Homophobia in Football

[DannyInvincible]

I'd regard 'homophobia' as an umbrella term and not just a phobia, as such.

An umbrella term for what exactly? Bigotry based on one's gender and sexual preferences? The word has assumed a different meaning from it's original and literal meaning as a fear of homosexuality* and now encompasses antipathy, prejudice and hatred towards bi/homosexuals. That's how I, and most people now, would interpret the word, I'd imagine.

*In fact, in its original form, "homophobia" referred to a heterosexual man's fear that others might think he was gay (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/RAINBOW/html/Beyond_Homophobia_2004.PDF).


It was in September of 1965, while preparing an invited speech for the East Coast Homophile Organizations (ECHO) banquet, that [George] Weinberg hit upon the idea that would develop into homophobia. In an interview, he told me he was reflecting on the fact that many heterosexual psychoanalysts evinced strongly negative personal reactions to being around a homosexual in a nonclinical setting. It occurred to him that these reactions could be described as a phobia:


“I coined the word homophobia to mean it was a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.”

Weinberg eventually discussed his idea with his friends Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke, gay activists who would be the first to use homophobia in an English language publication. They wrote a weekly column on gay topics in Screw magazine, a raunchy tabloid otherwise oriented to heterosexual men. In their May 23, 1969, column—to which Screw’s publisher, Al Goldstein, attached the headline “He-Man Horse ****”—Nichols and Clarke used homophobia to refer to heterosexuals’ fears that others might think they are homosexual. Such fear, they wrote, limited men’s experiences by declaring off limits such “sissified” things as poetry, art, movement, and touching. Although that was the first printed occurrence of homophobia, Nichols told me emphatically that George Weinberg originated the term.


There would be some people who have no overt prejudice towards gays but still might wonder what difference does it make if it's a legal civil union or a legal civil marriage, why make the bother?

Certainly, it's symbolically crucial, just as the equality of rights are paramount.


In football you can say that for the most part, a black player can play without having to disguise his skin colour, in order to avoid abuse. The same can not be said for gay footballers, mostly based on speculation and assumptions because there are so few examples to go on.

Not sure what you mean here exactly. Do you mean a black player cannot hide his perceived faulty characteristic - that being his race/his ethnicity/the colour of his skin, as far as racists are concerned - and so we can gauge how prevalent racism actually is because the target and subsequent abuse are visible, whereas gay players conceal their sexual identity in order to avoid abuse, and do avoid potential abuse by doing so, so it's more difficult to gauge just how significant a problem homophobia might be on the terraces/in football because we've yet to see just how problematic it could be?


Homophobia is beginning to be tail ended to campaigns to kick out the remnants of racism left (or bubbling under) in football.
It's a start to equate both together as in 'give racism and homophobia the red card'.

It's a start, sure, but is it to institutionally subordinate or patronise it? Is that a good thing? The "bumper-sticker politics" of the Kick It Out campaign are on the receiving end of a fair amount of criticism as it is for their perceived mere paying of lip-service without genuine action. Is it helpful to add another sticker under that or another catchy slogan on the t-shirt so people can feel good about "contributing" to something that isn't really all that meaningful? Does such a casual approach trivialise the issue and unwittingly enable bigoted thought to sustain itself as people carelessly assume they're doing enough to combat it when the reality is little is being done at all, or the issue is at best being sidelined in terms of importance relevant to other issues in football? Homophobia isn't an off-shoot of racist thought. It is distinct; a severe enough problem in its own right and deserves to be treated as such rather than tagged onto the tail-end of other campaigns, as if it were a footnote of sorts; "Oh, and don't forget about that darned homophobia either; it's kind of nasty too, y'know!" Perhaps such a strategy is necessary as a kick-homophobia-out campaign in its own right wouldn't be taken as seriously as a kick-racism-out campaign by football fans, which would be a sad reflection if so.

