PDA

View Full Version : Racism row



ex-lucy
21-01-07, 13:01
get this ...
@ red scrum .. just inside white's 22...
SH: "that's racism sir! Their centre said something about putting a tire round our centre's neck and setting fire to it. That's racist!"

me: "South Africans are NOT a race. Let's all calm down and continue. SH calm down please."

@ ensuing line out ....to white captain: "pls ask your centres to stop their alleged sledging."

crikes ... what is happening in rugby these days ?

OB..
21-01-07, 14:01
Some people seem to think sledging is a part of sport. Personally I think it is a form of cheating, and I dislike it intensely. Keep up the good work, ex-lucy.

didds
21-01-07, 18:01
well... there's sledging and there's sledging.

Direct outright abuse is IMO not on. However the sort of sledging which is - away from the immediate environment - amusing and with some sharp thought involved would be a great loss to life.

Warne's retort to Collingwood definitely being in the latter bracket

"You got an MBE right? For scoring seven at the Oval?"

Frankly, and purely IMO, brilliant. Short, sharp, witty - and right to the jugular.

didds

Robert Burns
21-01-07, 18:01
Where did the fact that South Africans are not a race come from?

OB..
21-01-07, 18:01
... and Mussolini made the trains run on time. The occasional shaft of wit does not excuse the whole attitude of trying to gain a psychological advantage by non-sports means.

ex-lucy
21-01-07, 20:01
eh? South Africans are not a race ... SA is a nation. Same as Scotland. Scots are not a race either.

Dixie
21-01-07, 20:01
Where did the fact that South Africans are not a race come from?

Do you view Nelson Mandela and P.W. Botha as racially identical, Robert? They're both South Africans, but surely racially very different, Botha having been caucasian. An anthropologist diggin up their skulls in 100 years would not view them as members of the same race. However, the word "race" has become flexible in meaning - there is a view that the Scots and Irish have their own races. While this seems not to be scientifically correct, it does serve a purpose in stamping out intolerance.

Lucy - sensible approach. Was the centre at whom the comment was directed of black origin? If so, perhaps the comment might have been reported? If not, it's just stupidly offensive - bit like Jade Goody & co.

Dixie
21-01-07, 20:01
... The occasional shaft of wit does not excuse the whole attitude of trying to gain a psychological advantage by non-sports means.

Devil's advocate, OB - do we not do this every time we turn up in blazer, tie and polished shoes, trying to stamp our authority on the players before they're even changed? Isn't this actually the only reason for an away side to insist on turning up in No.1's? If we take your comment to the nth degree, what sanction should we impose on the team that bellows its count to five, rather than thinks it, as the players sprint on the spot in the changing room?

It seems that some efforts at achieving a non-sporting psychological advantage are legitimate. It would be interesting (but almost certainly futile) to explore where the line is.

ex-lucy
21-01-07, 23:01
dixie: it was stupidly offensive ...

OB..
21-01-07, 23:01
I don't think I can be bothered to try and delineate the prohibited area - there are too many grey regions, to start with. I suppose the main criterion is intent. Players warming up in the dressing room are probably thinking more of themselves than the opposition.

I would certainly include efforts by spectators to distract a kicker. The law says players (on the pitch) must stand still with arms by their sides. I think most people would agree that it is unacceptable for players on the bench to interfere. I remember the disapproval of the crowd at Twickenham when the All Blacks subs decided to "warm up" behind the dead-ball line precisely when Jonny Wilkinson was kicking at that goal.

Davet
22-01-07, 14:01
An anthropologist diggin up their skulls in 100 years would not view them as members of the same race.


Actually just by looking at the skeleton it is very hard to detrmine race. There is sufficient variety in each race that almost all human skeletal remains will be overlapped by the possibilities.

It is easier to sex a skeleton - though here again it not a definate science - looking at the mastoid process, the flare of the mandible, the weight of the brow ridges, and at the pelvic girdle in particular can give indications, but almost never certainty. If an archaeologist digs up a skeleton with grave goods then it is often those which are used to assign a sex - though since that is based on modern gender assumptions it is very poor indicator.

Robert Burns
22-01-07, 21:01
I think in the 'modern' use of racism, the following all count:

Country from
Skin Colour
Accent (not regional though)
Facial features pertinant to an area (i.e east Asians with wider eyes and flatter face)
Sterotypes

So I think saying that "...South African is not a race..." will probably not get a person off a racism charge in court, in the same note it should be punishable on the pitch as racism.

craign
22-01-07, 22:01
There was a Court of Session (equiv to English Court of Appeal) decision in Scotland two or three years ago that decided an Englishman treated less favourably in Scotland due to him being English should be classed as racial discrimination.

This was not appealed and is currently the most senior British appelate decision given that nationality alone can determine whether some act can amount to racism under current legislation

I can't find a link to back this up so I may be slightly off on some facts however the principle and judgement are sound case law.

edit Found it! (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/O19_18(16)_99.html) As soon as I hit "post", I remembered where to look...

Robert Burns
22-01-07, 23:01
There was also a Irish guy that took his company to court because his friends made Irish jokes about him all day.

He won the case as it was racism against him being of Irish race.

SONA
23-01-07, 03:01
PK, Law 10.4.k