Racism in Football

[Ricky_ 893]

Nothing gives *me* the right to decide anything on the issue. I'm white and from a place where being white is more preferable due to how people from other backgrounds are treated (Belfast)...It's a widely held view, and there is a history behind it. I'm not saying I would feel sorry for Ashley Cole as a person if someone directed a racial comment towards him. But there has to be a boundary in place as racism is an historic problem, there's a reason laws are in place to prevent it in the workplace and in the professional arena. What I meant regarding physical traits etc. is that racism doesn't exist because people 'look different'. It exists because of the exploitation of underdeveloped countries and their people throughout history (ie. African slaves). I know that there have been examples of players making extremely provocative personal comments on the pitch to provoke and that's when throwaway racist comments are made ..But is better that there is a boundary against them because racist attacks etc are still very real in many countries in Europe and if it's not taken seriously in professional football it will be reflected behind the scenes and amongst fans

The jist of it is that Racism is viewed by the masses as a more serious issue than, in my example, making a fool of a persons hair colour. But anything can reach similar levels of hatred. While a passing comment such as 'carrot boy' to a ginger boy might be nothing to write home about - who's to say it can't spiral out of control within a certain culture or social pocket - to the extent where it matches similar levels of racism we seen in America in the 1960's?

Something we are all familiar with ofcourse, is the seriousness we view derogatory behaviour to someone of a particular religeous belif. But again, how can we tell someone it's illegal to slur someone on what religeous beliefs they have, yet, say whatever you want in regard to that persons political beliefs? It's nothing short of bizarre.

[TheBluenose1972 1,405]

what we need is a campaign to kick out the kick out the racism campaign

The two Ferdinands would back it!

[derek1872 548]

lol! The more negative press they get the better. And no is not the same as making a remark about a person's hair colour etc. Race runs deeper and really has nothing to do with colour of skin either, it comes down to cultural background, nationalism etc. Maybe you would be better saying there's a lot of scapegoating? as there is.

I could be wrong but I reckon calling someone a black cunt has something to do with skin colour. I could be wring though!

[caseyjones 3,009]

I could be wrong but I reckon calling someone a black cunt has something to do with skin colour. I could be wring though!

[Fiogh 178]

Kick football out of racism campaign launched

19-10-12

CAMPAIGNERS are demanding that footballers stop dragging their overpaid pastime into their bigotry.

The ball is black and white, which is a bad start

Members of far-right groups have called for anyone with the ability to run quickly, project a ball or have sex with a glamour model to be thrown off marches and have their white robes confiscated.

Massive racist Wayne Hayes said: “This country has a fine tradition of mindlessly hating anyone who doesn’t basically look exactly like Denis Waterman and we don’t need it sullied by these bunch of flash bastards.

“Being incredibly intolerant used to be a grassroots, working class pursuit but it’s been hijacked by rich sportsmen, which sends out the wrong message to any potential young racists out there.

“It’s not about the glamour or the fame, it’s about having a deep-seated loathing of foreigners. We need to rid our movement of footballers and get back to that core message.”

Representatives wearing badges featuring a picture of Stamford Bridge with a line drawn through it will visit schools, giving talks on how anybody can scream abuse about immigrants, regardless of their ability to run around in shorts.

The movement will present a petition today with 10,000 barely-legible signatures on it calling for the Home Secretary to force any racist found being a footballer to do community service in a working men’s club and attend an Inactivity Awareness course.

Hayes added: “Watching football while being racist may have been acceptable in the 70s but we want to show there’s no place for it in modern prejudice.”

[JamieD 19,011]

I'm just going to throw this out there aswell.... why is making a deragotry comment about someones skin, more serious than, say, making fun of someones hair colour, or, having a big nose?

Ahahahaha.

Oh wait, you're serious?

[caseyjones 3,009]

Ahahahaha.

Oh wait, you're serious?

You're a clever bloke, so why would you rank abuse as having different levels of seriousness? Shouldn't any victim of it, whatever their 'difference' is, be treated in exactly the same way?

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

There's an awful lot of honkies in this thread.

[caseyjones 3,009]

There's an awful lot of honkies in this thread.

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

You're a clever bloke, so why would you rank abuse as having different levels of seriousness? Shouldn't any victim of it, whatever their 'difference' is, be treated in exactly the same way?

Equal rights for all, apart from gingers.

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

lol! The more negative press they get the better. And no is not the same as making a remark about a person's hair colour etc. Race runs deeper and really has nothing to do with colour of skin either, it comes down to cultural background, nationalism etc. Maybe you would be better saying there's a lot of scapegoating? as there is.

Race has nothing to do with skin colour? Ridiculous.

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

I was accused of racism in primary school.

[JamieD 19,011]

You're a clever bloke, so why would you rank abuse as having different levels of seriousness? Shouldn't any victim of it, whatever their 'difference' is, be treated in exactly the same way?

