As the country is gripped by scandal after scandal, racism is at the forefront of front page sports coverage today. There's no escaping, denying or defending it. But can someone please define it?
Suarez' actions, along with those of the Northumbria Student and the Liverpool fan were pretty hard to excuse (despite what Dogleash attempted) but where do we draw the line? When does an offensive comment suddenly become punishable by law?
For example:
If we were to fill that gap with the colour black, the offensive element would be the fact that he has chosen an aspect of the person he is speaking to, over which they have no control, and paired it with a word many women say is the most offensive possible, ****.
But let's substitute 'black' for 'ginger' or more relevantly 'Dutch' why is this suddenly fine? Can Michael Richardson control the ginger gene? No! can Tim Krul dictate where he is born and raised? No! And yet Bellamy, in full view of TV cameras, TWICE, repeated the above sentence!
I think the level of hypocrisy and double standards shown in this country today is ridiculous, HOWEVER, I feel our dealing with situations like this is ****ing lightyears ahead of other top European governing bodies!
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11833/7419428/Alves-racist-abuse-condemned
In the above article about Alves' racist abuse and monkey chants, the Espanyol President gave both sets of supporters a 10/10...
So in the nature of creating debate...Where do you think the line should be drawn? What do you think the punishment should be? Our National and club players are continuously targeted in racist attacks over sea's and in European competition, are we ahead of the other countries in terms of integration and racial acceptance or have we gone too far? Is it now the case that we can attack any aspect of someone, as long as it isn't their skin colour?
THE RULE:
All responses must begin with the phrase
Suarez' actions, along with those of the Northumbria Student and the Liverpool fan were pretty hard to excuse (despite what Dogleash attempted) but where do we draw the line? When does an offensive comment suddenly become punishable by law?
For example:
If we were to fill that gap with the colour black, the offensive element would be the fact that he has chosen an aspect of the person he is speaking to, over which they have no control, and paired it with a word many women say is the most offensive possible, ****.
But let's substitute 'black' for 'ginger' or more relevantly 'Dutch' why is this suddenly fine? Can Michael Richardson control the ginger gene? No! can Tim Krul dictate where he is born and raised? No! And yet Bellamy, in full view of TV cameras, TWICE, repeated the above sentence!
I think the level of hypocrisy and double standards shown in this country today is ridiculous, HOWEVER, I feel our dealing with situations like this is ****ing lightyears ahead of other top European governing bodies!
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11833/7419428/Alves-racist-abuse-condemned
In the above article about Alves' racist abuse and monkey chants, the Espanyol President gave both sets of supporters a 10/10...
So in the nature of creating debate...Where do you think the line should be drawn? What do you think the punishment should be? Our National and club players are continuously targeted in racist attacks over sea's and in European competition, are we ahead of the other countries in terms of integration and racial acceptance or have we gone too far? Is it now the case that we can attack any aspect of someone, as long as it isn't their skin colour?
THE RULE:
All responses must begin with the phrase
