posted
Hello, people. Although I can't write much these days, I'm still reading most of what's going on. Since I imposed myself a little leisure time this saturday, here is an interesting bit of news.
I don't know if you are aware of this, since soccer isn't such a big sport in the U.S. but there were some nasty racism issues recently, during European tournaments, and nothing was done. Well...most people think the police acted correctly, following the brazilian law (since the offended player pressed charges). Others, though, think such 'namecallings' are manly stuff, bound to happend during the game, and police has nothing to do with it. Fifa's (the international soccer association) authorities say that racism has no place in sports, and hope this brazilian example is followed in other places.
(Oh, yeah... Argentins are famous for calling black players from other countries "macaquitos" (little monkeys). The guy in question called the other player "negrito de mi*rda" (as in "you n*gger full of sh*t) and told him to grab a banana and stick it in some anatomic orifice).
What do you think? Did anything similar happened in the U.S. in any sport?
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely side with the authorities and FIFA on this one. Even in the heat of a game, it just isn't appropriate.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be fine with him being penalized by the FIFA - thrown out of the game or fined. To me, this is something that should have been handled by the referees or sports authorities.
Having him arrested and charged with a crime seems to go too far. Obviously I don't know enough about the law in other countries to know what is allowed, but if he were arrested in the US I'd feel it was a violation of the 1st amendment to criminally punish someone for insulting somebody during a sporting event.
Yes, it's offensive and horrible - but we protect lots of offensive and horrible speech in this country.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That depends. Would it go under hate speech? Though I don't know how Canadian and U.S. law differ in this regard. I believe we're more restricive than you are...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a lot of "racial sensitivity" here in Brazil. The Argentin player wasn't arrested because he used dirty speech. To tell you the truth, he could say much worse and ther would not be any problems. When he resorted to the "negrito" and the "banana" thing, though... he violated the brazilian constitution, where racism is a crime punishable criminally. The police only obeyed the law (as I said... the other player pressed charges).
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember there being an NHL (Hockey) game where an American Indian player made some racist comments to a African American player.
The NHL took care of it in the form of a suspension and a hefty fine.
I know in NASCAR they will fine you money and points for just swearing. I have not heard any comments being made except when one of the drivers protested the inclusion of Toyota into the NASCAR family. However, on that one, they let the driver keep his view, but a NASCAR rep got up to the mic very quickly and responded with "NASCAR does not share the same view as the driver."
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See I just think it can be effectively handled within the sporting context without getting authorities involved, as in the situations Stan mentioned.
If there are rules against hateful or racist speech and a player violates them, then punish the player. But arresting them - it bothers me. It may have been perfectly appropriate under the Brazilian law, but if this were to happen in America I would be very disturbed.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a fairly recent law. There's been some new laws concerning racism and racial awareness. I think we're going through and adjustment phase.
But then, I guess it is normal that some laws are different, in different countries. I read about people being arrested or sued in the U.S. and other places for reasons that I find quite strange(Jay made a thread about this some time ago, I guess. About a 6 y.o. kid being arrested).
But maybe it leads to an interesting question: how do you think law should deal with racist comments such as those?
An european club was recently fined (500 Euros) because the fans were throwing bananas at africans and south-americans who played for their opponents.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
over here they would likely be fined...but for most sports I don't think racial tensions are a problem, since people are used to having a wide variety of races in sports. There may be come issues...but an athlete would never come close to saying stuff that extreme on the field. For one thing it would kill their chances at any sort of endorcement deals.
There are exceptions though...I remember there were some issues when Tiger Woods started to play golf (someone made a comment about going to eat fried chicken and watermelon). Though, I don't think there were fines or anything...just a bunch of ticked off people.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was also Fuzzy Zoeller who made those comments, and he payed for it as well. Tiger Woods joked right back at him IIRC, and while it wasn't a high point in US Sports history, it isn't the same thing as what Ed is mentioning.
In the USA that speech might be protected by law, but there is nothing to prevent the goverening bodies from inmosing sanctions against them for doing so.
You can say what you wnat here is the USA, but that doesn't mean you are free from the concequences of doing so.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be fine with him being penalized by the FIFA - thrown out of the game or fined.
I'm against criminal charges. I'm in favor of any action to be taken by the private league: suspension, lifetime ban, fine, time in the pillory on the sidelines, whatever.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US hasn't gone as far as other countries that have instituted a more aggressive governmental stance to enforce the notion of "racial equality."
That may very well stem from an ingrained distrust of "Big Government" which hasn't quite changed, whatever your political position.
A quick search on Google generates hits on England and I think New Zealand has something similar that institutes quite specific laws governing racist speech. As opposed to the US where some people object to any infringement, perceived or otherwise, on our "First Amendment" rights.
Any player in the US who voiced such attitudes would risk endorsement deals as Belle observed, protests from the targeted player and other players who no longer want anything to do with the offender and let's face it, the powers owning the sports teams don't want someone controversial to risk rocking the money boat.
Hence the hefty fines and swift actions undertaken to any player drawing unwanted attention to themselves and the sport.
The US is one of the few countries that has the notion of the "rights of the individual" so deeply ingrained that it will always be a concern that personal rights aren't being too deeply infringed upon.
posted
No, no, Trevor. If it was a ramble, it was a good one, hehehe. It is this kind of difference that it's hard to understand, sometimes. And that's why I like talking to people from other countries.
On the other hand, if that Superbowl Janet Jackson debacle (the nipple thing) happened over here, nobody would pay much attention, I guess.
