An interview with Shohreh Bayat

[Paul McKeown]

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/0 ... s-wrong-en

[Roger Lancaster]

I think this is a genuinely difficult area. I agree with Shohreh Bayat. So my first thought is to support her in a cause in which she honestly believes and with which I agree. However, I then have to pause and consider what precedent this creates. If, for example, a FIDE arbiter honestly believes that Donald Trump lost the last US election through skulduggery, should he or she be allowed to officiate while wearing a t-shirt with that message?

[Chris Rice]

There is precedent for this in football when for years players scored and raised their shirts to reveal a message which was often political until FIFA etc then did something about it. If FIDE want a dress code which takes into account political slogans etc then they should, as Shohreh says, come up with one. She has done nothing wrong therefore and is entitled to wear such a t-shirt which personally I find hard to believe offends anyone.

What I find difficult to stomach is the cowardly and underhand cancelling of her arbiting opportunities simply because she won't go along with some unofficial policy which is not transparent. We should be supporting her. Perhaps, if nothing changes, at the British as many players, arbiters, organisers, spectators as possible, in a show of solidarity, should wear these t-shirts?

[NickFaulks]

If FIDE want a dress code which takes into account political slogans etc then they should, as Shohreh says, come up with one.

Arbiters at official FIDE events know perfectly well that they are not permitted to wear clothing with political slogans.

[Kevin Thurlow]

The problem is that you really have to ban all slogans, else the rule becomes ten pages long. The players may also be distracted by an arbiter wearing a loud shirt of any sort. It's best for the arbiter to try to merge into the background as much as possible.

I agree with what she says, but it's not the place to do it. And doubtless the complaint about the "political" shirt is due to the "politics" of Russia and Iran being mates.

[Paul Heaton]

What I find difficult to stomach is the cowardly and underhand cancelling of her arbiting opportunities simply because she won't go along with some unofficial policy which is not transparent. We should be supporting her. Perhaps, if nothing changes, at the British as many players, arbiters, organisers, spectators as possible, in a show of solidarity, should wear these t-shirts?

Would you find it similarly difficult to stomach a lack of employment progression, from wearing similar attire to the office? I doubt most employment contracts specifically cover every form of attire, but in many settings if you don’t dress appropriately -especially when being paid- you should expect your card to be well and truly marked.

[Chris Rice]

If FIDE want a dress code which takes into account political slogans etc then they should, as Shohreh says, come up with one.

Arbiters at official FIDE events know perfectly well that they are not permitted to wear clothing with political slogans.

Is what is on the t-shirt even political? There are three individual words women, life and freedom. Well she is a woman, she is alive and freedom on its own without any context isn't really saying anything, is it?

You say all the arbiters know perfectly well that they are not permitted to wear clothing with political slogans on it. Where are you getting that from? Shohreh clearly says she couldn't find anything. There is no dress code which for instance could easily contain a provision that no arbiter may wear clothing with any kind of writing on it. The process for her was a Russian man basically telling her not to wear the t-shirt publicly declaring for example that she is a woman for fear of upsetting the Iranians. She didn't comply so FIDE took her arbiting opportunities away. As nothing has been written down about this she can't challenge the decision or even complain to the Ethics Committee. It's a poor way of dealing with the situation.

[Chris Rice]

What I find difficult to stomach is the cowardly and underhand cancelling of her arbiting opportunities simply because she won't go along with some unofficial policy which is not transparent. We should be supporting her. Perhaps, if nothing changes, at the British as many players, arbiters, organisers, spectators as possible, in a show of solidarity, should wear these t-shirts?

Would you find it similarly difficult to stomach a lack of employment progression, from wearing similar attire to the office? I doubt most employment contracts specifically cover every form of attire, but in many settings if you don’t dress appropriately -especially when being paid- you should expect your card to be well and truly marked.

There is usually plenty of stuff in each firm's staff handbooks about how employees should dress so you know where you stand. Typical male point of view though which is why women struggle to rise within organisations.

[NickFaulks]

You say all the arbiters know perfectly well that they are not permitted to wear clothing with political slogans on it. Where are you getting that from?

I suggest you ask any other regular arbiter at FIDE events whether they know that.

