural and personal choices, without governing bodies (mostly male) -- whether states or FIFA -- making the decision for them.
But if it is just a matter of a simple headscarf, then what exactly is the problem? Even if the original objections were largely over misunderstandings regarding Islam, religion, and culture, the emphasis soon shifted to concerns for player safety. In a rough and very physical game, players could be pulled by their hijab with the risk of serious injury. Yet if a hijab can be grabbed in the heat of a game, isn't hair even more likely to be grabbed? By the "safety" logic, long hair and ponytails are far more dangerous than a hijab. Indeed, a tight-fitting hijab might even be the safest way to protect the hair and the head. The movement to lift the hijab ban makes no such claim, however. Rather, advocates simply point out the inconsistency and perhaps even spurious nature of the safety argument.
Nonetheless, the initiative to allow the hijab has taken all of FIFA's earlier objections seriously, has addressed them, and even has a solution to the question of player safety -- a new, sport-friendly version of the hijab. They propose, in short, not just an end to the ban, but the introduction of a hijab designed specifically for sport and especially for soccer. The sport hijab is designed to cover the hair and neck, is very close fitting, but is made of breathable material fastened by Velcro. If the player is grabbed by the hijab, it is designed to come off, sparing injury. The new designs will be displayed at the London meeting of IFAB this weekend.
The decision also comes at a moment of great change within FIFA. The organization has been reeling from assorted ethics scandals, including banning for life the former president of the Asia Football Confederation, Muhammad Bin Hammam. The shake-up at the top echelons of FIFA has allowed the emergence for the first time in decades of some new blood. In January 2011, in a closely contested election for FIFA vice-president representing all of Asia, Jordan's Prince Ali ibn al-Hussein defeated the more established candidate, South Korea's Chun Mong Joon by a vote of 25 to 20. The Hashemite prince then immediately promised to bring progressive change to FIFA, starting with a campaign to expand youth and women's soccer across Asia. In a global sport that has nonetheless been dominated (especially in the World Cup) by Europe and Latin America, the drive has been to bring soccer in Asia to this more distinguished level of play. It is worth noting that in women's soccer, the geographic imbalance toward Europe and Latin America is not as severe, with past world champions including the United States, China, and most recently, Japan.
Prince Ali has established a young and professional staff -- including some very talented Jordanian former diplomats -- to push for change, starting in Asia, but now attempting to reverse what is presumably an unintended form of gender discrimination in global football. Among other things, this has included an internet awareness campaign simply entitled "Let Us Play," whose facebook group quickly garnered more than 65,000 members.
In November 2011, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the proposal to end the hijab ban was approved by the executive committee of the Asia Football Confederation (AFC). The AFC then charged Prince Ali with taking their proposals to the FIFA executive committee, meeting in December 2011 in Tokyo. And now the next step is the March meeting in London of the International Football Association Board, charged with making and revising the rules governing the global game, and whose decisions are considered binding for all regional soccer associations and confederations.
The momentum for change has been building from Asia westward, and has steadily added endorsements from a host of non-Muslim sources, including Ryan Nelson, captain of the New Zealand men's national team, and Michele Cox, a former midfielder for the New Zealand women's national team. The global union for soccer players, FIFPro, has also endorsed the campaign and, most recently, Japan's women's world championship team, the Nadasheko, has added their endorsement as well.
The campaign to allow the hijab has certainly been thorough -- focusing on education, expanding women's participation, and gaining support from Muslim and non-Muslim sources alike. Now FIFA and IFAB have a very big decision to make. In doing so, they will presumably be mindful of FIFA's own declared mission to expand the sport, including expanding women's opportunities to participate.
Lifting the ban will do just that. It will expand women's participation in the world's most popular sport. It is one of those rare moments when cultural conservatives and social progressives should actually be on the same side. Lifting the ban and allowing a specific sport-oriented hijab -- whether women choose to wear it or not -- empowers women. Lifting the ban will allow women to choose for themselves, rather than have FIFA choose for them.
The ball is now being passed to FIFA. It has only to pass it back. Let them play.
|
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2012-3-8 09:15
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2012-3-8 11:15
楼主