[geysir]

An umbrella term for what exactly? Bigotry based on one's gender and sexual preferences? The word has assumed a different meaning from it's original and literal meaning as a fear of homosexuality* and now encompasses antipathy, prejudice and hatred towards bi/homosexuals. That's how I, and most people now, would interpret the word, I'd imagine.
If I was to be exact, I would be writing very long posts. I think you have understood what I mean about homophobia being an umbrella term, for all sorts of ... well ..... homophobia. :)

Not sure what you mean here exactly. Do you mean a black player cannot hide his perceived faulty characteristic - that being his race/his ethnicity/the colour of his skin, as far as racists are concerned - and so we can gauge how prevalent racism actually is because the target and subsequent abuse are visible, whereas gay players conceal their sexual identity in order to avoid abuse, and do avoid potential abuse by doing so, so it's more difficult to gauge just how significant a problem homophobia might be on the terraces/in football because we've yet to see just how problematic it could be?
Pretty much.


It's a start, sure, but is it to institutionally subordinate or patronise it? Is that a good thing? The "bumper-sticker politics" of the Kick It Out campaign are on the receiving end of a fair amount of criticism as it is for their perceived mere paying of lip-service without genuine action. Is it helpful to add another sticker under that or another catchy slogan on the t-shirt so people can feel good about "contributing" to something that isn't really all that meaningful? Does such a casual approach trivialise the issue and unwittingly enable bigoted thought to sustain itself as people carelessly assume they're doing enough to combat it when the reality is little is being done at all, or the issue is at best being sidelined in terms of importance relevant to other issues in football? Homophobia isn't an off-shoot of racist thought. It is distinct; a severe enough problem in its own right and deserves to be treated as such rather than tagged onto the tail-end of other campaigns, as if it were a footnote of sorts; "Oh, and don't forget about that darned homophobia either; it's kind of nasty too, y'know!" Perhaps such a strategy is necessary as a kick-homophobia-out campaign in its own right wouldn't be taken as seriously as a kick-racism-out campaign by football fans, which would be a sad reflection if so.
The GAA currently have some proposal up for a vote at their next AGM, a rule change affecting the minimum penalty for someone found guilty of sectarian or racist abuse on the pitch. Considering the issue of homophobia came up with Donal Cusack and the general favourable sentiment expressed towards Donal, I think an opportunity has been missed to tag along 'homophobia' with racism and sectarianism. I would not see that tagging along as a token gesture, but a start.
It would give equality, equating homophobia on a similar level to racism and sectarianism.
Football can only do so much.

[Kingdom]

The GAA currently have some proposal up for a vote at their next AGM, a rule change affecting the minimum penalty for someone found guilty of sectarian or racist abuse on the pitch. Considering the issue of homophobia came up with Donal Cusack and the general favourable sentiment expressed towards Donal, I think an opportunity has been missed to tag along 'homophobia' with racism and sectarianism. I would not see that tagging along as a token gesture, but a start.
It would give equality, equating homophobia on a similar level to racism and sectarianism.
Football can only do so much.

No they don't! They ruled it out of order, on the basis that it was to do with a playing rule, and that it couldn't be dealt with until 2015. But they can introduce Hawkeye, which isn't a Playing rule supposedly, even though Hawkeye will be used to adjudicate points of play.
Go figure.

[geysir]

No they don't! They ruled it out of order, on the basis that it was to do with a playing rule, and that it couldn't be dealt with until 2015. But they can introduce Hawkeye, which isn't a Playing rule supposedly, even though Hawkeye will be used to adjudicate points of play.
Go figure.

I think you are referring to one of the motions put forward, the Wexford one, about racial abuse on the pitch becoming a red card offence, however the rule that exists can't come up for review until 2015.
But the motion I refer to is going ahead, a minimum penalty (of 8 weeks?) for a player found guilty of racial or sectarian abuse on the pitch.

I'm sure that won't effect the Kerry footballers but I suspect Donaghy is going to have a hard time with the black card sin binning motion for players who remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a match official. :)

[BonnieShels]

It's in motion 54:


(54)
Amend rule 1.12 Official Guide (Part I) 2012 - Anti-Sectarian/Anti-Racist to read as follows:
“ The Association is Anti-Sectarian and Anti-Racist and committed to the principles of inclusion and diversity at
all levels. Any conduct by deed, word, or gesture of sectarian or racist nature or which is contrary to the
principles of inclusion and diversity against a player, official, spectator or anyone else, in the course of
activities organized by the Association, shall be deemed to have discredited the Association.”
Penalty: As prescribed in Rule 7.2(e)
Proposer: Inclusion/Integration Committee and Maastricht Gaels, Europe

http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/motions/2013-Motions.pdf

I could have sworn I saw mention of homophobia in it when I read the motions last night.