I go through life generally trying not to be unnecessarily unpleasant to anyone, and on the individual level, abuse is abuse and if it hurts the individual then it's regrettable. However, the "racism in football" discussion is not a matter of interest at the moment because we all personally feel sorry for Anton Ferdinand or Patrice Evra because we don't want their feelings to be hurt, or anything daft like that. It's a major topic of discussion because, unlike ginger hair or big noses, race and colour have historically been used and continue to be used to justify crimes of enormous horror against broad swathes of people. Entire populations of people have not been enslaved on the grounds that they had a big nose (although, to cut rather beautifully across the two issues here, they have been used as a stereotypical identifier for a very prominently discriminated-against people ). And, as you know, there are not political parties existing right now in this country running on the platform that they would send gingers back to their indigenous habitats. Quite simply, while it's true that on a level of basic human kindness offending any given ginger is just as bad as offending any given black, the broader societal implications of anti-ginger prejudice are simply not as significant and as dangerous and never have been and never will be, and that as a serious comparison it's completely laughable.

[caseyjones 3,009]

I go through life generally trying not to be unnecessarily unpleasant to anyone, and on the individual level, abuse is abuse and if it hurts the individual then it's regrettable. However, the "racism in football" discussion is not a matter of interest at the moment because we all personally feel sorry for Anton Ferdinand or Patrice Evra because we don't want their feelings to be hurt, or anything daft like that. It's a major topic of discussion because, unlike ginger hair or big noses, race and colour have historically been used and continue to be used to justify crimes of enormous horror against broad swathes of people. Entire populations of people have not been enslaved on the grounds that they had a big nose (although, to cut rather beautifully across the two issues here, they have been used as a stereotypical identifier for a very prominently discriminated-against people ). And, as you know, there are not political parties existing right now in this country running on the platform that they would send gingers back to their indigenous habitats. Quite simply, while it's true that on a level of basic human kindness offending any given ginger is just as bad as offending any given black, the broader societal implications of anti-ginger prejudice are simply not as significant and as dangerous and never have been and never will be, and that as a serious comparison it's completely laughable.

Historic guilt should not come into it. If abuse of any kind is to be eradicated, so be it, but no one group should be afforded such bias. Rio Ferdinand has suffered the same amount from slavery as much as Alan Sugar has from the Holocaust or Gerry Adams from the Plantation era - fuck all.

If I start an anti-ginger political party would that ensure that they get their status raised to the level of the blacks?

[Ricky_ 893]

I go through life generally trying not to be unnecessarily unpleasant to anyone, and on the individual level, abuse is abuse and if it hurts the individual then it's regrettable. However, the "racism in football" discussion is not a matter of interest at the moment because we all personally feel sorry for Anton Ferdinand or Patrice Evra because we don't want their feelings to be hurt, or anything daft like that. It's a major topic of discussion because, unlike ginger hair or big noses, race and colour have historically been used and continue to be used to justify crimes of enormous horror against broad swathes of people. Entire populations of people have not been enslaved on the grounds that they had a big nose (although, to cut rather beautifully across the two issues here, they have been used as a stereotypical identifier for a very prominently discriminated-against people ). And, as you know, there are not political parties existing right now in this country running on the platform that they would send gingers back to their indigenous habitats. Quite simply, while it's true that on a level of basic human kindness offending any given ginger is just as bad as offending any given black, the broader societal implications of anti-ginger prejudice are simply not as significant and as dangerous and never have been and never will be, and that as a serious comparison it's completely laughable.

ah, so, it's the history attached to a certain insult which defines it more serious than another.

When John Terry called Anton what he called him, he did so in anger as a response to the jibe about 'shagging your best mates missus'. I doubt he was thinking much about American slavery, he just hit back with something he knew would hurt him.

So why should historical scars apply only when society sees fit? for instance, what if a child has his own 'historical' trauma. For example, a kid who has been bullied so vehemently throughout his childhood for 'being ginger' he tries to take his own life and needs years of psychological therapy. How can we as society accept that discriminating against this person by calling him 'a ginger cunt' is perfectly legal yet our moral compass spins out of control if we remark on a persons race, whether thats black, hispanic, or asian?

and going by your ethos, how 'dangerous' or 'historical' does abuse have to get before you deem it to reach a seriousness rating on a par with racism that it should be outlawed? Right now i think i'd be within my legal rights to make fun of albinos. In Africa it's a condition which seems to be becoming more common. It's also a country where they are hunted and either killed of disfigured, some have arms or legs hacked off at night when they are sleeping. All because witch doctors buy them for a fortune to then sell the ground albino bones as a good luck potion. At which point in history does the persecution of these people reach the point where you say 'OK, this has the relevant history to illegalise verbal abuse of these people'. ?