[Chris Rice]

You say all the arbiters know perfectly well that they are not permitted to wear clothing with political slogans on it. Where are you getting that from?

I suggest you ask any other regular arbiter at FIDE events whether they know that.

So you make a statement which I disagree with yet I've got to be the one to find the supporting evidence for it?

[Ian Thompson]

Is what is on the t-shirt even political? There are three individual words women, life and freedom. Well she is a woman, she is alive and freedom on its own without any context isn't really saying anything, is it?

Of course it is.

What I find difficult to stomach is the cowardly and underhand cancelling of her arbiting opportunities simply because she won't go along with some unofficial policy which is not transparent.

She comes across in the interview as someone who, at the very least, doesn't care if she causes difficulties for other people/organisations, or, at worst, sets out to do so because she thinks she can. Why would anyone want to employ someone like that when they could employ someone else who is not like that?

[LawrenceCooper]

Is what is on the t-shirt even political? There are three individual words women, life and freedom. Well she is a woman, she is alive and freedom on its own without any context isn't really saying anything, is it?

Of course it is.

What I find difficult to stomach is the cowardly and underhand cancelling of her arbiting opportunities simply because she won't go along with some unofficial policy which is not transparent.

She comes across in the interview as someone who, at the very least, doesn't care if she causes difficulties for other people/organisations, or, at worst, sets out to do so because she thinks she can. Why would anyone want to employ someone like that when they could employ someone else who is not like that?

If FIDE were to stop employing people that created difficulties for other people/organisations because they think they can they might find themselves with a lot of vacancies to fill, particularly at the top of their organisation.

[Ian Thompson]

If FIDE were to stop employing people that created difficulties for other people/organisations because they think they can they might find themselves with a lot of vacancies to fill, particularly at the top of their organisation.

Maybe some people can get away with it. Arbiters, though, do not appear to be in short supply.

[Paul McKeown]

Why would anyone want to employ someone like that when they could employ someone else who is not like that?

It isn't really clear to me what you are accusing her of, apart from hard-nosed and unyielding feminism.

You ask who would employ her.

Richmond Junior Chess Club is delighted to employ her as its current coach for its Girls' Classes. It may not be the grandest or more significant role she has ever undertaken or fulfilled, that is clear. However, the list of parents and kids who have come up to me to say they are delighted that she is available as a role model is very long indeed. Not only those attending Richmond Juniors itself, but teachers, students and parents from various schools have asked if it it possible to meet her. Iranian (and also Afghani and Turkish) women (and men) have spoken to me or emailed me, with words of support for Shohreh.

Strangely the only place in English chess where I have encountered opposition to Shohreh is here in this forum, predominantly from males of a certain age, often from those who have never been shy coming forward to condemn liberation for any group in society.

The only way rights and equality have been given to any classes of citizen, resident, non-resident or stranger in any society has been through that group's trenchant demand for those rights over many years. I find it peculiar that any woman should be condemned for using the platforms available to her to demand rights for other women in a country in which the treatment of women is unfair, brutal and repressive.

Of course, as has been pointed out here by others, the geo-political context is clear. The Russian Federation has few overt supporters left in the international community since the invasion of Ukraine, and Dvorkovich, as FIDE President, and as a well-connected former senior Russian politician, would have felt under pressure to keep Iran on side.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Is what is on the t-shirt even political? There are three individual words women, life and freedom. Well she is a woman, she is alive and freedom on its own without any context isn't really saying anything, is it?

Of course it is.

What I find difficult to stomach is the cowardly and underhand cancelling of her arbiting opportunities simply because she won't go along with some unofficial policy which is not transparent.

She comes across in the interview as someone who, at the very least, doesn't care if she causes difficulties for other people/organisations, or, at worst, sets out to do so because she thinks she can. Why would anyone want to employ someone like that when they could employ someone else who is not like that?

Yeah, I'm not sure about this. Look at the number of national football sides who have basically created kits to highlight human rights shortcomings in Qatar. Germany were even photographed with the words 'Human Rights' painted on their chests, and made numerous in-game protests. Outside of Qatar pretty much all the press coverage saw it as right and heroic, even including England's mild attempt to join the protesting. So why take the side of Russia-centric FIDE, and join in the bullying of this woman?