[geysir]

It's nice when the younger bucks pick up the gauntlet and do the research for their respected seniors.

I do recall reading some news article about the motion (not the motion text itself), where homophobia was mentioned along with racism and sectarian. Perhaps you would like to do a bit more research Bonnie? :)

I was also under the mistaken impression that homophobia was a part of the Congress motion.

[DannyInvincible]

Was mentioned here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/motion-set-to-broaden-discrimination-parameters-221926.html


Croke Park-endorsed joint motion on discrimination including a proposal from the European County Board will be brought to next month’s Congress.
Like Wexford and Cavan, the European County Board put forward a motion pertaining to on-field acts of prejudice.

However, all were dismissed as they were deemed changes to playing rules, which are only up for discussion every five years, the next time being 2015.

Under the Football Review Committee’s proposals, a player found by a referee to have used abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent will be issued with a black card.

However, the proposed change to rule 1.12 of the GAA’s Official Guide will expand the parameters of what constitutes discrimination, which already covers racism and sectarianism, to include acts of a homophobic and anti-Traveller nature.

It is believed any player, official or spectator found to have made such comments or gestures will be deemed to have brought the GAA into disrepute and face stiffer penalties of anything up to a year’s suspension or expulsion from the organisation.

“Basically, it will be a motion that outlaws any abuse based on discriminatory principles,” said an insider.

Although based on motions such as Europe’s, the proposal is officially coming from the GAA’s national inclusion and integration committee and will be signed off by GAA director general Páraic Duffy.

Sectarian abuse will continue to be mentioned in the proposed rule change.

Last year, Armagh complained that a number of their players, including Ciarán McKeever, were subjected to sectarian taunting at their Division 1 game with Laois in O’Moore Park.

Last month, Kilcoo’s Aidan Brannigan was handed a four-month suspension for his involvement in a racist abuse incident involving Crossmaglen’s Aaron Cunningham in December’s Ulster club SFC final.

A Kilcoo club member was also banned from the GAA for life arising from the game.

Earlier this week, Cunningham’s father, Joey, revealed his son had been disappointed with the Ulster Council’s handling of the case.

[BonnieShels]

It's nice when the younger bucks pick up the gauntlet and do the research for their respected seniors.

I do recall reading some news article about the motion (not the motion text itself), where homophobia was mentioned along with racism and sectarian. Perhaps you would like to do a bit more research Bonnie? :)

I was also under the mistaken impression that homophobia was a part of the Congress motion.

I reckon that we may have been mislead by news reportage in this regard. I'm raging.

[geysir]

Maybe we were not far off after all

Any conduct by deed, word, or gesture of sectarian or racist nature or which is contrary to the principles of inclusion and diversity against a player, official, spectator or anyone else, in the course of
activities organized by the Association, shall be deemed to have discredited the Association.”

One could make a case that homophobia fits under the bit in bold.
It's an umbrella clause (sorry :)) that could include the likes of those dastardly Dubs and other assorted culchees when they try and wind up the Nordies by calling them 'Brits'.

[BonnieShels]

I was thinking that myself incidentally when I wrote my last post.

[DannyInvincible]

Robbie Rogers: why coming out as gay meant I had to leave football'': http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/29/robbie-rogers-coming-out-gay


In England, Rogers became acutely aware of the impossibility of being a publicly-out gay footballer. He was an established international and his most recent caps had been won under Jürgen Klinsmann – whose first game in charge ended in a draw, against Mexico, after an equaliser from Rogers.

But he understood the bitter truth: "In football it's obviously impossible to come out – because no-one has done it. No one. It's crazy and sad. I thought: 'Why don't I step away and deal with this and my family and be happy?' Imagine going to training every day and being in that spotlight? It's been a bit of a circus anyway – but that would have been crazy. And you wouldn't have much control because clubs are pushing you in different directions.

"I was just fearful. I was very fearful how my team-mates were going to react. Was it going to change them? Even though I'd still be the same person would it change the way they acted towards me – when we were in the dressing room or the bus?"