[JamieD 19,011]

Historic guilt should not come into it. If abuse of any kind is to be eradicated, so be it, but no one group should be afforded such bias. Rio Ferdinand has suffered the same amount from slavery as much as Alan Sugar has from the Holocaust or Gerry Adams from the Plantation era - fuck all.

If I start an anti-ginger political party would that ensure that they get their status raised to the level of the blacks?

I didn't say Rio Ferdinand has suffered from slavery. I quite clearly stated that it's the wider implications of racism that are more serious than the wider implications of anti-Ginger or anti-big nose prejudice, and I believe that anybody who denies that is either being mischievous or stupid. This applies to your question at the end there too.

Normalising racism led to the holocaust. Is there an analogue here for anti-ginger prejudice? Do you realistically think there ever could be?

[JamieD 19,011]

ah, so, it's the history attached to a certain insult which defines it more serious than another.

When John Terry called Anton what he called him, he did so in anger as a response to the jibe about 'shagging your best mates missus'. I doubt he was thinking much about American slavery, he just hit back with something he knew would hurt him.

So why should historical scars apply only when society sees fit? for instance, what if a child has his own 'historical' trauma. For example, a kid who has been bullied so vehemently throughout his childhood for 'being ginger' he tries to take his own life and needs years of psychological therapy. How can we as society accept that discriminating against this person by calling him 'a ginger cunt' is perfectly legal yet our moral compass spins out of control if we remark on a persons race, whether thats black, hispanic, or asian?

and going by your ethos, how 'dangerous' or 'historical' does abuse have to get before you deem it to reach a seriousness rating on a par with racism that it should be outlawed? Right now i think i'd be within my legal rights to make fun of albinos. In Africa it's a condition which seems to be becoming more common. It's also a country where they are hunted and either killed of disfigured, some have arms or legs hacked off at night when they are sleeping. All because witch doctors buy them for a fortune to then sell the ground albino bones as a good luck potion. At which point in history does the persecution of these people reach the point where you say 'OK, this has the relevant history to illegalise verbal abuse of these people'. ?

(1)

[A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)

uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)

distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)

An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)

A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(4)

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

- Public Order Act 1986

Now, this isn't perfect, because it applies only to public order offences, but it would apply, for example, in a football ground, even if the abuse was not of a racial nature, which you seem to think is the only kind of abuse protected against by the law.

[caseyjones 3,009]

I didn't say Rio Ferdinand has suffered from slavery. I quite clearly stated that it's the wider implications of racism that are more serious than the wider implications of anti-Ginger or anti-big nose prejudice, and I believe that anybody who denies that is either being mischievous or stupid. This applies to your question at the end there too.

Normalising racism led to the holocaust. Is there an analogue here for anti-ginger prejudice? Do you realistically think there ever could be?

Wasn't there just the one race involved in the Holocaust?

[Ricky_ 893]

Now, this isn't perfect

Nor relevant. In theory perhaps it's illegal to call someone a ginger/albino cunt but i doubt anyone's faced a highly publicised criminal trial for giving Paul Scholes some verbal.

[JamieD 19,011]

Wasn't there just the one race involved in the Holocaust?

Eh?

[caseyjones 3,009]

Nor relevant. In theory perhaps it's illegal to call someone a ginger/albino cunt but i doubt anyone's faced a highly publicised criminal trial for giving Paul Scholes some verbal.

The premise is that if you call Paul Scholes a ginger cunt, you are insulting Paul Scholes. If you call Anton Ferdinand a black cunt, you are insulting every black person who ever lived.

[JamieD 19,011]

Nor relevant. In theory perhaps it's illegal to call someone a ginger/albino cunt but i doubt anyone's faced a highly publicised criminal trial for giving Paul Scholes some verbal.

Ah ok, so while I was initially talking in realistic, pragmatic terms (ie, racism is a more pernicious evil and dangerous tool of division in society than anti-ginger prejudice and you and I know it, but you're in a facetious mood and determined to ignore that) but you wanted to talk in facts and legalities, when I try to meet you on even ground, it's not "relevant"? Well, if it's going to be that kind of debate, I'll let somebody who likes hitting their head off brick walls take over from me, if they fancy it

[JamieD 19,011]

The premise is that if you call Paul Scholes a ginger cunt, you are insulting Paul Scholes. If you call Anton Ferdinand a black cunt, you are insulting every black person who ever lived.

You're not so good at the reading comprehension today, Casey. I expect better from you.

[The Godfather 72,082]

The premise is that if you call Paul Scholes a ginger cunt, you are insulting Paul Scholes. If you call Anton Ferdinand a black cunt, you are insulting every black person who ever lived.

Anton's not really 'Black' though is he?

More a Diarrhea kind of colour..

[caseyjones 3,009]

Eh?

What races were involved other than Caucasians?