Kanoute facing fine for showing Palestine t-shirt.

eZe^

Kanoute facing Palestine shirt fine
From Al Jazeera



Sevilla striker Frederic Kanoute is facing a fine from the Spanish football federation for revealing a T-shirt expressing support for Palestine during a match.

Kanoute lifted his Sevilla shirt over his head after scoring in the team's 2-1 Copa del Rey win over Deportivo La Coruna on Wednesday to display a black T-shirt on which the word "Palestine'' was printed in several languages.

The federation's Competition Committee is expected to study the incident on Friday.

Yellow card

Kanoute, who was born in France but plays internationally for Mali, is a practicing Muslim.

Kanoute's action, which has been interpreted as a response to Israel's recent attacks on Gaza that have killed nearly 700 people, was met with a yellow card from referee Antonio Mateu Lahoz.

Lahoz said in his post-match report that he had cautioned Kanoute for raising his shirt over his head in accordance with federation rules, while also noting the message of the striker's T-shirt.

Raphael Schultz, Israel's ambassador in Madrid, told Spain's Radio Marca on Thursday that Kanoute's gesture "had gone beyond his profession and Fifa rules to this respect.''

"I saw the match and the T-shirt bore nothing more than the name of Palestine.

"It was not an incitement against Israel.

"I don't think it extolled violence," Schultz said.

Public support

Meanwhile, Palestine embassy official Mahmoud Aluanen told the same station that Kanoute "has shown himself to be a very brave person to support our people at a public event."

"Sportsmen are human beings and cannot contain their feelings.

"They have all the right in the world to express their opinion about matters which contravene human rights.

"I'm sure that all Palestinian children, those who love football, will be happy about this gesture," Aluanen added.

The incident came a day before Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas paid a
visit to Madrid for talks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and King Juan Carlos.


So what do people think, was Kanoute wrong to show his support to Palestine as it has nothing to do with football, or was he right to stand up and express his feelings? Is it right that he has been given an extra punishment just because of the word 'Palestine' being written on his shirt? I'll be interested to see what people in here have to say.

Time Magazine

No more acceptable than that tbh.

CantGetNoSleep

I think he was right

Mr Alan

or this

whatawaster

The Economist wrote: »

No more acceptable than that tbh.

the two can't even be compared

Time Magazine

whatawaster wrote: »

the two can't even be compared

Both are political gestures that are extremely antagonising/sensitive issues. (I wouldn't find it acceptable for a Tel Aviv player to do some Israeli salute, either.) Footballers shouldn't make unilateral political statements like that in my opinion. There's a time and a place for it.

Kaka's tshirt isn't offensive tbh.

eZe^

The Economist wrote: »

No more acceptable than that tbh.

I don't know, Di Canio was trying to impress the right wing fan and get them going with his nazi salute, whereas Kanoute was showing his support for a conflict that is effecting the world right now. I don't think Kanoute was doing it to make himself a more popular figure at his club, whereas I believe Di Canio was...

I'm not saying either player is right, but I do think there is a difference.

Highsider

Can't see the problem myself.

eZe^

The Economist wrote: »

Both are political gestures that are extremely antagonising/sensitive issues. (I wouldn't find it acceptable for a Tel Aviv player to do some Israeli salute, either.) Footballers shouldn't make unilateral political statements like that in my opinion. There's a time and a place for it.

Kaka's tshirt isn't offensive tbh.

That a good point really, although the 'time and place' argument I think should be extended to Kaka's case iswell. I think there is a silly tolerance to religion on sports fields.

For example I remember watching something on College American Football, and the presenter was talking about how touch down celebrations that involved putting your hands or knees on the floor were going to be banned, but it was ok to kneel and pray to god, because (and I'm quoting directly from the presenter) 'We don't want to be responsible for God getting angry as a result of us outlawing that celebration'. That's a ridiculous bias imo, if laws like that are passed religion should not be seen as 'above the law'.

ilovemybrick

The Economist wrote: »

No more acceptable than that tbh.

To clarify, and Di Canio said this as well, its a Roman salute.It has been used by the right wing Italians for decades and was used before the Nazis. It is right wing but is not just a Nazi salute.

