CANADA She shoots! She scores! or why are girls excluded from Canada’s national sport? By SAM ROBERTS There are a ‘‘million’’ reasons why girls shouldn't play hockey. But those reasons are so ridicul- ous, you would think it was Harold Ballard who authored them. After all it was hockey magnate Harold who uttered to CBC interviewer Barbra Frum, something akin to (but slightly more gross) the well-worn chau- vinist adage that women belong barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. It is this same brand of incre- dulous disdain which greets girls who are challenging for their right to play hockey in the major kids hockey leagues of this country. But is it just a simple: should they or should they not be allowed to play? Or, is it rather a direct chal- lenge to the sovereignty of another male chauvinist bastion where little boys pick up back- ward ideas on the opposite sex and grow up to shower respect on buffoons like Harold Ballard. How often we've heard the cry, ““don’t mix sports and politics.’’ But let us not be too hasty to sepa- rate hockey, and sport in general, which is so intricately woven into our social and cultural fabric. The struggle of girls to win equality in hockey is part and parcel of the struggle for women to gain full equality in society. The Rules Forbid The Canadian Amateur Hoc- key Association (CAHA) re- cently entrenched discrimination in its regulations when it passed new rules governing girls’ partici- pation in hockey, deciding girls are not eligible to play on boys teams unless there are no girls’ hockey leagues available and then only up to the age of 12. The governing Canadian women’s hockey body not only agreed with the ruling, but sadly, participated in its formulation; its reasoning being that this was the only way to assist in the development of women’s hockey. In Metro Toronto things came to a head quickly when a Toronto Star sports feature showed a photo and caption, of a group of girls preparing for the oncoming hockey season in the Don Valley Village Hockey League... a boys hockey club. The Metro- politan Toronto Hockey League, which governs hockey in the re- gion, ordered the girls out. When the club refused, the governing body suspended them. There have been similar incidents elsewhere, but the fightback is gaining ground. An important breakthrough is the involvement of suburban North York Council in the To- ronto situation. Following an ini- tial defeat, a second hearing and vote by Council passed a motion which would put pressure on all hockey teams playing in public arenas, to give girls equal oppor- tunity. The motion also initiated an investigation of whether the CAHA ruling is in fact a violation of the new Charter of Rights. This is not the first direct involvement of a municipal government in minor hockey, but significantly it is the first involve- ment on the side of equality for girls. Feeble Arguments The arguments and reasoning supporting segregation of girls from the mainstream of hockey ‘are feeble at best, and outright chauvinistic at their worst: e Segregation of girls into girls’ leagues will help develop girls’ hockey levels. This is backwards logic. You don’t train an architect ona set of toy mini-bricks. If girls are to develop, they must play where the best coaching and train- ing are available. They must play where the highest level of compe- tition exists. With due respect to the volunteers who run girls’ hockey leagues, these conditions are available, along with better funding, preference in facilities and more widespread availability, in the mainstream hockey leagues. Soviet hockey, for in- stance, took a leap in develop- ment when they finally were able to play against the best Cana- dians, with the National Hockey League. To achieve the highest level of competitiveness, you must play the best available competition. Girls will develop in the mainstream, not in the slip- stream. e Girls are not physically capa- ble of playing with boys; they may get hurt. Straight bull! Under CAHA rules, physical contact is an offence up to age 13. After 13, many boys drop out of hockey because they do not take to the contact. Here girls need not be guaranteed a place to play, but should be guaranteed the oppor- tunity to try without discrim- ination — the same as boys. e Girls don’t have the know- how or the ability to play with boys. There are definitely gifted athletes in all sports (including women). For the vast majority, | know-how and ability: are ac- quired through learning and play- ing. Some learn and develop, others don’t. Again, opportunity is the key. TTT TTT TTT TTP ee Eee eT OO Eee Girls just want to have fun — The shift ended and the nine-year-old hockey players came off the ice. On the bench, the coach gathered them in a huddle. ‘“‘What the heck are you guys doing out there? Every time you get near that number nine, you give up the puck and stop playing!”’ “‘What are we supposed to do,”’ came a plaintive voice, ‘‘she’s a girl!” **She’s not a girl here,’’ scolded the coach, “‘here she’s a hockey player, so just go out there and play hockey with her!”’ The above took place at a Westwood Summer Hockey League game in Toronto. While it was refreshing to hear this attitude by a coach; it was sad to realize it was a voice in the wilderness. You see, this coach was one of a very small minority ... this coach was a woman, THOUUEEAUUUEMEEAUUOOOQOAUOGHAUOOOOELAOUCMOGAUOERGOOUEOOOOUEEOOOQOUOOGOOOUNOGOUUOOOEOOOEOOOOUUGSUOUOOEGOUUOOOOOOUOEQOGOUEEOOOUONEOIL The leaflet shown is posted in hockey arenas all over Metro Toronto. It clearly advertises hockey lessons “for boys,” and is aimed at “your: son’, not your daughter. Wording of this sort-is not an accident but the clear expression of a backward philosophy. Could it be that the current controversy over girls in hockey had something to do with the very definitive wording? House league hockey is a play if you pay proposition. It is notori- ous for the disparity in skills, from 50 goal scorers to those who can barely stand up on skates. Fun is emphasized, and every player is guaranteed equal ice time without preference to skill. Every girl with the desire, and who has -been given the opportunity, has earned a place in house league play: No girl who wanted to try would be out of place. When kids advance to the more competitive A, AA or Major hoc- key, teams are selected at try- outs. Those with the most ability make it and the rest are ‘‘cut’’. The overwhelming majority of these teams prohibit girls from try-outs. } The travesty committed over and over has been where girls have been given the opportunity and have ‘‘made”’ the team, they have invariably been forced out by the governing bodies. A case of this nature took place last au- tumn in a Toronto high school. A girl was among four goalies trying out for the school team. She made the team as the starting goalies and was described by her coach as an exceptional player. When the team roster was filed with the governing athletic body, the coach was informed she could not play because she was a girl, and so automatically ineligible. Sheer unadulterated dis- crimination, with no regard for ability involved. There are many, many more arguments just as illogical as these few. There are even a number of honest people who come right out and say hockey is a man’s game. But the bottom line is still the Opportunity to achieve uncondi- tional equality. No one can ex- pect a guaranteed place in sport; it is competitive by its very nature. But what must be guaranteed is the opportunity to try, regardless of success or failure. The Operative Word © The key word in underscoring the problem in hockey and all sports is *‘jock.”’ Jock is the slang reference widely used in the media, newspaper and sports world to describe someone heav- ily into sports, either as a par- ticipant or a fan. The word is de- rived from the protective cup worn by men and boys in sports. By its very definition women are excluded from being jocks. Subtle? Maybe! But highly significant. Its time there were fewer ‘‘jocks’’ in sports. CP hits Ottawa’s ‘sell-out’ to Star Wars OTTAWA — The government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney came under sharp fire from the leader of the Communist Party of Canada, Feb. 11, for its “‘sell-out’’ to the USA on the Reagan Star Wars program. “The Conservative Party is the party of sell-out — the American party in Canada,”’ charged Wil- liam Kashtan, during a stay in the capital. “This is reflected in its support of Reagan’s military and foreign policy,” he said. “‘It is reflected in the Conservative Party’s pro- posals for free trade with the USA.” The latest example is its efforts to tie Canada to the U.S. Star Wars program through NORAD (North American Aerospace De- fence) and a modernized DEW (Distant Early Warning) Line, that makes our country an ‘“‘ac- complice, a sort of ‘partner’ in U.S. nuclear and space adventur- ism,” he pointed out. Noting that the prime minister and President Reagan are scheduled to sign, next month, a $650-million deal as part of this plan for military modernization, Kashtan demanded: ‘‘Where is the Tory government’s concern for the budget deficit in this in- stance? ‘Prime Minister Mulroney has stated that support for the Star Wars program will assert Cana- da’s sovereignty and protect it,”’ he said. ‘‘Nothing could be further from the truth; it will do the opposite — undermine both 10 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 20, 1985 ee the sovereignty and security of our country.”’ The Star Wars program is an effort to achieve first-strike mili- tary superiority over the Soviet Union, with dangerous con- sequences for peace in the world, the Communist Party has pointed out. It urges that Canada ‘‘re- pudiate the Star Wars program and demand the annulment of the NORAD agreement.”’ The party demands the withdrawal of Canada from the aggressive NATO alliance to pursue an in- dependent foreign policy based on detente and peaceful co- existence, on parity and equal security. “*Free trade and continentalism will lead to the integration and in- creased domination of Canada’s economy by U.S. monopoly capital,’’ Kashtan said. ‘‘Cana- da’s turn to the USA is not a source of strength but really a source of increasing difficulties.”’ The Communist Party is adam- ant in its accusation that ‘‘Mul- roney’s promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, belies the latest statistics showing an increase in un- employment, and slow-down of the economy, much of this the di- rect result of Finance Minister Wilson’s' mini-budget last November.”’ Said Kashtan: ‘‘This is an in- evitable result. of the govern- ment’s preoccupation with the deficit and its support of the pri- vate sector. Unless changed to a policy of expanding the economy and raising the purchasing power of the people, the present course .fence of universalityg of government policy can bring on another recession.”’ The Communist Party leader called for ‘‘a people’s majority outside parliament to counter and check the Tory majority inside parliament. Without this,’’ he said, ‘‘the country and her people will be taken to the cleaners. “‘The people of Canada must compel the Tory government to stop the sell-out, to Put Canada First,’’ he said. “The Tory majority in parlia- ment must be challenged by a people’s majority outside parlia- ment, organized around a pro- gram for full employment, in de- social programs, and living standards, and for an independent Canadian foreign policy,’’ he said.