Unlikey, but your point highlights where I'm saying that this is a grey area. If Spurs fans, Jewish and non Jewish are allowed to use the word Yid, then reasonably anybody can - and claim that they are using it in a non offensive way. Therefore, you could have opposing fans chanting 'Yid' at Spurs fans, and the law would support them to do so, on the premise that they may not mean to cause offense by using it. They could claim that they are showing solidarity to their Jewish supporting contingency.
Piskie, you repeatedly imply that those on this board wish both to use a term and to punish others for using it. That is certainly not what I want. I don't believe it's what any Spurs fan wants, and I would have to agree that anyone who did want that does not deserve to get it. You're trying to entertain yourself by muddying the waters. Not particularly well, I would say. Nevertheless, the moment you admit to exceptions to free speech, you head down this road. I can speak for no one else, but I believe all speech should not be subject to legal punishment. If people want to disgrace themselves when they open their mouths, it can't be helped.
Cheers page -no apology needed but appreciate it. I actually like the banter with you and sometimes end up thinking i shouldn't keep going on the wind up
I believe , in short, it's called wumming! Anyway, I've had enough of this endless pedantic nonsense.
Well then you have read my comments incorrectly. What I'm saying is that it opens a can of worms when you allow certain people to use a word and not others, especially when some of those people have no direct affiliation with the religion/race concerned.
You can believe what you want, it makes no difference to my intentions. If you've had enough, you of course have the right not to comment
I think something that a lot of people are missing is the fact that words evolve over time as well and meanings change. in the same way that "fa**ot" means something totally different today than what it meant 50 years ago, "yid" and its derivatives have gone the other way. As well, people are forgetting that its all about context. In the same way that black people can use the "n" word to each other without it being racist because its in context. I honestly do not know a single Jewish person who actually practises their religion (and I am one of them), who is offended when the Spurs fans shout "Yid army" or "Jermain Defoe, he's a yiddo". The meaning of the word "Yid" has changed over the years, and very, very few people use it as a racist or anti-Semetic slur. If opposing fans want to chant "Yids" to Spurs fans, then they are more than welcome to and no Spurs fan would deem it anti-Semetic. However if they chant "Yids" and follow it with a hiss or a reference to the Holocaust e.g. "Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz", then the racist slur isn't "Yids", its "Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz". People need to understand that the meaning of words can change over time. Some words can become racist (like g*y or fa**ot) and other words can go the other way, and I truly believe that "Yid" has followed that route. I don't really know what the SBL are trying to prove here, but they shouldn't be trying to represent the minority group that is the Jews and say to the population what they believe to be racist or not. The vast majority of Jews, practising and non-practising, don't find it racist and the Jewish Spurs fans use that term freely. One day, maybe the "n" word or "p" word (in reference to Pakistanis) will follow the same route. Also, this article by Baddiel is a JOKE How dare he criticise Spurs for chanting "Yid" and say absolutely nothing on the Chelsea fans who intentionally use it to provoke. The little poems by Chelsea fans are not offensive because it uses the word "yiddo", they are offensive because it refers to Jews as stingy loners. The worst of it all is the hissing, which is just a slap in the face to all the grandparents of the Chelsea fans who fought in WW2. David Baddiel should be lambasting the Chelsea fans; all the examples he used when "yid" was used as an offensive slur were from Chelsea fans. Instead he is masking the guilt by accusing Spurs fans of being misguided by the meaning of the word. Pathetic.
Yes exactly. What pisses me off is this self appointed, publicity hound of a legal eagle, who seems to have elected himself the unsolicited guardian of the Jewish faith.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20262698 i don't get his point about the olympics. it's completely out of context if I've read and understood correctly...
It's absolute nonsense! Someone somewhere is using this whole issue as a smokescreen to move the spotlight away from other issues. It's also interesting how Football against Racism in Europe (which presumably represents a range of teams with as big or perhaps even bigger Jewish heritage) doesn't think the SBL is right on this one.
Lazy and inaccurate, clearly. If you're wound up by a serious investigation into this debate, then I suggest that you need to take greater responsibility for your response to it, rather than making cheap accusations against those that challenge your comfort zone on the issue. The point about whether this is the SBL's issue to address is fairly straight forward. It's their claim that they are in discussion with members from the Jewish Community who have made it clear that they are not happy with this practice, so the SBL can justifiably raise concerns on their behalf. It's not just the SBL either, the Kick it out campaign have released a film to address the issue and even THFC have have said that those who are sensitive to the Jewish Community would choose not to use it and have attempted to 'educate' fans about it. So this is not one 'hell bent' lawyer with an axe to grind.
No, it's also a Chelsea fan who's unwilling to address genuine anti-Semitism at the club that he follows.
Luke that's the second time you have stated that the OED defines the word as perjorative. That is a misleading statement as it quite clearly explains that there are two interpretations of the word. One neutral and one offensive. As I stated to you and PISKIE earlier in this debate I have both a hard copy and an online copy of the OED. Piskie has used another online source to dispute this fact, but I'm afraid OED is king in this matter when it comes to the English language as used in the United Kingdom and indeed the wider world. This fact is fundamental to this debate and misinterpreting will lose you this particular argument.