In all professional sport, dressing room "banter", in that euphemistic phrase, can be callous. "Especially football," Rogers stresses. How did he react when homophobic quips were made – even though his team-mates were oblivious to his sexuality? "There were different emotions. Sometimes I would feel bad for them. Sometimes I would laugh because it was kinda funny. And, sometimes, it got malicious.

"That was when I would get this awful feeling in my stomach. I would turn my head and try to chat about other things. They often don't mean what they say. It's that pack mentality – they're trying to get a laugh, they're trying to be the top guy. But it's brutal. It's like high school again – on steroids."

Rogers speaks warmly of individual footballers. "They're amazing people, really. Professional footballers are very interesting and from all walks of life. They have great stories when you get them away from the banter and the pack. They can really open up. To become a professional footballer there is something special about you. You need this drive, this hunger."

Yet there is also something diseased at the heart of professional football – epitomised by its attitude towards homosexuality. "Football is an amazing sport," Rogers says. "But it is also a brutal sport that picks people up and slams them on their heads. Adding the gay aspect doesn't make a great cocktail."

What would have happened if Rogers had still been playing for Leeds when he came out? "That would have been interesting," he says wryly. "I don't think I would have been able to go training the next day. That would be so scary. The guys might have said, 'That's great, Robbie.' Maybe. But because no-one's done it and because of the things I've heard in the dressing room I just thought: 'I need to get away from this – make my announcement, find peace, go from there.' So I can never imagine announcing that at Leeds."

Could he have come out while playing for Columbus in the US? "No. Not at any club – anywhere."

And, back in this country, if he was playing for Leeds and they were away to Millwall today? "Woah!" Rogers exclaims. "I can't even think about that."

We end up laughing, helplessly, which shows how much football has to change. "Definitely. Maybe a lot of fans aren't homophobic. But, in a stadium, sometimes they want to destroy you. In the past I would have said: 'They don't know I'm gay so it doesn't mean anything.' But, now they know it, am I going to jump in the stands and fight them?"

It would be incredibly powerful if a gay footballer could face down that hate and abuse – just as black sportsmen like Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali stood up to racism in America.

"Sure," Rogers says. "I've thought about that. I might be strong enough but I don't know if that's really what I want. I'd just want to be a footballer. I wouldn't want to deal with the circus. Are people coming to see you because you're gay? Would I want to do interviews every day, where people are asking: 'So you're taking showers with guys – how's that?'

"If you're playing well it will be reported as: 'The gay footballer is playing well.' And if you have a bad game it'll be: 'Aw, that gay dude … he's struggling because he's gay.' **** it. I don't want to mess with that."

Yet the response to his coming out seems to have been overwhelmingly positive. "It's been very warm, very accepting. Guys I played with have sent messages saying, 'You know I was joking when I said that?' I say, 'Bro, don't worry about it. You were hilarious. Don't worry.'"

He becomes thoughtful when asked if he knows any gay footballers. "No. Even now, one of my best friends said: 'Do we know anyone else in football who could possibly be gay?' And we couldn't think of anyone. We're such great actors because we're afraid to let people know who we are. We've been trained by our agents how to do interviews, how to present ourselves. No footballer has since said to me, 'Robbie, thank you, I'm gay too…' I don't know if anyone will."

Many gay men, surely, are playing professional football? "Of course. Tons. I mean footballers dress really well [he laughs]."

Could he imagine a young gay footballer knocking on his manager's door to ask for advice? "It would be so tough. Would I have had the same opportunities when I was younger if I'd come out? I don't think so. There would have been that mentality: 'Oh he's gay … how will that affect the team?'"

The way in which Fashanu was treated has been a bleak warning to any gay footballer. He might have been a million pound player but Brian Clough, one of the greatest managers this country has produced, demeaned him at Nottingham Forest as "a bloody poof." Fashanu's tragic end should never be forgotten.

"I read a little about him," Rogers says. "It's such a sad story because my coming out was so positive. I wish everyone could have that same support. If people say bad things about you, you can give your parents a call. But hearing comments Justin's family made – oh my gosh."

As we consider the way in which Clough treated Fashanu at Forest, Rogers says: 'I've heard it recently from coaches. Obviously they're not homophobic but they'll say: 'Don't pass the ball like a fag.' That's when you look at them and think, '**** you. What are you talking about? Does it make a difference, if you're gay or straight, as to how you pass the ball? Are you on drugs?' I guess they say it because they think it's funny. There's the stereotype of a gay man being soft and flamboyant."

