Anorak

Anorak | Thought police could investigate Spurs chants and morals

Thought police could investigate Spurs chants and morals

by | 7th, November 2012

yids spurs1 Thought police could investigate Spurs chants and morals

THE Society of Black Lawyers is not a work of parody. The head of SBL is one Peter Herbert. He says he will complain to police if Spurs do not stop their fans chanting songs about Yids, chiefly that they are Yids and proud to be part of a Yid Army.

The police will then do something, possibly chuck Jews out of Spurs’ ground for calling themselves Yids. The words Yids will then be discussed in courts. Everyone wil be talking about Yids until Yids is trending on Twitter. All things being possible, a Jew will then end up in prison for being a self-yidding Jew.

Herbert tells BBC Sport:

“Clearly Tottenham have a distance to travel before they learn of the offence that is being caused.”

Anorak has polled a lot of Jews for their opinion on this. The response was pretty universal. They don’t care. Still, Herbert presses on:

“If you had a group of Afro-Caribbean supporters using the ‘N-word’, even as a ‘defence mechanism’, it would clearly be completely unacceptable. There are young supporters present when the chants are used.”

But Afro-Caribbean fans aren’t singing songs in the grounds about being “N-words”. Herbert creates a problem that does not exist and then says it would be wrong. So…

“Use of the word, even in this way, could be seen by some as justifying other people using the term.”

People who call Jews Yids as a term of abuse don’t need an excuse, Herbie. If Yids is banned, the anti-Semites and “other people” will use other words. There are many. They might even be actual racists who try to stop Jews playing a full and active part in society, campaigning to restrict their movements and ownership of property. Says the BBC:

He has warned the north London club that unless they take action by 20 November, he will report “a racist incident” to the Metropolitan Police.

No! Not the police, the apogee of what it is to be not a racist.

Spurs say:

“Our fans adopted the chant as a defence mechanism in order to own the term and thereby deflect anti-Semitic abuse. Our position on this topic is very clear. The club does not tolerate any form of racist or abusive chanting. Our guiding principle in respect of the ‘Y-word’ is based on the point of law itself – the distinguishing factor is the intent with which it is used, ie if it is used with the deliberate intention to cause offence. This has been the basis of prosecutions of fans of other teams to date. They do not use the term to others to cause any offence, they use it a chant amongst themselves. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate.”

Spurs is right. But, then again, Spurs is wrong. You see, racism can be unintentional. According to the 1999 Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, anyone can be guilty of “unwitting racism“. Macpherson spoke of institutional racism. He said that it “can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people”.

Racism became a thought crime. You can be guilty of racism without being a racist. Racism became no longer about abuse of power and State-approved discrimination. It became about the individual. No need to look into how the police, Government systems, the judiciary, the Royal Family and media are run. Look instead at the individuals. Look at their morals.

A racist incident can be “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or by any other person”, noted MacPhearson.

If you think Yids is a racist term, then it is. Even if you called a Spurs supporting pal a Yiddo, you can be racist. You can be punished. Racism – the morally bankrupt practice of not affording the same rights and opportunities to a group because of their creed or colour – has been reduced to a debate over name calling.

Racism has not been raised in importance. It has been reduced to the trivial.

This suits the elite. You want to see racism? Look at the police and other state institutions. But they’re all scrambling to show off how anti-racist they are.

We are not allowed to debate prejudice and racism. We are told to censure all speech.

Just because Herbert can’t differentiate between words and actions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us will automatically become either violent bigots or emotionally scarred for life upon hearing racial terms.

On the BBC, one bright spark quips:

The lawyers should get down to Craven Cottage, a veritable hotbed of ignorance, ‘come on you whites’. Shameful behaviour. something must be done.

Once upon a time, only Spurs were the Lilywhites. Now we all are, or else.

More here.



Posted: 7th, November 2012 | In: Sports Comments (2) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink