Winston

Why is it acceptable to call Dowd fat?
That is just friendly abuse and he should get over it...?

If we are talking of racist people as a group, then yes they are a section of society. What else would you describe them as?


Again, you are assuming a link between the abuse and something in history.

Do you believe racial abuse of white players is as bad as racial abuse of black players?
Under Pol Pot people were killed because they wore glasses... does that not mean that calling someone "four eyes" could be linked to that?

PLease re-read my post, I say ask what is different between abuse for one's genetic make-up in the form of skin colour and abuse for one's genetic make-up in other ways.

I asked whether you believe in innocence until proven guilty and you find that suggestion ridiculous. That saddens me.

Winston - I have not said you can say everything or nothing, I am merely pointing out that if there are limits on what you can say these limits should be across the board - to say racial abuse is bad because it is racial abuse is unjustifiable.
You can of course say racial abuse is bad because it offends people, or it could incite violence, but the entire point being made is that it is bad because it offends people or could incite violence - therefore all forms of abuse should be judged by that criteria!
You have steadfastly tried to keep racial abuse as a special case, and it isn't.

It seems like all your articles provoke a lengthy debate Winston

Totally - exactly, there is prejudice on a number of levels. If someone is attractive they are more likely to get second interviews... that is a form of prejudice.

Social class is another... a regional accent can hinder people's progress...

All prejudice is wrong. To limit the discussion to racism, as Winston is trying to, is to miss the point.

MrMortimer (U8234)

Did I say it was acceptable?

We're not talking about a section of society that are not allowed to voice an opinion.

We're talking about the whole of society not allowed to voice specific types of opinion i.e. racist beliefs.

I find your comments about innocent until proven guilty nonsensical because you have continually misunderstood my point.

I am not proposing that racial abuse is an automatic assumption of racism. I am saying that racial abuse is different to some other types of abuse, and should be treated as such.

Let's give you a scenario to wrestle with.

You're saying the fans up and down the country who has called Wayne Rooney a fat B------ should be subject to the same criticism and charges as those making monkey gestures at Toure.

You believe that's the case, right? You think they're both as serious as each other?

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

I agree that homphobia is also a serious issue.

But racism IS a special case.

Whilst I agree that sometimes, an idiot will racially abuse someone just to insult them, it does not change the fact that racial abuse is inextricably linked to historical racism.

To ignore racism when considering racial abuse is incredibly naive.

Winston, for the whole of mankind women have suffered some terrible discrimination in many many cultures.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

This isn't a competition.

Each type of discrimination deserves it's own consideration.

The point is, mortimer wants to lump everything together and come up with a one size fits all rule.

Life doesn't work like that.

Sexism and racism have plenty of parallels. Sexism, racism, homophobia and discrimination against the disabled are all historical issues to one extent or another. Yet I don't think they are considered on the same level to one another. You're unlikely to be attacked in the street for being overtly sexist.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

But that's a different debate.

Whether sexism etc. should be given greater prominence within the law and within social considerations is a point that I don't necessarily disagree with, but that's not what this discussion is about.

It's relevant to whether racism is a special case. Though I guess you will tell me that they are all special cases. Which wouldn't be a bad answer.

Totally Charming & Wonderful (U6489)

Indeed - a special case doesn't mean it's more serious than another.

It just means that there are intricate details to be considered with each case, rather than just slapping a ruling down that is aimed at covering them all!

Hi chaps. So what we debating today? Bit of a change from Baines/Cole.

Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)

On Monday we're going to argue that black is white

Mr C

Basically we have people on this thread who don't like the fact that doing monkey chants at someone is legally different than calling someone fat.

Beggars belief but I guess on all forums you get the BNP types who believe that we should all be allowed to do what we want because it infringes on their civil liberties if they can't do what the law very clearly says is illegal.

I break the law all the time

Winston - You find innocent until proven guilty nonsensical because you are trying to cling on to the notion that racial abuse is automatically worse than other forms of abuse.

I will ask again - Is racism by black fans on a white player the same as racism by white fans on black players? Is it the same historical connotations?

I think any abuse towards a player is uncalled for and should be punished. Not knowing Wayne Rooney I don't know what would offend him more, I would take a guess he would get more offended by being called fat than white.

You would treat all cases of racial abuse alike, even though you have admitted some would not be linked to genuine racist beliefs. Yet you argue racial abuse is worse than other forms of abuse precisely because of its link to genuine racism!

Why not just consider all forms of abuse on its own merit, and try and judge what offence was meant and what offence was taken?

Robb - I don't think you can reasonably suggest that people who want to ban abuse from football matches are somehow related to the BNP...

The law says that abuse is illegal, I don't know why people are trying to defend it on here... you get all types on these forums though don't you?

You find innocent until proven guilty nonsensical because you are trying to cling on to the notion that racial abuse is automatically worse than other forms of abuse.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think he's clinging on to anything. The law clearly states that if you do a monkey chant at a black person you're breaking said law. If you call someone fat you're not.

Why is that do you think ?

MrMortimer (U8234)

I'm not 'clinging' to anything.

"Not knowing Wayne Rooney I don't know what would offend him more, I would take a guess he would get more offended by being called fat than white."

What?

