French Gay Football Team Says Muslim Players 'Homophobic'

Remove all ads!

From the AP via Foxnews.com

Spoiler

PARIS — An amateur club of gay football players in Paris said Tuesday its members were victims of homophobia when a team of Muslim players refused to play a match against them.

The Paris Foot Gay team says it received an e-mail Saturday from the Creteil Bebel club canceling a match scheduled for the following day.

"Because of the principles of our team, which is a team of devout Muslims, we can't play against you," the e-mail said, according to Paris Foot Gay. The e-mail continued with: "Our convictions are much more important than a simple football match."

Paris Foot Gay said in a statement that it asked the amateur league to sanction Creteil Bebel.

"This team refused to show up simply so it didn't have to play against homosexuals," the statement said.

Zahir Belgarbi, identified as a spokesman for Creteil Bebel, told France-Info radio that he apologized if "anyone felt upset or hurt" about the decision.

But "as a Muslim, I have the right to decide not to play against homosexuals because I don't agree with their ideas," he said.

I found this an interesting article. I'm on the board of directors of our local soccer club and I'm pretty sure that our club and the league we play in doesn't have any rules on how to handle this. I think The Paris Foot Gay club, just ends up winning via a forfeit.

I sincerely hope there isn't a French law which would compel the Muslim team to play them.

I am also very curious as to how the Muslim team is responding to claims that they are homophobic. I'm guessing they reply "So?" In Western society we spend so much effort defending ourselves against claims of "phobia" that it might actually be nice to admit to one once in awhile.

 

So the Muslim team loses a point, the gay team wins the match by default and gains a point. I don't see the damages inflicted on the gay team. Sure, it's insulting, but insulting someone doesn't amount to making them "victims", as they said in their complaint.

However, I can see how there could be sanctions placed against the Muslims -- I don't know much about sports but IIRC when you sign up in a league, you (as a team) are required to attend all scheduled matches. I can see some form of sanction occuring. There's no way in hell they can force them to play the gays (couldn't resist the rhyme) but they could be barred from the league or the championships.

 

I'm guessing the accusation is right, and my reaction to it is much the same as yours, Snook. Of all the ways to react, I think the Muslim team took the proper one. They didn't violate their beliefs or principles, yet they didn't (outrightly) insult or harm anyone. The Gay team gets a win by default (and the Muslim team a loss). From what you've posted the Muslim team was quite polite about it, didn't make a big scene, didn't through out any slurs, and even appologized if they offended anyone.

EDIT:
I don't know about league rules, but since forfeits by no-show happen, I'm guessing the only 'sanction' for not showing up is typically an automatic loss.

 

I would think that after this occurence, the league would amend their by-laws to cover this type of situation. To join and actively participate in a league, then refuse to play against someone in their league because they are gay is very insulting to the gays. Imagine the offense the Muslims would take if the Gay club refused to play against them because they were Muslims... I think that would cause a quite a stir.

 

It seems a bit daft from my perspective - but if it's against their religious beliefs, it's against their religious beliefs and you have to accept that.

I assume the team who refused to play recieved an automatic loss for the game?

 

Actually, considering the responses given by the Muslim team's representative, I don't think it would cause any stir at all. I think they would accept it and move on.

 

Personally, if I was in charge of the league, I would consider bouncing both teams from the league. First of all the gay team is clearly discriminating as they only let gays play. I feel the same way for the Muslim team as a league shouldn't have those types of teams. In addition if I was in charge of the league, I wouldn't want to have to deal with the hassels.

 

Well, that's something for the League to decide as ground rules. If they want to allow teams to 'theme' themselves like that, it's the League's decision. Likewise, if they want to allow teams to refuse to play each other. Just as long as it's spelled out in the rules.

 

Yup. And the gay team got a win.

For how much I typically disagree with Snook, I have to concede this point. A league would never accept a team that refused to allow Muslims on the team, or refused to allow gays on the team. So why should an all-gay or all-Muslim team - which excludes a far greater percentage of the population than a non-gay or non-Muslim team would - be OK?