Countries just have different stances on things.
Oh, yes...from another url:
"Desabato was expected to sign the document on Friday afternoon, authorities said.
He could face a three-year prison term if he is found guilty of insulting Sao Paulo striker Grafite during Sao Paulo's 3-1 victory on Wednesday in the Copa Libertadores.
It was the first time in Brazil that a player was escorted off the field by police after a soccer match and arrested because of racial insults, authorities said."
posted
The swastika that most of the western world associates with Nazis is perfectly legal here as it's a symbol in Hinduism. Not sure what it refers to, but they had it first, long before Nazis ever came along.
quote:SwastikaChinese called it, "WAN" Zi, Japanese named it "MAN" Ji, Tibetan read it as "GYUNG-DRUNG" or GEG-GSANG. The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit means, "conducive to well- being". S-vasti in Sanskrit is "It's well"
Swastika is a symbol of prosperity and good fortune and is widely dispersed in both the ancient and modern world. It originally represented the revolving sun, fire, or life. The swastika was widely utilized in ancient Mesopotamian coinage as well as appearing in early Christian and Byzantium art, where it was known as the gammadion cross. The swastika also appeared in South and Central America, widely used in Mayan art during that time period.
Swastika is an equilateral cross with arms bent at right angles, all in the same direction, usually the right, or clockwise. In North America, the swastika was a symbol used by the Navajos. The swastika still continues today to be an extensively used sign in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism.
In Buddhism, a Swastika represents resignation. Usually found in the images of Buddha on His chest, palms, soles of feet. In Jainism, it delineates their seventh saint, and the four arms are also used to remind the worshiper of the four possible places of rebirth; the animal or plant world, in Hell, on Earth, or in the spirit world. To Hindus, the swastika with the arms bent to the left is called the sathio or sauvastika, which symbolizes night, magic, purity, and the destructive goddess Kali.
In both Hinduism and Jainism, the Swastika or sathio is used to mark the opening pages or their account books, thresholds, doors, and offerings. The swastika was a symbol for the Aryan people, a name which, in Sanskrit means "noble". The Aryans were a group of people who settled in Iran and Northern India. They believed themselves to be a pure race, superior to the other surrounding cultures.
posted
Eduardo, am I reading you correctly that the police were called in because it is a known, continuing problem that the soccer officials had failed to do anything about?
If that's the case, it's like the feds getting called in for civil rights violations in the south back in the day. It was illegal to tell blacks they couldn't vote, but the southern cops were doing it anyway. The feds had to go over their heads.
If it's against the rules for the soccer players to use racial slurs, the guy did it anyway, and the ref didn't stop it, I think it's appropriate for the police to step in.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. It's been an ongoing problem, not only in South America (Argentins being the most problematic), but also, and I would say, foremost, in Europe, where fans are being really nasty to african and south-american players.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to international rules he should have been given a red card and that would have been the end of it. Technically you're not even allowed to swear on the pitch. If FIFA wants to impose more penalties, that's fine, but I don't know that arresting him is the way to go. Especially for something like language where the rules vary greatly from country to country.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunatelly the guy wasn't given a red card. Some people agree with you, Bob... although I can't think of a country where what he said wasn't nasty.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All offensive speech is hate speech. I, personally, hate having one standard for speech that offends one group, and a different standard for speech that offends different groups.
Either let's keep the law out of the speech-punishment business, or let's be evenhanded and make ALL offensive speech proportionately punishable. But to count yourself as tolerant because you insist the first amendment protects obscene speech but then allow a huge exception for racist or other bigoted speech - it's a double standard, and it teaches contempt for the law. Instead of insisting that all public utterance be decent, it allows some people to be deeply offended and hurt, while protecting others from the rough and tumble of emotional speech.
Personally, I'd like to have standards of decency tht are enforced by normal social pressures - like walking away from someone whose speech is offensive. And keep the law out of it.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned that about an year ago, by reading a Mangá (Blade of the Immortal), would you believe it? (Yes, Camila and Bruno. Professor reads this stuff)
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To comment on TMMedina's post: Both directions of the symbol are used by Hindus & Indians. Linky.
quote: In India, a distinction is made between the right-hand swastika which moves in a clockwise direction and the left-hand swastika ( more correctly called sauswatika), which moves in a counterclockwise direction. The right hand swastika is a solar symbol and imitates in the rotation of its arms the course of the Sun, which in the Northern hemisphere appears to pass from east then south to west. The left-hand swastika more often stands for might the terrifying goddess Kali and magical practice.
quote:The right turning Indian swastika symbolizes the sun and positive energy, and is most commonly associated with the deity Ganesh, a God of prosperity and wealth. Some Indians regard an anti-clockwise swastika as an opposing, dark force- a symbol of the godess Kali. Together, the two can be regarded as symbolically similar to the Yin Yang symbol of Taoism, or the two Pillars of Kabbalah.
posted
You forget where I'm living. I'm surrounded by Hindu & Buddhist stuff. I go to the museum, and I see swastikas everywhere. All over the little god statues with multiple pairs of arms and/or legs.
So pffft! There's a proximity thing going on here, dude!
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, I'd like to have standards of decency tht are enforced by normal social pressures - like walking away from someone whose speech is offensive. And keep the law out of it.
At the risk of sounding toadyish... Amen.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
You forget where I'm living. I'm surrounded by Hindu & Buddhist stuff. I go to the museum, and I see swastikas everywhere. All over the little god statues with multiple pairs of arms and/or legs.