Mr Alan

eZe^ wrote: »

That a good point really, although the 'time and place' argument I think should be extended to Kaka's case iswell. I think there is a silly tolerance to religion on sports fields.

didnt Boruc get in trouble for being openly cathloic and blessing himself in an old firm game? thought it funny at the time cause i remembered Kakas t-shirt

juvenal

Either you ban players wearing/showing t-shirts bearing slogans and making gestures, or you don't.

You cannot begin to censor some slogans, yet allow others to be displayed. Be they "Palestine", "I belong to Jesus", "I love my children" or "Help us find Madeleine” - who has the right to judge what's acceptable and what's not? No doubt some people will be offended no matter what the topic of the day.

On a personal level, I find nothing offensive about Kanoute's t-shirt, and in fact, I applaud him for displaying it. In a climate where sportsmen and women are celebrities, controlled to a large degree by an entourage of managers, spokespeople, solicitors and PR gurus, it's refreshing to see someone in the public eye being so forthright about their opinions, without worrying about what sponsors and suits think.

Furthermore, having read that article, I think the Israeli ambassador could put his diplomatic skills to more meaningful use, rather than getting involved in a debate about the duties of a professional footballer and the FIFA rulebook.

Mr Alan

^^^^
spot on

dreamers75

All thru the match you could see it underneath his jersey i was hopinh he would score


In spain they show it, in england they wont show offensive t shirts.


Kanoute also got special permission to wear the Sevilla jersey from a muslin priest person. For a while he had one with the sponsor blacked out.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

didnt Boruc get in trouble for being openly cathloic and blessing himself in an old firm game? thought it funny at the time cause i remembered Kakas t-shirt

yeah he did, crazy really.He blesses himself before every game though and it wasnt a once off gesture.

eZe^

juvenal wrote: »

Either you ban players wearing/showing t-shirts bearing slogans and making gestures, or you don't.

You cannot begin to censor some slogans, yet allow others to be displayed. Be they "Palestine", "I belong to Jesus", "I love my children" or "Help us find Madeleine” - who has the right to judge what's acceptable and what's not? No doubt some people will be offended no matter what the topic of the day.

Agreed either ban it all or tolerate it all, although I do think it's ok when footballers display something on their shirts that are actually inherently related to football matters, like the dedications to Puerta's death.

So, do people agree that it's a bit unfair that Kanoute is being given an extra fine just because of what his t-shirt says? Or is it fair enough considering the the delicate nature of the matter? Should there be rules that state that anything of a politically delicate nature deserves an extra fine or as Juvenal aid above should there an extra fine for any text written on a shirt.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

or this

What if a player had " I belong to the Devil " on his shirt ??

OPENROAD

Arsenal banned all national flags from The Emirates during our first season there and they still are banned after a supporter flew a 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' flag, apparently a couple of complaints so the club just banned all flags.

Running Bing

The Economist wrote: »

Both are political gestures that are extremely antagonising/sensitive issues. (I wouldn't find it acceptable for a Tel Aviv player to do some Israeli salute, either.)

Bet you wouldnt compare a tel aviv player showing a shirt with the word "Israel" on it to a facist salute though.


I agree sport and politics dont mix but its a silly comparison that, accurately or not, hints at partisanship on the issue.

dreamers75

Wonder if he gets fined more than Aragones (6k?) was for calling Henry something.

juvenal

eZe^ wrote: »

Agreed either ban it all or tolerate it all, although I do think it's ok when footballers display something on their shirts that are actually inherently related to football matters, like the dedications to Puerta's death.

So, do people agree that it's a bit unfair that Kanoute is being given an extra fine just because of what his t-shirt says? Or is it fair enough considering the the delicate nature of the matter? Should there be rules that state that anything of a politically delicate nature deserves an extra fine or as Juvenal aid above should there an extra fine for any text written on a shirt.

IMO, if they're going to fine people (and if they do it's not necessarily something I agree with), then it has to be a flat rate. Just because it's not socially acceptable, or it's not the cause du jour, should it incur more of a penalty? Absolutely not. If slogans are banned, they're banned. They're not suddenly banned when the ambassador of wherever weighs-in with his 2c and suddenly creates a storm in a teacup.

