You could apply the same rationale to black rappers using the N word. You can't use their race as an excuse, as that in itself would be racial discrimination, and there's nothing to say that you can't discriminate against your own race. Chris Rock isn't using it here as a reclaimed word. He's clearly using it negatively. Should he be prosecuted? [video=youtube;f3PJF0YE-x4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4[/video]
Right lets wrap this up as it's getting tedious. The Met see nothing wrong with the chants which means the pigs can't touch us, which means the law can't touch us, which means SBL can't touch us and it's a total non-issue so everyone should probably drop their faux-ire or go to your local MP to try and get things changed. As it stands we've been told there's nothing for us to answer to so we can go back to ignoring the odd cry from a do-gooder who doesn't want to understand why it shouldn't be interpreted as offensive.
Yes, I've read 1984, it's a great book. I don't think your parallels between my debating of the moral issues of chanting 'yid' are comparable with the advocacy of a dystopian totalitarian state though
Some of your PC rant I though rather redolent of that book, as that's the way totalitarianism gets a foothold. Peter Herbert and his role as self appointed " thought policeman" is very apt.
I hope you realise that referring to the Metropolitan police as pigs could be deemed offensive to the porcine community - and jews as well actually I suppose. You need to consult your solicitor before you type
Peter Herbert is becoming an offensive phrase. Half of it already is, now he has just added Peter. You are a right Peter Herbert! Not you NSIS
A Jewish policeman would count as a bit of a grey area, I guess. I'm pretty sure "the pigs can't touch us" is a quote from a film, which is why I used it, but I'm damned if I can remember which one.
Well perhaps you need to look beyond your own prejudices, as I was neither ranting nor advocating anything resembling totalitarianism. Peter Herbert would claim that he is representing the Jewish community that he has consulted with, who have indicated that they are not happy with some of the chants from Spurs fans, so he can't really be accused of being a self appointed 'thought policeman'. Indeed the same 'PC rant' was levied at those who initially called for some of the derogatory words for Blacks and Gays to be questioned and some years later, people generally think that they are now unacceptable. It's not a simple divide between 'thought control' and 'freedom of speech' there are genuine concerns to be debated
I'm sure that the aptly named Mr Herbert would be only too ready to claim many things. As far as I know, until I have proof to the contrary, Herbert has elected himself, and his society as arbiters on anything that they deem to be unacceptable. Of course, in this country there are no "thought police" , as yet! Although I'm sure they would be not far away if Herbert and his ilk were allowed to hold sway.
And who was he representing when he accused someone that he's never met of abusing somebody else that he'd never met at an event that he didn't attend or watch, due to some hearsay that he read in a paper? I'm sure Mark Clattenburg's a big fan. As Herbert seems proud of his work with the Nation of Islam and he's gone after Spurs and a man with a rather Jewish name, perhaps the accusations of anti-Semitism should be directed towards him? I'm still yet to hear a reason why his organisation exists, as there's already a Black Solicitors Network.
I'm not sure that polarising the debate into 'thought police' versus 'champions of free speech' is particularly helpful though. I don't think anybody wants a society where people are allowed to shout obscenities at people they don't like based on the colour of their skin / religion / sexual preference etc. In the same way that nobody wants a society where every thought / word / action is monitored and chastised for it's political overtones. So there has to a middle ground, which is a sensible debate on the issues.
Oh my God PNP - I've just realised who Peter Herbert really is - he lives in Stoke and pretends to be cooking cuban food
At last! Something we can agree on. We just disagree about where the line may be drawn. My stance remains unchanged. IF enough genuine complaints are made by Jewish fans, then fair enough, the club and or the authorities should act. Until such time, this is nothing more than some self interested lawyer, from a society nobody has heard of before, trying to promote his own agenda - for whatever purpose. It almost certainly won't be born of any genuine concern for the feelings, or the well being of the Jewish people.
I agree with that I just wonder if the SBL's move might act as the catalyst for something more 'plausible'
