glasgowspur
Luka Modric
What?
So he is guilty of an offence (homophobic language) but you don't know if that offence is a hate crime?
Is that what you're saying?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Football and Homophobia
- Thread starter Papercut
- Start date
What?
So he is guilty of an offence (homophobic language) but you don't know if that offence is a hate crime?
Is that what you're saying?
It is too complicated for some people to understand.
The offence is under 4a
And it is aggravated by the hate element. (Section 18)
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
Oh you think I'm thick, stop it please, I'm wounded to the core.
Under 4a of what?
Section 18 of what?
The post above gives no source of where you are pulling your info from.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
For instance
What are hate incidents?
The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.
They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:
Anyone can be the victim of a hate incident. For example, you may have been targeted because someone thought you were gay even though you’re not, or because you have a disabled child.
Taken from the citizen advice bureau.
Where are your sources from?
What are hate incidents?
The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.
They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:
- disability
- race
- religion
- transgender identity
- sexual orientation.
Anyone can be the victim of a hate incident. For example, you may have been targeted because someone thought you were gay even though you’re not, or because you have a disabled child.
Taken from the citizen advice bureau.
Where are your sources from?
Sorry I overestimated you
I thought it was obvious we were talking about the public order act
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
So let's just list all the people you have insulted,
Liverpool supporters
Short people
The members of this forum generally
Milo
Me
Have I missed anyone?
Glad I'm not tolerant like you.
Liverpool supporters
Short people
The members of this forum generally
Milo
Me
Have I missed anyone?
Glad I'm not tolerant like you.
benp
Reto Ziegler
I originally felt offended because there is a rich and storied history to the word nigger, and I felt you trivialised it when you referred to it as 'the n-word' for the purposes of this useless argument. I don't think most people were offended by that, but I was. It's possibly because I have an especial interest in it because of my own background.
You make an assumption in thinking that I believe you are racist (insensitive, maybe). I don't, the same way I don't believe that all the spurs fans on GG are homophobic. That's because I don't follow your logic to draw conclusions. That's because your logic is stupid. That was what my post was trying to draw attention to. The flippant nature of my original post was in order to help you learn.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Yep and every Liverpool supporter has blood on his hands, even those not even born when the deaths occurred. Selective morality my friend.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
https://reflectionsasia.wordpress.c...-saux-how-gay-slurs-almost-wrecked-my-career/
I found this interesting, and I'm sorry I only came across it now. Just to put a bit of perspective on what homophobia looked like back then - and, more pertinently, to make the point that maybe we shouldn't be as forgiving of our own as we're inclined to be, because football changing rooms are not environments where being different is looked on with acceptance. Even today - we've made a lot of progress since Le Saux's days, but I don't doubt that there are still a lot of inbuilt elements to interactions on the training ground and out on the pitch come matchday that could put a gay footballer off coming out. Which may be why nobody really famous has done so yet.
Ultimately, football is an environment where a lot of stuff that wouldn't be acceptable in the workplace or the wider world is excused because, rightly or wrongly, it's a sporting environment that emerged from a predominantly working-class background, and such sporting environments (generally, with a lot of caveats) tend not to be too accepting of deviance from what's viewed as 'normal'. We've gotten a *lot* better at stamping that out, but when dealing with the difficult issue of what Aurier said...maybe, just maybe, we need to be firmer than would ordinarily be called for, just to counteract that tendency.
Again, I have to stress that today's footballers seem a different breed of players when compared to the types that Le Saux had to face back in the 80's and 90's - exceptions like Andre Gray and Nile Ranger aside, it seems like most young footballers today have their heads screwed on and are broadly products of the society of the 2000's and 2010's. I.e, far less likely to harbor the sorts of views that plagued Le Saux and drove Justin Fashanu to suicide. Nonetheless, I can get why there was discomfort with the prospect of us signing Aurier - and, personally, I do hope that his conciliatory statements and determination to rework his public image are sincere.
I found this interesting, and I'm sorry I only came across it now. Just to put a bit of perspective on what homophobia looked like back then - and, more pertinently, to make the point that maybe we shouldn't be as forgiving of our own as we're inclined to be, because football changing rooms are not environments where being different is looked on with acceptance. Even today - we've made a lot of progress since Le Saux's days, but I don't doubt that there are still a lot of inbuilt elements to interactions on the training ground and out on the pitch come matchday that could put a gay footballer off coming out. Which may be why nobody really famous has done so yet.
Ultimately, football is an environment where a lot of stuff that wouldn't be acceptable in the workplace or the wider world is excused because, rightly or wrongly, it's a sporting environment that emerged from a predominantly working-class background, and such sporting environments (generally, with a lot of caveats) tend not to be too accepting of deviance from what's viewed as 'normal'. We've gotten a *lot* better at stamping that out, but when dealing with the difficult issue of what Aurier said...maybe, just maybe, we need to be firmer than would ordinarily be called for, just to counteract that tendency.