People aren't offended by being reminded of their skin colour. What are you on about?

"You would treat all cases of racial abuse alike, even though you have admitted some would not be linked to genuine racist beliefs."

Please, do tell me how you can tell me the difference between the guy doing monkey chants because he thinks black people are inferior to white people, and the guy doing monkey chants because he's drunk and thinks it'll annoy someone.

I'm all ears.

And I ask again... if racial abuse is no worse than other abuse, you are effectively saying that the people chanting at Wayne Rooney is fat is the equivalent of those making monkey gestures towards Toure.

That is what you're saying, isn't it?

Robb - There are laws against foul and abusive behaviour, and incitement to violence and hatred.

A monkey chant at a black person would be punished by the law because it is offensive, abusive - and potentially inciting violence and hatred.

Please do not misunderstand, I'm not for one second suggesting racism or racial abuse is acceptable - I think it is vitally important though we understand why it is unacceptable.

Winston -

"People aren't offended by being reminded of their skin colour. What are you on about?"

So if Toure was called a black so and so he wouldn't be offended???????

You have stated racial abuse is worse because some, not all, of it is related to genuine racism.
If the meaning behind the words is different, but the punishment is the same - then actually what you are saying is the difference between the two meanings doesn't matter.
If the difference between the two meanings doesn't matter and you are going to punish all abuse regardless of whether or not it is linked to any racist sentiment then why not take action against all other forms of abuse that aren't linked to racism?
By the same token - a genuinely racist fan could boo a black player just because of the colour of his skin without directly using any 'racially' offensive terms... surely he should not be free from punishment?

Once again, I am saying all abuse is wrong. I don't see race as a special subject and I think it is dangerous and ignorant to suggest it is.

I'll try asking again, do you think racial abuse of white players is as bad as racial abuse of black players?

MrMortimer (U8234)

You never mentioned the so and so, but I see what you mean now.

So now you're trying to make out that it's down to what offends Rooney more. How on earth is that a logical approach to law making?

Your middle paragraph... you criticise, but you offer no solution.

Are you telling me it is possible to distinguish between who is doing the monkey chant as racism and who is doing t as banter?

Are you telling me that it's possible to distinguish between the person booing because he's racist and the person booing because of banter?

Come on.

If you're going to criticise, then presumably you're going to have a solution?

Of course, in an ideal world we'd know each person's true intention and punish them accordingly. But in the real world, that's not possible.

How dare you call me ignorant to suggest race is a special case?

Particularly when you're so ignorant that you just want to lump racial abuse in with every other form of abuse, as if it's that simple.

I'll ask you again, for the third time:

"if racial abuse is no worse than other abuse, you are effectively saying that the people chanting at Wayne Rooney is fat is the equivalent of those making monkey gestures towards Toure."

Winston - surely if you are talking about offensive then the only approach is to see what is actually offensive to people?

No - I'm not suggesting you can tell the difference. My point is that because you can't tell the difference you are punishing them all, regardless of whether or not a comment is made as banter or for the sake of provocation etc etc. Abuse is punished because it is abuse, regardless of whether or not there is any racism behind it. Again, I haven't a problem with this - but I think it does pose serious questions as to why other abuse (not related to racism) is not punished...

How dare I suggest it is ignorance? We have been discussing the subject for a number of posts now and I don't know how else to describe it.
People are abused for all number of prejudices... why is race a special case?

You've failed to answer the question again, is black on white racism as bad?
Are the historical connotations there?

If you think it isn't as bad... then you are in the bizarre position that racism is a special case but only a particular type of racism.
If you think it is then it is just a form of abuse without the specific historical connotations you referenced earlier.

I'll answer again, I think all abuse is wrong and should be punished.
You have failed to provide an answer as to why one is worse than the other.

MrMortimer (U8234)

So what, create punishments and laws based on individual cases of how offended someone is? That's practical, is it?

"My point is that because you can't tell the difference you are punishing them all"

And what's the alternative, punish no one?

Why is that better?

What you seem to be missing is that I am not suggesting racial abuse should be punishable as if it is racism.

That's a key point that you continue to miss.

I am saying that racial abuse is more serious than calling someone fat because it is inextricably linked to racism.

Racial abuse is a special case for that reason.

In answer to your question, yes, it is as bad internationally. But here in the UK it isn't, because it's not linked to prejudice against white people, as far as I know.

So you're saying that someone calling Rooney fat should receive the same punishment as someone making a monkey gesture to Toure.

That would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously nonsensical.

Winston - no, if you listen to what I'm saying we can punish them - but we need to be clear why we are punishing them, because it is abuse.

That should include homophobic, xenophobic, and all forms of abuse. That is the only solution.

You have said that someone can make a racist comment without being racist.
Comments about the colour of one's skin can just be on a superficial level in exactly the same way as comments about their hair colour or ugliness.

I can't honestly believe you think racism is a special case, but don't think racism to white's is as bad... that to me makes no sense.
Is it not still prejudice?
Is it not linked to racism - the persecution of people because of prejudice based on the colour of their skin? Just because it happens to be white people rather than black it is less bad?

You have backed yourself into the most ridiculous of holes.

I have to say I find that quite offensive and that itself could be described as racist.



I think someone guilty of abuse should be punished.