QPRâs Joey Barton blasts former Chelsea defender over gay comments Joey Barton, Queens Park Rangers. Photo: Adam Davy/PA Joey Barton, Queens Park Rangers. Photo: Adam Davy/PA Wednesday, January 8, 2014 6:26 PM Former West Ham midfielder Thomas Hitzlspergerâs announcement on Wednesday that he is gay was met with widespread support but there was a reminder that such acceptance is not universal. . .. A supportive Joey Barton took to Twitter to voice his opinion on the news in typically uncompromising fashion. The QPR midfielder tweeted: âThomas Hitzlsperger has shown a lot of courage today. Sad times when people have to wait till they retire from their chosen profession before they feel other people will judge them solely on who the human being is. Shame on all of us as a society.â However, he also added two further tweets which read: âBut it is understandable when brainwashed, religious zealots still believe in a fictional book written over 2000 yrs ago. âTo be religious extremist, you must first be extremely dumb in my opinion. âAlex from PSG simply confirms my theory with his comments today.â That final tweet from Barton appeared to be a reaction to comments made by Paris St Germainâs former Chelsea defender Alex in a documentary to be broadcast on Canal+ television on Wednesday. According to Le Parisien, Brazilian Alex discusses homosexuality during the programme about sport and religion, saying: âGod wouldnât have created Adam and Eve but Adam and Yves.â That followed Michael Johnsonâs resignation from the Football Association inclusion advisory board on Tuesday after footage emerged showing the former player describing homosexuality as âdetestableâ. Johnson, 40, made the comments in 2012 while appearing on a BBC1 series called âThe Big Questionsâ, during which he opted not to back the FA anti-homophobia campaign. His remarks were brought back into focus after his appointment to the FA body, although Johnson said last week that his views had changed. Former Jamaica international Johnson, who played for Notts County, Derby and Birmingham, said he would continue to back anti-discrimination ventures in football. He said: âMy position on the inclusion advisory board was voluntary and Iâve decided to use that time to continue my personal development and education within equality.â
Well done Joey, it had to be said. It is also still sad that Hitzisperger still felt he had to wait till he retired before com I mg out....shows there is a major problem. It shows how conservative the footballing community is, and it not just the players also the fans. Do we really think "the fans" won't make "the most" of knowing that a player is gay. We make the most of many other private things in their lives.
Most of the time Barton just makes unnecessary noise, but I think that this is one issue on which he speaks well and his contribution is useful.
I agree. But I can't be hypercritical. I have repeatedly said that I wish he would shut up on twitter and stand by that.
Had he stopped at his first tweet - fine. I actually agree with that one 100%. But to then launch into anybody with a religious faith as he did wasn't sensible, as a lot of people who support him as a footballer will be churchgoers and most will not have missed the irony - apparently it's OK to be that intolerant of religious people (specifically Christians from his tweet) but you can't say anything about someone's sexuality? That's no less bigoted and brainwashed than the behaviour he's speaking out against. It's certainly not equality. And for those that will be queuing up to turn this into another diatribe against my faith - I am ducking out of this thread now. So there's no need.
His criticism is of religious 'zealots' and 'extremists', Willy, not all religious people. Sadly, religious fundamentalists tend to be the most outspoken homophobes.
Joey is very quick to get involved in any kind of issue. As most have written, just wish he didnt feel the need to express his opinion so freely.
Your argument here is misleading. Its the old "if you call a fascist a fascist that makes you a fascist" folly. Calling a bigot a bigot does not make one a bigot, William.
Agreed. However you appear to be saying intolerance of intolerance is a bad thing. Should we be tolerant of bigots, fascists and racists for example?
No - merely that it's a behavioural thing. If Joey wants to distance himself from intolerant people, he shouldn't be so publicly intolerant of them himself. If Joey's point in his initial tweet was to point out that intolerance is a bad thing (which it is), then to use such intolerant language in his second tweet actually harms his point. Had he left it at the first tweet, everyone would have agreed with him - job done and isn't Joey a good boy. Because he didn't do that, and because he then went on to effectively blame the whole situation on Christianity (or as he put it "brainwashed, religious zealots (who) still believe in a fictional book written over 2000 yrs ago...") he's using what a lot of people would consider to be inflammatory, intolerant language. Maybe not you, but a lot of people. Open attacks on people should not be tolerated - whether the attack is because of someone's religious faith or because of their sexuality. That goes for all of us. I'm as appalled as anyone that people who say they share the same faith as me can spout some of the bile we still hear. But it shouldn't be seen as open season on the majority because a few church-going idiots don't (or can't) engage their brain and their heart before they engage their mouth.
Like I said in another recent post, Joey Barton is a smart player. Forget whether he is right or wrong - like Roy Keane or Geoff Boycott - he will always be topical, and thus his opinion will always be sought out. Long after his football playing career is over, Joey Barton will have an audience seeking out his thoughts - irrespective of what these are. He will forever have an audience, and an income. Famous for being famous?!
I actually think we should! Couple of examples to illustrate my point. Ali G interviewing Tony Benn. I'm not sure when Benn realised it was a spoof but afterwards he said that as Ali G got more and more outrageous, he (Benn) wanted to demolish his arguments with sound counter arguments. A more weighty example. Saw a TV programme a few years back with a KKK member on trial in the USA who had appointed himself an Afro-American lawyer. The lawyer was defending his client's right to free speech while disagreeing with his views just about as strongly as it is possible to disagree with another person's views. I would like to live in a society were each is entitled to their view but must be prepared to have that view challenged with reasoned arguments and also be prepared to justify their views with similar arguments. Throw in a bit of mutual respect and you can disagree powerfully yet maintain some semblance of society based on what we do have in common rather than what we do not.
I agree that perhaps his language isn't the best, however, when he's highlighting comments by high profile personalities like Alex and Evander Holyfield who have openly criticized homosexuality this week by specifically using the bible to back up their argument, you have to understand his reasoning? Also, I would have thought that someone like yourself wouldn't mind him using such harsh words to describe the people making those comments? It kind of distinguishes them from the extremely good religious people around the world who don't use their book to hide behind their own bigotry.
Great in theory........S*** in practice. Give the intolerant (racist, fascist) a foothold, any foothold, and they spread through the youth like a cancer. I think it was old Adolf who wrote that if his enemies would of crushed his movement at an early stage, the Nazis would never if grown into the party it became. Of course I'd rather be able to justify my cause and arguments in a civil way.......but failing that a baseball bat will do just fine.
I agree with your sentiments RTID, but unfortunately minorities are often unable to engage their abusers in a reasoned exchange of views.
Having said I didn't want to get dragged into a similar debate as before.... He used language that was intolerant and inflammatory towards a large group of people. I really don't see how his follow-on tweets are any different in character than the comments he is complaining about. Unless as I said earlier, it's OK to be intolerant towards people because of their faith but not because of their sexuality?