Again, I have to stress that today's footballers seem a different breed of players when compared to the types that Le Saux had to face back in the 80's and 90's - exceptions like Andre Gray and Nile Ranger aside, it seems like most young footballers today have their heads screwed on and are broadly products of the society of the 2000's and 2010's. I.e, far less likely to harbor the sorts of views that plagued Le Saux and drove Justin Fashanu to suicide. Nonetheless, I can get why there was discomfort with the prospect of us signing Aurier - and, personally, I do hope that his conciliatory statements and determination to rework his public image are sincere.
Last edited:
Thebarbarian
Nicola Berti
Just to add my tuppence worth, the crux of this "discussion" is centred around the intent/context element. A couple of analogies:
a) I am English, I live in Australia, if a stranger calls me a Pom I am not offended, if a stranger calls me a Pommie clam I reserve the right to be offended as he does not know whether I am a clam or not. The context of calling me a pom is perfectly acceptable (even though some ex-pats may not like it) as it is a general colloquialism taken to describe us. Calling me a Pommie clam would suggest an intent to offend me.
b) A person of Pakistan origin brought up in Australia will be called a Paki all his life, as a Lebanese will be called a Wog. The context again is not offensive or intended to offend as it is used in everyday language. I would expect a visiting Pakistani to maybe question the use of the term particularly if coming from a place where Paki is considered offensive, but would also expect them to be open to listening to why the intent is different to the understanding they may have.
It is all about education and understanding, and if I took exception at being called a Pom (or even a yid amongst my football mates) then I would either be in jail, or a politician.
I understand how JPBB can see the connotation of Aurier's words, but I cannot see how in isolation someone can be put through a kangaroo court and judged without taking into account all the facts, the context and the intention. It would not hurt Aurier to make some noise around the context/intent debate but I suspect he is being very carefully managed PR wise to ensure this doesn't become something bigger than it needs to be.
Last thing, JPBB you keep saying there are lots of Homophobes at Spurs and on this forum, however my experience of both (over many years) is that this is completely opposite of the people I have met/debated with. There is a big difference between being Homophobic and not agreeing with people who claim Homophobia is rife. There will always be a unsavoury element in any group or crowd and this is not limited to sport, take Parliament as a perfect representation of inherent bias and discrimination, however I am close to 100% certain that if any member on this board witnessed overt Homophobia at a game where the intent was to humiliate or discriminate they would be the first to defend the intended recipient.
I hope you can see this JPBB as that is the only way forward in this debate.
a) I am English, I live in Australia, if a stranger calls me a Pom I am not offended, if a stranger calls me a Pommie clam I reserve the right to be offended as he does not know whether I am a clam or not. The context of calling me a pom is perfectly acceptable (even though some ex-pats may not like it) as it is a general colloquialism taken to describe us. Calling me a Pommie clam would suggest an intent to offend me.
b) A person of Pakistan origin brought up in Australia will be called a Paki all his life, as a Lebanese will be called a Wog. The context again is not offensive or intended to offend as it is used in everyday language. I would expect a visiting Pakistani to maybe question the use of the term particularly if coming from a place where Paki is considered offensive, but would also expect them to be open to listening to why the intent is different to the understanding they may have.
It is all about education and understanding, and if I took exception at being called a Pom (or even a yid amongst my football mates) then I would either be in jail, or a politician.
I understand how JPBB can see the connotation of Aurier's words, but I cannot see how in isolation someone can be put through a kangaroo court and judged without taking into account all the facts, the context and the intention. It would not hurt Aurier to make some noise around the context/intent debate but I suspect he is being very carefully managed PR wise to ensure this doesn't become something bigger than it needs to be.
Last thing, JPBB you keep saying there are lots of Homophobes at Spurs and on this forum, however my experience of both (over many years) is that this is completely opposite of the people I have met/debated with. There is a big difference between being Homophobic and not agreeing with people who claim Homophobia is rife. There will always be a unsavoury element in any group or crowd and this is not limited to sport, take Parliament as a perfect representation of inherent bias and discrimination, however I am close to 100% certain that if any member on this board witnessed overt Homophobia at a game where the intent was to humiliate or discriminate they would be the first to defend the intended recipient.
I hope you can see this JPBB as that is the only way forward in this debate.
So the take home message is that all Australians are racist clams?
Thebarbarian
Nicola Berti
not intelligent enough to be racist clams, they just can't use big words so they have to abbreviate to a max of 4 letters.
the take home message is ........... they may not intend to offend me, I may or may not be offended, I must educate myself and understand in what context and with what intent it was meant. It is not my sole judgement to claim offense without first doing that.
indospurs
Young-Pyo Lee
wum alert !!
Not really. The justification of the great intellectuals of this message board for ignoring his hateful behaviour and signing a homophobe was that he would so dramatically improve the team that it was worth it.
I say his performances, at best, have been disappointing and certainly not worth betraying the club's values and ethics.