Rogers sounds like a necessary force for change. He shrugs. "About a month ago I would've thought: 'I don't want to be a spokesman for gay footballers.' I have so many different things I'm interested in. But after thousands of emails, I'm thinking, OK, how can I help others? How can I make some positive change? How am I going to reach young Robbie and tell him to be himself? He might not fit the gay or the football stereotype. That's one thing I definitely want to do – break some barriers and kill some stereotypes."

[SkStu]

Hopefully this is the start of a trend. It's the last real taboo to be addressed in sport...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22341153


US basketball player Jason Collins has come out as gay, the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so.

[IsMiseSean]

St. Pauli fans choreograph demonstration against homophobia (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/st-pauli-fans-choreograph-demonstration-against-homophobia-during-072841259--sow.html)

[tricky_colour]

If we get shafted by the Germans again tongues will begin to wag.

[DannyInvincible]

'German football club will fly rainbow flag permanently at their stadium': http://www.thescore.ie/st-pauli-rainbow-flag-989494-Jul2013/


GERMAN SECOND DIVISION club St Pauli will fly the rainbow flag, symbolising gay pride, permanently at their Hamburg stadium, the club announced on Thursday.

“The club has been active for many years against homophobia and discrimination,” said St Pauli vice-president Dr. Gernot Stenger.

“With this flag, we are giving this highly-visible sign that these issues have great importance at St. Pauli and we are working hard on them.”

Dirk Bruellau of the club’s gay and lesbian fan club Queerpass Sankt Pauli, backed the move and said it would now be a “quantum leap for the football world” if one of the 18 clubs in Germany’s top-flight Bundesliga followed suit.

[peadar1987]

Interestingly, a "quantum leap" actually means the smallest physically possible change you could make without changing anything at all. Strange that its colloquial meaning is the exact opposite!

[DannyInvincible]

You've made a real quantum leap to get on to that!

[DannyInvincible]

'Liverpool FC staff get insults guide to curb fans' abuse': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-23510657


Liverpool Football Club staff have been issued with a guide to unacceptable language so they can help eradicate verbal abuse from fans.

The handbook highlights "offensive" phrases including "don't be a woman", "play like a girl" and "that's gay".

The club said they wanted to stamp out slurs against race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and disability.

[DannyInvincible]

Amusing: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/aug/01/liverpool-warrior-sports-man-up


Liverpool's kit supplier, Warrior Sports, has fallen foul of the club's new guidelines on unacceptable language by telling customers to "man up" on its website.

"Man up" is one of several phrases the Anfield club deems unacceptable on a list issued to members of staff as part of a wider education programme aimed at combating discrimination. Others in the section on gender include "queen", "princess", "play like a girl" and "don't be a woman".

The club's official sportswear supplier, however, requests that people "Man Up, Sign Up" to receive its product updates by email.

Eagle-eyed readers have also highlighted that the Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers told the Anfield Wrap about his players: "If you get little niggles or little injuries, you've got to man up," when his squad was stretched before the January transfer window.

[DannyInvincible]

Mateja Kežman embarrasses himself: http://inserbia.info/news/2013/08/homosexuality-is-a-disease-and-should-not-be-supported-mateja-kezman/


The Dutch coach Louis Van Gaal, as well as former players Ronald de Boer and Pierre van Hooijdonk, attended the gay pride in Amsterdam and supported homosexuals in the country.

Former PSV footballer and member of the Serbian national team, now sports director at Vojvodina FC, Mateja Kezman, was unpleasantly surprised by the gesture of Van Gaal.

Mateja said that he believes that homosexuality is a disease which should not be promoted and he would not like for the Football Association of Serbia to support gay pride in Serbia one day. He added that attitude toward homosexuality is well known, that he believes homosexuality is distancing from Christ and a walk toward spiritual doom.

Kezman also said that he knows Van Gaal very well, but will certainly not call him to tell him he did a wrong thing. However, if they ever get to the subject, Kezman will not have the problem to tell him to his face what he thinks about it.

The president of the Football Association of Serbia, Tomislav Karadzic, said that they haven’t thought about following steps of the Dutch colleagues.

