 |
| bbc.co.uk/football |
There is argument that Evra has exaggerated the claims, as had happened in the past, and Suarez didn't even use the term; the basis of Liverpool's expected appeal. There is also argument that the term has been culturally misunderstood, it being a term of endearment in Latin America where Suarez is from. I would argue, though, that although it has been labelled as racial abuse, how different is it to any other kind of abuse? Surely using the insult of 'little black man' is on a par with 'little nob-head' or other such derogatory verbal abuse.
I in no way advocate racism, or verbal abuse of any kind, but I wonder whether the penalty for this incident has been taken too far. Today's society seems very concerned with insulting someone using an attribute of them, be it race, disability, sexuality or other. Why is the same concern not given to general abuse that doesn't use someone's nature as its reference?
A precedent has been set, for sure, in punishing players using racist terms on the pitch, be they intentionally abusive or not. Should there be set such a precedent when any player uses any other insult to another player, official or even fan? Should this be confined to just on the pitch or in any wave of life?
The BBC has selected other football bans on their Suarez/Evra article for crimes such as pushing referees, punching players, kicking fans and failing to take drug tests but never for verbal abuse. For example, Paul Davis was banned for 9 matches in 1988 for punching an opponent, David Prutton for 10 matches in 2005 for pushing a referee. The precedent for insulting a player on the pitch could now be the same sentence as that for such physical crimes as listed.
Players will have to learn to be much more careful, keep their tempers down and keep their mouths shut from now on, which is probably a good thing. However, if some can't manage to do that, we could be seeing a lot more lengthy bans coming up in the future...
I couldn't disagree more with the assumption that disrespecting someone because of the colour of their skin is only as bad as calling them a 'little nob-head'.
ReplyDelete'Little nob-heads' weren't born nob-heads, repressed by non nob-heads and kept as slaves for centuries, before liberating themselves and walking hand-in-hand with non nob-heads. Martin Luther King didn't have a dream that a little nob-head boy and a perfectly polite girl would walk hand in hand?!
Seriously though, I think the punishment is slightly on the lenient side. I think a harsher fine should have gone with the 8-10 match ban, and an extra 38 should be suspended. Maybe, in his eyes, he wasn't using racist language. If so, he now knows it is very dangerous to even insinuate as such, and so if he does it again, it would be stupid and bigoted and they should throw the book at him.
couldnt agree more
ReplyDeleteits all words. if someone calls me a knob head it incites me to. its all derogatory. white and black, short and tall, ugly and fit.....wheres the difference
If a racial abuse case had been raised in an 'every day' work place, such as an office, the person found guilty of the abuse involving another colleague would be sacked for gross misconduct. This sacked person potentially becoming unemployable after that, if the grievance was disclosed on references from the former employer.
ReplyDeleteSomeone I used to work for lost their job as per the example above.
Suarez gets off lucky here.
I have to agree. A mate of mine was constantly referred to as "White-Boy" over in Vietnam. A ginger mate of mine had chinese people wanting him in group photos because he was ginger.
ReplyDeleteDid what Suarez say have complete anger and hatred towards black people behind it? Of course not, he's not a racist. What he said was more down to ignorance and forgetting what kind of culture he is in. Sometimes things from back home will slip into conversation, habits we have from our culture.
It's a bit arrogant of the British thinking they're better than everyone else just because we've, thankfully, developed a society where the colour of someones skin doesn't matter. It's about educating people about WHY it's wrong, not getting on our high horse, throwing the book at him and going, "Well that's that dealt with". I think the majority of British people are arrogant tossers, now that's something filled with hatred for you...
@Bradley
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
I was talking less of the ethics of each but of the fact that it is verbal abuse. Why, if verbal abuse using racist terms deserves this ban, do other footballers who verbally abuse each other without reference to skin colour get away with it?
@only in the dark of night...
Thanks for your comment. I agree, abuse is abuse, it should all be punished or not be punished.
@Moon Shimmer
Thanks for commenting. I don't know if a sacking would occur on a racial comment...it most likely would if there was a campaign of hate behind it. I do agree, though, that footballers seem to live by another law than the rest of society. Look at Marlon King? Don't know if I'd employ him...
@Paul
Yeah, my name was 'azungu' in Malawi (white man) but if there is no hate behind it, it's just a derogatory description. I wasn't really offended.
Again, I agree that it's the motivation behind saying something. If someone uses words in hate at someone, whether using a normal insult or otherwise, it's still verbal abuse.
There is no good just teaching the younger generation that using the word 'black' is wrong (exaggeration but you get the idea) unless they realise why.
Thanks for everyone's comments. It looks like the subject splits opinion!
@Joel Murray
ReplyDeleteIn short, because not all derogatory terms have such historic, infamous connotations. 'Nob-head' doesn't repress a culture, religion, sexuality, sex etc. Punishing Suarez, as you say, sets a precedent and that has to be a good thing. Racist language will not be tolerated in football anymore.
Out of interest, if a footballer came out as gay and was then abused on the pitch, would you approach that in the same way you would if a player was called a 'nob-head'?
@Paul
Nobody is saying that Suarez is a racist. He did utter a racially motivated insult though, he's been found guilty of that. (I happen to think if you can use derogatory language towards black people so flippantly then you are most likely to be a racist but that's another argument)
@Bradley
ReplyDeleteSo it's the historic, infamous connotations that make it worse than insulting in another way ('nob-head' could be replaced with whatever you like)?
I don't know how I'd approach homophobic abuse on the football pitch but I think that those who have to make that decision (the FA) should do so in the same way as they did yesterday: verbal abuse=ban. Would you count homophobic and racial verbal abuse on a par?
@Joel
ReplyDeleteI think so. And I think the two should both be met with harsh punishments. I've gone into a bit more detail about my thoughts on my blog, hope you don't mind me posting it here:
http://bradleykingwriter.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/luis-suarez-john-terry-racism-allegations/
@Bradley
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, even if it is in a negative context ;)
I think you may have misunderstood me slightly though. 'Little knob-head' is maybe too subjective a term to use, I only used it to try to get to the idea that verbal abuse is verbal abuse, whether you do it using race or otherwise (homophobic is in that category).
Let's take it another step. Would abuse using race or sexuality be on a par with abuse referencing someone's big nose or height? Again, they were born with (the potential for) said big nose or height but I don't think it would be as harshly punished. I wonder how many times Peter Crouch has been verbally abused for his height?