[Albion] "You're black and you stink" Rodriquez comment to Bong? - FA say not proven

[Gazwag]

And if he didn't say what is being alleged, who can blame him?

Whether he said it or not he probably thinks it looks good to the enquiry that he's spent some of his loose change on legal advice to clear his name

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Bong has not just made this up. He believes was racially abused.

Corrected for you.

Why can't people just wait for the investigation (where those making a judgement have, you know, EVIDENCE and stuff) rather than declaring their judgement on something they don't actually know the facts about? I find it bizarre. And no, don't get your knickers in a twist. I'm not saying he's made it up.

Gaetan believes he has received racial abuse. That's as much as any of us know.

 

[the wanderbus]

I can see that it may be a good comparison if your were a total f***wit

If you had half a brain you'd realise that gingers are just as likely to be offended by remarks about their appearance as any other group deemed to be different.....unless you were a total ****wit.

 

[lawros left foot]

If you had half a brain you'd realise that gingers are just as likely to be offended by remarks about their appearance as any other group deemed to be different.....unless you were a total ****wit.

That’s very ****witist, ****wits have feelings too you know.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I don't really want much of a part of this debate until a hearing has occurred, but just because society has deemed one arbitrary element of a human physique to be a less acceptable form of prejudice than another (as per Human Rights laws), that doesn't mean that the impact of either type of prejudice towards the relevant victim won't have the same negative impact on them. Consequently, it's a very relative and sensible comparison, even if you find insulting gingers to be more acceptable than insulting people of other races because the media and society tell you it is so. In reality neither is or should be deemed acceptable.

Indeed, offensiveness is offensiveness whether it’s about someone’s skin colour or anything else. If guilty of offfensiveness the WBA player should be banned. There are too many people who, on the one hand call out all skin colour rudeness while on the other are happy to dish out abuse when skin colour is not involved. The political threads on NSC are testament to this.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Indeed, offensiveness is offensiveness whether it’s about someone’s skin colour or anything else. If guilty of offfensiveness the WBA player should be banned. There are too many people who, on the one hand call out all skin colour rudeness while on the other are happy to dish out abuse when skin colour is not involved. The political threads on NSC are testament to this.

There is an important and fundamental difference though, which is why certain characteristics such as race, gender, sexuality and religion have legal protection. It is bigger than the individual and any offence they may or may not take. Unlike the aforementioned groups, people with ginger hair, to use yours and the wanderbus' example, have not suffered from historical, endemic and often institutionalised discrimination and persecution. That's why it's not a valid argument or comparison, no matter how hurt Sidwell might be by any comments (pretty sure he loves most of it to be honest, especially his special song!).

 

[LamieRobertson]

Any idea how long this type of investigation normally takes?

 

[Bozza]

Any idea how long this type of investigation normally takes?

I'm not sure this one is done yet nearly two weeks on: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/06/roberto-firmino-liverpool-everton-mason-holgate

 

[LamieRobertson]

I'm not sure this one is done yet nearly two weeks on: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/06/roberto-firmino-liverpool-everton-mason-holgate

Ta for reply

 

[aolstudios]

There is an important and fundamental difference though, which is why certain characteristics such as race, gender, sexuality and religion have legal protection. It is bigger than the individual and any offence they may or may not take. Unlike the aforementioned groups, people with ginger hair, to use yours and the wanderbus' example, have not suffered from historical, endemic and often institutionalised discrimination and persecution. That's why it's not a valid argument or comparison, no matter how hurt Sidwell might be by any comments (pretty sure he loves most of it to be honest, especially his special song!).

Yep.
Unless I missed the ginger slave trade & lynchings, obviously

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yep.
Unless I missed the ginger slave trade & lynchings, obviously

Professor Robert Bartlett, an expert in medieval history at St Andrews University, says the discrimination dates back to Ancient Egypt, where the god Set was often depicted with pale skin and red-coloured hair and associated with terrible events such as earthquakes, thunderstorms and eclipses. Human sacrifices of redheads to appease his rage were supposedly made by worshippers.

But for non-royal redheads, life was harder. In the 15th century, people with ginger hair were accused of being witches and burnt at the stake, while others were persecuted for their pale skin, which was seen as a sign of vampiric tendencies. (following on from a paragraph about Elizabeth 1)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9788039/Bullied-and-worse-for-being-ginger.html

 

[Eggmundo]

Yep.
Unless I missed the ginger slave trade & lynchings, obviously

Is it only demographics who have been party to large scale historical incidences of persecution who are exempt?

What's your criteria?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

There is an important and fundamental difference though, which is why certain characteristics such as race, gender, sexuality and religion have legal protection. It is bigger than the individual and any offence they may or may not take. Unlike the aforementioned groups, people with ginger hair, to use yours and the wanderbus' example, have not suffered from historical, endemic and often institutionalised discrimination and persecution. That's why it's not a valid argument or comparison, no matter how hurt Sidwell might be by any comments (pretty sure he loves most of it to be honest, especially his special song!).

By your logic though we only take action after a period of persecution which hardly seems sufficient. I prefer my standards which are to dislike equally rudeness in all its guises. One thing we can agree on is that if the WBA charge is proven their player should face a pretty severe punishment for what you call racism and I call offensiveness.

 

[Hungry Joe]

By your logic though we only take action after a period of persecution which hardly seems sufficient. I prefer my standards which are to dislike equally rudeness in all its guises. One thing we can agree on is that if the WBA charge is proven their player should face a pretty severe punishment for what you call racism and I call offensiveness.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just pointing out a fundamental difference. Of course offensive language and behaviour shouldn't be tolerated per se, but you have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to legal protection, otherwise the courts and the 'system' would be clogged up with relatively minor cases where offence has been taken for any perceived characteristic. If someone can't / won't accept that there is a difference in scale and that, due to historical abuse, some 'groups' should be afforded a higher level of protection than others then I'm at a loss as to how to convince them. Of course this is not a static, and if for example technological advances mean that certain other groups become the victims of persecution or disadvantage, say through genetic traits, then society and the law has to adapt.

But as it stands today this isn't the case, but racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism etc are still very much an issue, and have been for centuries. As for 'your standards', excuse me if I find that statement a little patronising. With all due respect, you don't know me or my standards, I'm simply arguing a well established and accepted (by the majority) viewpoint.

As to your final point, IF it is proven that Rodriguez made reference to Bong's skin colour as part of the insult, how can that be anything other than racism?

 

[Hungry Joe]

Professor Robert Bartlett, an expert in medieval history at St Andrews University, says the discrimination dates back to Ancient Egypt, where the god Set was often depicted with pale skin and red-coloured hair and associated with terrible events such as earthquakes, thunderstorms and eclipses. Human sacrifices of redheads to appease his rage were supposedly made by worshippers.

But for non-royal redheads, life was harder. In the 15th century, people with ginger hair were accused of being witches and burnt at the stake, while others were persecuted for their pale skin, which was seen as a sign of vampiric tendencies. (following on from a paragraph about Elizabeth 1)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9788039/Bullied-and-worse-for-being-ginger.html

That's an interesting bit of historical context. Not sure anyone could seriously argue that this sort of persecution or discrimination still exists though, or has done so in recent history, so I still don't accept it's a valid comparison.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That's an interesting bit of historical context. Not sure anyone could seriously argue that this sort of persecution or discrimination still exists though, or has done so in recent history, so I still don't accept it's a valid comparison.

The worse one I heard of recently is about albinos. In Malawi and Tanzania, the witchdoctors tell people that using body parts from albinos will cure any disease, so they are attacked and dimembered. That's what it feels like to be persecuted for the colour of your skin. Albinoism is a genetic defect. but they live in fear of their lives, for mumbo jumbo witchcraft.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/20/witch-doctors-are-harvesting-albinos-body-parts-for-medicine-6460173/

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170425-the-silent-killer-of-africas-albinos

 

[Hungry Joe]

The worse one I heard of recently is about albinos. In Malawi and Tanzania, the witchdoctors tell people that using body parts from albinos will cure any disease, so they are attacked and dimembered. That's what it feels like to be persecuted for the colour of your skin. Albinoism is a genetic defect. but they live in fear of their lives, for mumbo jumbo witchcraft.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/20/witch-doctors-are-harvesting-albinos-body-parts-for-medicine-6460173/

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170425-the-silent-killer-of-africas-albinos

That is abhorrent, and where it happens albinos should absolutely be given every legal and other protection available. What's your point though? (apologies if there isn't a point and you're just sharing some examples of persecution).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That is abhorrent, and where it happens albinos should absolutely be given every legal and other protection available. What's your point though? (apologies if there isn't a point and you're just sharing some examples of persecution).

Yes, I was, and it is based on skin colour.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Yes, I was, and it is based on skin colour.

And if this, or something similar, was happening in the UK or EU then it would be a protected characteristic (albino). That's not a skin-colour or race example though, as this is specific to albinos and not caucasians, so I still don't get your point.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm just pointing out a fundamental difference. Of course offensive language and behaviour shouldn't be tolerated per se, but you have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to legal protection, otherwise the courts and the 'system' would be clogged up with relatively minor cases where offence has been taken for any perceived characteristic. If someone can't / won't accept that there is a difference in scale and that, due to historical abuse, some 'groups' should be afforded a higher level of protection than others then I'm at a loss as to how to convince them. Of course this is not a static, and if for example technological advances mean that certain other groups become the victims of persecution or disadvantage, say through genetic traits, then society and the law has to adapt.

But as it stands today this isn't the case, but racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism etc are still very much an issue, and have been for centuries. As for 'your standards', excuse me if I find that statement a little patronising. With all due respect, you don't know me or my standards, I'm simply arguing a well established and accepted (by the majority) viewpoint.

As to your final point, IF it is proven that Rodriguez made reference to Bong's skin colour as part of the insult, how can that be anything other than racism?

By referring to my standards I certainly did not intend to be patronizing. I suppose it’s quite ironic given our conversation about causing offence and it perhaps to a degree backs up the point you make. All I was really saying though is that personally I dislike rudeness, offensiveness, disrespectful behavior and all forms of discrimination. I don’t rank them. Perhaps the only way we differ is on the language we use to describe what we dislike.