Why is Wikipedia not being fully quoted? Read further down. "[in] Yiddish-speaking circles it is frequently used to mean simply "fellow," "chap," "buddy," "mate," etc., with no expressed emphasis on Jewishness" There would be no problem if a Jewish person called me Yid. Strange, maybe, maybe not. My curly sideburns do give out the wrong impression sometimes. Who decided it was a naughty word? Are they still relevant?
Oh, do off your moral high horse...offensive, is by it's very definition, subjective. The WHL crowd have been using this term for ages now. If any significant amount of people were offended, I'm sure the subject would have been raised long go. As I say, yet another example of PC Britain gone mad. By the way, I have Jewish blood in me, and I'm not offended!..
In bold is your answer. It is usually offensive, that is not generalising it is saying that it is usually offensive. Unless when people of Yiddish origin are addressing each other. Do you think that when Spurs fans chant it, they are all Jews addressing Jews ? If not, then do you concede that it could be deemed offensive ?
You've added the 'unless' part yourself and you didn't say that it was usually offensive originally, merely that it was offensive. It's clearly not exclusively so. I've never claimed that all Spurs fans using the chant are Jews, but clearly some of them are. They obviously don't find it offensive, do they? As for it 'possibly being deemed offensive' that could be applied to virtually anything and is irrelevant. The context and use clearly isn't offensive, nobody relevant seems to be suggesting that it is and the apparently non-Jewish complainant's argument is victim-blaming. "Clearly Tottenham have a distance to travel before they learn of the offence that is being caused. Use of the word, even in this way, could be seen by some as justifying other people using the term." -PH I assume that he also wants Jews to stop using the word too, as they might provoke anti-Semites into a frothing rage and thereby justify their subsequent actions?
Well I'm afraid you're wrong. Some Jewish people have said that it's offensive. Remember it only takes one person to complain for it to be a valid issue. Amongst some of the more well known complainants directly about Spurs' use of the word are David Badiel, the Jewish writer Koel quoted earlier in this thread and David Dein. Even your own Chairman Daniel Levy, himself Jewish, has inferred that Spurs fans who chant it don't really understand the racist connotations they are engaging in. Saying that 'Those who know how sensitive this issue is with our Jewish fans would certainly choose not to use it' http://www.ohwhenthespurs.co.uk/#/yids-2/4567643123 If your own Chairman recognises that it can cause offence, then surely the club should act to do something about it ?
Are you really trying to justify doing wrong by pointing out that someone else did/does something similar?
No. Clearly not and I can't see how you've possibly misinterpreted that. I'm pointing out that there's clearly not an objective standard used for words in law and that context is incredibly important.
Read it again - particularly the part in bold 'Neutral among Yiddish speakers' otherwise 'derog' or 'derog & offensive' So if non Jewish people are chanting it, then is it reasonable to assume that it may cause offence ? Applied to anything ? We are talking about a specific reference of thousands of non Jews chanting a derogatory racist term about Jews. How is that irrelevant ?
It'd be a Public Disorder Act offence, which uses exactly the same language, even down to the "threatening, abusive or insulting" part. You actually defeated your second point yourself.
The use of words, in an offensive context, can never be objective. By definition, the term offensive is subjective. What is offensive to one person, may not be to another. Yes, some words and phrases are generally accepted to be offensive, but this is far from one of them.
You've gone back to a previous definition, when I've already made it clear that it's not the one that I'm using. A sentence so filled with ifs, buts and maybes that it becomes irrelevant. Anything can be offensive. We have freedom of expression in this country, so we don't have to worry about the possibility of someone maybe, possibly finding something offensive. If I were to call somebody a ****, then they might be offended. Someone also might be offended by being called short or even medium or average. That's not relevant to the law, though.
That's from 2006. Given that there's been nothing mentioned about it by any of these groups 6 years later, it looks like there's no outrage at Spurs using these chants, doesn't it?
Clutching at straws In every definiton it says that the term Yiddo is OFFENSIVE unless it's being used by Yiddish speakers among themselves. I asked you if non Jewish people are chanting 'Yiddo' then would it be reasonable to assume that it may cause offense ? That's not an 'ifs and buts' question. It is a direct question - could you please answer it ? The point is that we're talking directly about thousands of non Jewish people chanting a derogatory racist term about Jews, not calling somebody 'short'. Freedom of expression does not extend to racist chanting. Seeing as your chairman has admitted that 'Those who know how sensitive this issue is with our Jewish fans would certainly choose not to use it' - would you concede that chanting 'yiddo' may cause offence to the Jewish community ? and that as your club have identified it as a problem, then it would also be reasonable to say that your fans should be held accountable for it ?
No, it clearly doesn't and I provided one that doesn't myself. It's still an ifs and buts question, full of assumption. Given the context, no it would not be reasonable. And it's not racist chanting. That's not a quote from Levy. His quote stops before that part. Even if it were, he's entitled to his opinion, but it's clearly one that a large number of our Jewish fans don't share. And here we come to the real crux of your argument. You're not interested in the facts, you merely want to see Spurs fans punished for what should be recognised as a positive action.
