Article by Michael HalepasWhat a weekend for premier league football!
There may not have been any top flight league fixtures this weekend but those players on international duty really did a job. Even the English lads showed there is hope for the future despite the growing concern that the outlook is bleak for home grown players. All in all England have done what was asked of them in the lead up to the final must win game of the qualifying campaign for World Cup 2014.
Follow e-Spurs on Twitter www.twitter.com/e_spurs
Follow e-Football on Twitter www.twitter.com/e_footballnet
Popular Spurs player Andros Townsend has already made a name for himself in the England setup having only broken into his club’s first XI this season. Andros has seized the opportunity that has presented itself in the form of an injury to Aaron Lennon. Yes. This weekend has been a better weekend than the last for Tottenham players. Last weekend may be in the past but it definitely brought up concerns for the fans on two fronts. The bad that has become evident after 7 league games is that the players are not putting the ball in the net anywhere near the amount of times that a top four finish requires. Not least in a season with so many contenders for the coveted 1st - 4th finishing positions. Now of all times Spurs fans in the stands want to be spurring their team on to get the wins they need. Sadly for them, the other bad news is the making illegal of the most passionate and vociferous chants they have.
Joe Supporter
Let's imagine Joe Supporter - model citizen all week long, looks forward to the weekends so he can take his son to the Spurs games. Gets to Sunday derby day and he goes along to WHL to cheer on his team and help create an incredible atmosphere. The way he's always done it, the way those before him always did. Difference now is that he's being told that he should expect arrest and a criminal record for using a word positively. Can that be right? This is serious stuff. Even the Prime Minister has felt the obligation to wade into the discussion. Whatever our views on any particular word, Joe's right of freedom of speech is being impinged by others. The Human Rights Act enshrines every person’s right to a number of things.
One of those rights is freedom of expression but both the FA and the police have decided that Spurs fans are not free to use a particular word at Spurs games. If you didn’t know already, that word is 'Yid' and its derivatives and use at Spurs games will constitute a criminal offence. On the one hand it has been decided, again by the FA and the police that simple use of the word is unacceptably offensive per se; on the other hand there exists the absurdity of the situation which can best be described this way - let's imagine Joe Jnr is under 10 years old. He decides to join in with the 'racially offensive' chanting and utters that terrible word. Same chanting as his dad but difference with him is that he can't commit a criminal offence in any of the stadia in England or Wales - because he's under 10. So what happens then? Presumably the worst that can happen to him is ejection from the stadium.
Another question in Joe’s mind is this - 'What about me?!' Joe is being told by TV and newspapers that it's a public order offence to refer to Spurs as the 'Yid Army' but Joe’s a member of the public too. Nobody consulted him when the decision was made as to what Joe, as a member of that public, considers unacceptable language. Now Joe may not be a Jew and he may not even be from the North-West but he suspects that some of the chants heard at Liverpool vs Man Utd games might be deemed by a great many as far more offensive than listening to Spurs fans cheering that 'Jermain Defoe is a Yiddo'. While we're on the topic, what about the guy wedged in next to Joe at WHL who uses 'f**k' or 'c**t' every other word? Joe finds him exceedingly offensive both to the notion of personal space and also to his ears. Joe certainly doesn’t want Joe Jnr hearing aggressively vulgar language like that. Joe wonders why he should face arrest while that guy is free profaning his way through 90 minutes without consequence.
What about the away fans at WHL on derby day? Joe can clearly hear some of their number hissing towards the Spurs fans. Joe finds this behaviour which mimics Hitler’s gas chambers extraordinarily offensive. Joe feels aggrieved at being arrested and escorted out of the stadium while nobody is being arrested for hissing. What about the players at whom so much of this 'offensive' chanting is aimed? Not once, in the history of the professional game has a single footballer come out to condemn this chanting. Does that mean anything?
The real worry is that our society is sliding down a slippery slope by designating certain words as offensive per se. In other words that mere utterance of these words is wrong - we begin to set a dangerous precedent from which there is no return. Because when we get to that stage we create an ownership of words. One group owns the right to use a word and all others can't. Surely that in itself is discriminatory? Who decides where the craziness stops?
Floodgates
Let's consider another example, albeit a slightly more extreme one. West Ham fans traditionally sing about 'blowing bubbles'. What if the next time West Ham are playing, one of the visiting fans - let's call him Joe Papadopoulos, hears this singing and decides that he takes offence at hearing the West Ham fans referring to 'blowing bubbles'. See, Joe Papadopoulos has had some serious racial abuse directed his way in the past on account of his membership of a particular ethnic group. What happens then?