He said that the event in Holland has never been a topic on the agenda of the Football Association of Serbia, so he is unable to express views. He believes that in this matter, as well as always in everything, to follow the policy of the state.


This [homosexuality] is a disease that should not be promoted, I wouldn’t like the Serbian FA to support [a parade] in Serbia. The Dutch are moving away from God and move towards spiritual destruction.

[peadar1987]

Does he think being a c**t is a disease that should not be promoted?

[IsMiseSean]

"he believes homosexuality is distancing from Christ and a walk toward spiritual doom." > I lose respect for people when they bring religion into a discussion...

[Charlie Darwin]

"he believes homosexuality is distancing from Christ and a walk toward spiritual doom." > I lose respect for people when they bring religion into a discussion...
But you were fine with the homophobia?

[IsMiseSean]

But you were fine with the homophobia?

No that too, but the religious s**t really makes me sick!

[DannyInvincible]

'Joey Barton Wears Rainbow Laces For Stonewall's Anti-Homophobia Campaign': http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/16/football-laces-homophobia_n_3933103.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Joey Barton has called for professional footballers in England and Scotland to support a campaign addressing homophobia in the game by wearing rainbow laces in their boots next weekend.

Barton, who was accused of making a homophobic gesture at Fernando Torres three seasons ago and called Brazil defender Thiago Silva a "ladyboy" earlier this year, said "people's sexuality shouldn't be an issue".

Sets of laces have been sent to all Premier League and Football League clubs, plus the 42 teams in the Scottish Professional Football League by gay rights charity Stonewall.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1354248/thumbs/o-JOEY-BARTON-LACES-570.jpg?6

In light of past comments, Barton certainly wasn't a footballer I'd have envisaged pioneering this initiative. He does enjoy his publicity, mind...

And in relation to the use of "hate speech" at football games; 'PM: Spurs fans 'Yid' chants should not be prosecuted': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24133145


Tottenham Hotspur fans who chant the word "Yid" should not be prosecuted, according to the prime minister.

David Cameron told the Jewish Chronicle there was a difference between Spurs fans "describing themselves as Yids" and the word being used as an insult.

The north London club have a strong Jewish following who have been the target of anti-Semitic abuse, but some fans use the term.

Spurs have sent a questionnaire to fans to ask if the practice should stop.

The prime minister's comments came after the Football Association (FA) issued a statement warning supporters that the use of such words could result in a banning order or criminal charges.

Mr Cameron said: "There's a difference between Spurs fans self-describing themselves as Yids and someone calling someone a Yid as an insult.

"You have to be motivated by hate. Hate speech should be prosecuted - but only when it's motivated by hate."

Chants of "Yids", "Yid Army" and "Yiddos" are regularly heard in the home stands at White Hart Lane.

During Saturday's match between Spurs and Norwich, fans reacted to the FA statement by chanting "Yid Army" and "We'll sing what we want".

The charity Community Security Trust, which advises Jewish groups on security, said although the use of the word "Yid" by fans "does not justify prosecution", it is still offensive.

"It remains an offensive word that can upset many Jews both inside and outside the football context," a spokesperson said.

"Ultimately, ridding football of anti-Semitism needs to involve Spurs fans voluntarily dropping the Y-word from their songbook."

Obviously, I always try to adopt an opposite stand to Cameron, just because he's David Cameron, but I find myself agreeing with him here. I've always perceived the reappropriation of such terminology to be empowering, as a method of mocking or transcending racism rather than reinforcing it.

[Charlie Darwin]

A bunch of mainly white, christian men chanting "yids" doesn't sound like transcending racism to me.

[DannyInvincible]

Spurs do have a significant Jewish following though, do they not? Can there be racist intent if it's reappropriated as a term of endearment?

[Charlie Darwin]

Spurs have always a small minority of Jewish supporters from the area around Tottenham. Why on earth this would entitled the large majority of non-Jewish fans to "take back" an anti-Jewish slur is beyond me. It's like Arsenal fans calling themselves the n-word.

The most mental part of it all is that Saturday was Yom Kippur so there wouldn't have been a single observant Jew in the stadium as the Spurs fans asserted their right to call themselves Yids.