 

I think there's a difference between having a team theme and discrimination. It can be subtle at times, but I think, especially with a group supposedly as tight-knit as a team, if they all want to be alike in significant ways, there's nothing wrong with it. A team needs to bond, and people can bond over anything, but some things are more likely to cause bonding.

To put it more specifically, saying "No gays allowed" is saying "We don't want gays", while saying "This is an all gay team" is saying "We need gays". The first says there's something wrong with that group in specific, while the second says there's something right with it, not necessarily something wrong with everything else.

 

These are NOT team themes, they are definitely discriminating against others. Term it however you like, discrimination is discrimination if you refuse others who are not like you to join. If you join a league that isn't all Muslim, which they made the choice to do so, then don't refuse to play some teams. You know they are in the league. If you don't like it, play somewhere else. What a bunch of whining, effing maggots.

 

Blades, first off, who joined first? If the Muslims joined a league in which there were no objectionable groups, and then one joined, should they be forced to leave? Secondly, I still say that politely withdrawing from the match is a perfectly acceptable alternative, so long as the league rules allow it. If you don't want people to act that way in your league, then you can write rules forbidding it, but unless this league has such rules, there's nothing wrong with what the Muslim team did.

 

It doesn't matter who joined 1st, last or whatever. They are knowingly participating in a league, then rebuke a team becasue they are gay? That team was in the league when the season started, why didn't they boycott the league then? That is going outside the boundaries of politlely withdrawing, however nicely they said it. The statement stands for itself, they don't accept gays, period. They can hide behind their religion all they want. If I was commisioner of that league and stated no Muslims were allowed because I don't agree with their lifestyle, there would be a huge blowup over it, don't even try to deny that. They expect the gays to accept that, but if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be outraged. They expect different standards for different people. That's pathetic. If gays offend them so much, why do they participate in a league that allows gays in the 1st place? Kick them out for their offensive ways, the gays did nothing to them.

 

In my limited experience with leagues, when you join up, it is as a complete group, and often that group is composed of members who share something in common. Usually it's a group of friends, but it can be an office group, a religious group, or even a group of homosexuals, I suppose.

I don't believe most leagues have rules about who you allow on your team -- they leave it up to players. If you want to join a team and they rebuff you, then you are welcome to create your own team. Leagues likely only care that you have enough players (and not too many players, either)

What if the Muslim team made the playoffs against the Gay team? It would seem to me that they'd have to forfeit the championship game. That would suck, but hey, it's their call.

I think the best course of action would be to merely award the win to the gay team and remind the Muslims that while they have their rights, so do the gays, so don't expect the league to change the rules.

 

This is no different than all-white schools boycotting games vs. all-black schools a couple of generations ago. We have moved past that sort of crap years ago here in the US.

If this happened in a public school league, would everyone involved have the same reactions? Very doubtful.

What's next, they won't play against teams with Christians or Jews or Aethiests? If I was participating in that league and the League officials did not squash that nonsense immediately, I would pull out everytime.

 

I've never enjoyed pulling out . . . .

Oh, wait, did you mean from the games? Sorry, my mind was elsewhere.

I agree that modern leagues should foresee such nonsense and have rules written into their charters.

 

Except that they didn't rebuke the team. All they did was politely withdraw. What exactly would you consider politely withdrawing if not what they did?

Except that it isn't the league commisioner doing it. And it wasn't a gay asking to join the team, either.

Now you're assuming their reaction. The fact of the matter is, I expect they'd accept it without comment.

 

You can't POLITELY WITHDRAW for those reasons NOG. By stating we won't play against you because your gay is a MAJOR insult to the gay team. How you think it can be taken any other way is ridiculous.

I highly doubt they would accept it without comment.

 

Here's the problem with that reaction: a polite withdrawl (versus an impolite one) is a matter of how it's done, not why.

Now, tell me, how would you feel if it were a team of single parents refusing to play a team from NAMBLA? Now, no, I'm not trying to say that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing, but I am trying to show you that your reaction is an opposition to their beliefs, not to their actions.

 

How it is done is meaningless, when the bottom line intent is their for all to see. They are showing their hatred for Gays by refusing to play them. How are defending such an action?

My reaction is in opposition to their actions and beliefs, since THEY acted on their beliefs.