On any objective view the West Ham fans aren’t intending that chant to be offensive but Joe Papadopoulos has taken direct insult. Who’s to tell Joe that he’s overreacting? Who decides whether 'blowing bubbles' is an offensive term? The reality is that in theory a whole host of words could be taken to be offensive and insulting. Common sense suggests that in a free democracy, one that had to be fought for, it should be the intent behind the words spoken that should dictate whether a crime has been committed or not.
In all the time that Spurs fans have adopted this chanting, only recently has it been classed as criminal conduct. Since its inception the chanting has had the same purpose, the same meaning. It hasn’t changed overnight. If the term is so inherently offensive when sung by Spurs fans then another question comes to mind. Why didn’t authorities ban use of the word at any time in the last century?
Why, for example, do I not feel any offence when my Gooner mate refers to me as a ‘Yiddo’? Is there something wrong with me? Or is it because it’s just a word and that it is the context and the intent behind the use of the word which is more relevant?
I even have a mate called Dave. True story. He’s Jewish and he can’t help calling me a ‘Yiddo’. He loves it! Should I be calling the police on him? Perhaps Peter Herbert can help advise on this prejudicial language. Maybe some people might take issue with Peter Herbert giving advice on how best to avoid divisive words and behaviour given his Chairmanship of a group called the Society of Black Lawyers.
Peter Herbert tells us that use of the word should be unacceptable in any circumstances. What about the ‘N’ word which has caused so much controversy? Is that unacceptable in any circumstances too, or is it acceptable only if a black rapper for example refers to n*****s’ in every track on his album. To a great many people mere use of that word is incredibly offensive. Would Peter Herbert refuse to shake the hand of either Jay-Z or Kanye West but to name a few? Using Peter Herbert’s reasoning these rappers shouldn’t even be allowed in the country!
The Law
Peter Herbert refers to the bottom line and the fact that use of the word is against the law. Now would be as good a time as any to take a quick look at the relevant law. The law in this case is to be found within the Public Order Act 1986 - interesting perhaps that it took 27 years of it being the law for someone to get arrested at WHL!
The law cited as being relevant to use of the word ‘Yid’ is to be found at section 5 of the POA. In short, an offence is committed if a person uses ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,...........within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.’
There is no list anywhere in the Act that defines the words that are to be considered ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’. It is a fairly broad definition that might encompass a plethora of words. As long as there is a person who might be insulted, there is a potential crime. A bigger worry for Joe is that should his case get to court, his crime may well be classified as ‘racially aggravated’ – how employable will Joe be once that shows up on his criminal record?!
The chanting dates back long before the POA came into force but it only officially became criminally offensive the moment David Baddiel made a complaint. Notice that in all the time David Baddiel has been going to matches at Stamford Bridge his complaint wasn’t directed at the Chelsea fans for hissing to mimic the gas chambers. The complaint was made that any use of the word is offensive.
There is however part of section 5 that Peter Herbert hasn’t touched on. He is a busy man after all. Maybe he missed it from his reading. Section 5(3)(c) of the POA provides a defence for anyone charged with this offence if ‘his conduct was reasonable’. Again, there is no definition of what is to be considered reasonable. Are Peter Herbert and David Baddiel the authorities on what constitutes reasonable conduct? What qualifies them as such? What makes them more suitable than others to define what is insulting language?
Is it reasonable in all the circumstances to chant ‘Yid Army’ at WHL? Maybe we will have to wait for the courts to decide.
The moment we say that a group of people can't use a certain word we enter very dangerous territory. We get to the place where certain people claim right over the word. Where we assign ownership of the word. That can't be right. That can surely only do more harm than good to society.
It must be right to give all people protection from direct racial abuse. It must also be right however to allow people the freedom with which we are born. Freedom of expression in situations where no racial discrimination is intended. The fact that this issue continues to rumble on shows that it's time for discussion amongst society that needs to be had. The way it's been handled, by panicking and rushing is the worst way to go about it. At present there is a blanket ban on the use because any use of the word is said to constitute an offence. What about the situations, a few of them mentioned above, that that situation might potentially throw up? Here’s to common sense prevailing. COYS!
© e-Spurs 2013 All rights reserved no part of this document or this website may be reproduced without consent of e-Spurs
a great read. pls keep em coming
ReplyDelete