[DannyInvincible]

Wouldn't some Celtic fans who may not necessarily have any Irish Catholic roots themselves self-identify as "tims"? Would you interpret such as insulting when it's reappropriated as a label of tribal pride?

[geysir]

A bunch of mainly white, christian men chanting "yids" doesn't sound like transcending racism to me.
Nor me, especially when it's emerging from the backwoods of north london. Nevertheless I agree with Cameron, it's not a race hate issue that calls for a prosecution. It's something else, though I don't know what that is.
Much of the current rumpus about this issue is coming from the head of the Society of Black Lawyers, Peter Herbert. He is the self appointed guardian/watchdog of all things racist in football, i.e. according to his definition of what constitutes racism. He shows all the signs of being a.publicity attention seeker, making mountains out of molehills. Selecting an issue for publicity rather than actual content.

Reminds me of our very own supporters rep, whose name escapes me.

[ArdeeBhoy]

No Celtic fans think of 'Tims' as insulting...or none I've ever encountered.

[Charlie Darwin]

Wouldn't some Celtic fans who may not necessarily have any Irish Catholic roots themselves self-identify as "tims"? Would you interpret such as insulting when it's reappropriated as a label of tribal pride?
I wouldn't be offended if somebody called me a Tim or a Taig, let alone themselves. I might have felt differently 50 or 100 years ago though. In Europe we've had some very recent brushes with violent antisemitism which is going to colour any debate. Even allowing for the fact most Spurs fans likely have no idea what they're chanted about, I can see why it would horrify people.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Their worst anti-Irish insults are 'Fenian', 'Beggar' & 'Tatty picker' FFS. May a higher power help them...

As for the Sperz thing, having lived in Tottenham, the locals were all too aware and saw it as a badge of honour, especially v.Arsenal & Chelsea!

[DannyInvincible]

No Celtic fans think of 'Tims' as insulting...or none I've ever encountered.

That's my point though. I wouldn't view such usage as insulting either; there's clearly no intent to cause offence there. Spurs fans, be they Jewish or not, who identify as "yids" with a sense of pride wouldn't perceive that term to be insulting. Both terms - "tim" and "yid" - are still perceived as racial/ethnic/religious slurs, however, or they at least were in their original conceptions. I attach more significance to the intent behind the usage. When usage is benevolent rather than malicious, is it fair to view it in the same light as an instance of someone clearly using it to cause offence?

[peadar1987]

I wouldn't be offended if somebody called me a Tim or a Taig, let alone themselves. I might have felt differently 50 or 100 years ago though. In Europe we've had some very recent brushes with violent antisemitism which is going to colour any debate. Even allowing for the fact most Spurs fans likely have no idea what they're chanted about, I can see why it would horrify people.

It depends on the context. If it was used as a genuine insult, for example, if I do something less than intelligent, and someone attributes it to me being a "stupid Paddy", I'd treat it differently to someone just calling me a "f***ing idiot"

[DannyInvincible]

It's something else, though I don't know what that is.

Would "solidarity" be an appropriate description?

[geysir]

Would "solidarity" be an appropriate description?
That description assumes they have a knowledge of something in order to feel solidarity about it.
Maybe some have.
But it just sounds so familiar with the Ajax story, fans stigmatised by association with a locality where the Jewish community are concentrated, In Spurs' case, Stamford Hill down to Stoke Newington. Spurs fans react by acquiring aspects of solidarity with the Jewish identity, some aspects for some minutes in the week. I don't get the impression it's hostile. I would defer to the opinion of Jewish community representatives whether its appropriate or not,
and not the self appoint guardian of civilisation, Peter Herbert.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Thing is there were/are other Jewish communities in traditional Arsenal & West Ham areas...
Where the local association was more subtle.

Their community tends to keep a low profile in London anyway & stay off the radar, if only because of the proximity of various potential nutjobs affecting their everyday existence as opposed to bothering about and commentating on a N.London/Middx.football club.

[geysir]

There's nothing in London to compare with the Stoke Newington to Stamford Hill area, when it comes to equating it with a blatant jewish identity. Orthodox just does not describe how orthodox it is.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Well, they are right next to each other. And last time I was there the Hassidic Jews had started to drift into SN.
And yeah, easily the most obvious Jewish area, even though they don't recognise modern Israel. Also have been known to protest with the Palestinians on occasion.

Not sure where they're all going to go long-tern though after they tried to buy an entire village more than a few years back.

[Charlie Darwin]

Former Aston Villa, West Ham and Germany international midfielder Thomas Hitzlsperger has announced he is gay in a bid to break the taboo of homosexuality in sport.

The 31-year-old, who ended his playing career in September due to persistent injuries,told Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper (http://www.zeit.de/sport/2014-01/thomas-hitzlsperger-homosexualitaet-fussball) that now was “a good time” for him to reveal his true sexuality.

“I’m coming out about my homosexuality because I want to move the discussion about homosexuality among professional sportspeople forwards,” Hitzlsperger said.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/hitzlsperger-reveals-he-is-gay-619155.html

[Charlie Darwin]

Former Chelsea star Alex in homophobic row


On the same day former Germany international Thomas Hitzlsperger came out, PSG defender Alex has become embroiled in a row after claiming that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Yves".

Thomas Hitzlsperger (http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Thomas_Hitzlsperger) has expressed his gratitude for the kind messages of support he has received after announcing he is gay.
Hitzlsperger, who retired in September, took to Twitter to thank "everyone" while sports stars past and present also welcomed the news.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/former-chelsea-star-alex-in-homophobic-row-29899641.html

[Mr A]

Must have been a difficult one for him.

Imagine having to admit you used to play for West Ham.

[TheBoss]

Why do gay people feel the need to tell the public media about their sexual orientation. It is a matter for the person, their family and their friends. So what if someones gay, that fact that people are "Coming Out" makes it a issue and makes people talk about it negatively (Oh, Did you hear your man is gay?) rather than it being part of modern society. These public announcements, I think, cause gay people to be more pressured into having to tell the media their sexuality, causing them mental torture into when to "tell their secret".

[peadar1987]

Why do gay people feel the need to tell the public media about their sexual orientation. It is a matter for the person, their family and their friends. So what if someones gay, that fact that people are "Coming Out" makes it a issue and makes people talk about it negatively (Oh, Did you hear your man is gay?) rather than it being part of modern society. These public announcements, I think, cause gay people to be more pressured into having to tell the media their sexuality, causing them mental torture into when to "tell their secret".

I can kind of see your point, but "coming out" yourself gives you the power. Now Hitzlsperger is out, it's no big deal to the media if he has a boyfriend, but could you imagine the media circus there would have been if he'd be spotted by Bild or some other rag cuddling up to a boyfriend in public before this? If I was a gay person in the public eye, I think I'd much rather come out on my own terms.

[Mr A]

Grame Le Saux on homophobic abuse throughout his career, several big names come out of this incredibly badly: http://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/graeme-le-saux-how-gay-slurs-almost-wrecked-my-career/

[Stuttgart88]

I remember thinking that Le Saux's "defence" was a PR master stroke when he got into trouble over punching Robbie Fowler off the ball after Fowler had taunted him by pointing up his own bum.

His defence was that he lost his rag because has to put up with so much abuse because he's educated and articulate. I thought it was a load of tosh at the time. My recollection of Le Saux was of an aggressive, snarly player with a dark side, not afraid to dive, retaliate or commit bad tackles to gain advantage. He played the game in a pretty bad spirit. When he lost his rag he claimed he was a victim of his background and he ended up putting football in the dock to escape punishment. It worked. Fowler was an idiot but Le Saux was entirely in character by hitting him.

I've no doubt his accusations about homophobia are accurate and he's right to speak out, but I can't help feel the real reason he wasn't liked by opponents and fans was simply because he was a wangcker on the pitch.

[Mr A]

It seems reasonable to assume that someone taking daily bullying and abuse might play the game in a less than happy clappy spirit.

[Stuttgart88]

Who knows? I think he was a toe rag on the pitch all through his career. I have rarely disliked a player so much. I think it's stretching it a bit to put it all down to Andy Townsend et al calling him a poof, which was utterly moronic of course.

That said, his criticism of a Fowler, especially subsequent to that incident, seems totally fair if true and makes Fowler out to be a complete caveman. Isn't Fowler a pundit for BBC now? They should put him on the spot.

[NeverFeltBetter]

So is Savage.