It's like the wearing of a black armband - you then open the debate about who decides who is acceptable to publicly mourn and who's not? The players, the club, the league/governing body?

No matter what we think, or would like to believe, sport and politics are inextricably linked. In the modern era of professional sport, most clubs and organisations are more businesses than sporting clubs in the corinthian sense of the word. Of course in an ideal world, they wouldn't be, but the reality is, with so much money at stake, and vested interests, sport and politics are bedfellows. I don't buy into this argument that they're not mixed up, in the same way I don't buy into the argument that millionaire stars aren't role-models or suddenly have a right to privacy when it suits them.*

*Sorry for OT tambling!:o

Neil3030

I think they should let players wear whatever statements they want on their under-shirts, but once they display them they should be forced to walk home unescorted. That'll soon get rid of the brigade just doing it for the attention...

ShooterSF

I'd like it to be possible for players to wear whatever they like. If those are their beliefs. Im always amazed at people who get outraged over things that don't really affect them.
Heck if a player wants to wear a swatisika let him at it if that's his beliefs.
Unfortunately this can't work as people get upset by other's beliefs and opinions. SO the only way to work it fairly is to outlaw all these t-shirts or people mature enough to realise others have different opinions (e.g I dont support Palestine's actions anymore or less than Israels but can accept Kanoute sees it different just as I'm sure there are plenty of pro Israel people and that's fine.) but it's never gonna happen.

Time Magazine

ilovemybrick wrote: »

To clarify, and Di Canio said this as well, its a Roman salute.It has been used by the right wing Italians for decades and was used before the Nazis. It is right wing but is not just a Nazi salute.

Thanks; didn't know that.

However I think it boils down to "what somebody could reasonably get offended at." Perhaps the Blackshirts hijacked that salute, but it's still a sensitive subject.

Mr Alan wrote: »

didnt Boruc get in trouble for being openly cathloic and blessing himself in an old firm game? thought it funny at the time cause i remembered Kakas t-shirt

It's stupid if Boruc got in trouble for blessing himself.

The difference, as far as I see it, is that religion is primarily internal and politics external. Religion tells you how to live your life; politics is about telling others to live theirs. I wouldn't get offended if Kanoute had a tshirt that had a big image of the Qur'an in a love-heart. I suspect Kanoute's religion plays a role in his political beliefs. That's fair enough, but when he mentions Palestine (and therefore politics, and therefore influencing other people) I think it crosses the line.

That's not to say people are going to get offended by Kanoute's tshirt. But I think a line has to be drawn somewhere and I'd do it at anything political.

juvenal wrote: »

Either you ban players wearing/showing t-shirts bearing slogans and making gestures, or you don't.

You cannot begin to censor some slogans, yet allow others to be displayed. Be they "Palestine", "I belong to Jesus", "I love my children" or "Help us find Madeleine” - who has the right to judge what's acceptable and what's not? No doubt some people will be offended no matter what the topic of the day.

I disagree. It is unreasonable for someone to get offended by a "Help us find Madeleine" tshirt. Ditto "I love Jesus" or "Mohammed saves" or "I'm an atheist". Again, I think unilateral political statements cross the line on what can cause offence.

Furthermore, having read that article, I think the Israeli ambassador could put his diplomatic skills to more meaningful use, rather than getting involved in a debate about the duties of a professional footballer and the FIFA rulebook.

Agreed.

rarnes1 wrote: »

What if a player had " I belong to the Devil " on his shirt ??

Good point. My opinion is that boils down to the internal/reasonable offence thing again I reckon. Satanism is almost unique insofar as a large part of it is actually external in nature, burning of churches, etc. Unless a player were to clarify that wasn't his intention, with a slogan along of the lines of "I'm a believer in theistic Satanism but remain tolerant and liberal to other religions" (lol) then I think it's reasonable to expect people to get offended by that. Yes, I expect some of you are going to point to crazy fundies who blow up abortion clinics and 9/11 but again, that's not religion, that's politics.

Babybing wrote: »

Bet you wouldnt compare a tel aviv player showing a shirt with the word "Israel" on it to a facist salute though.


I agree sport and politics dont mix but its a silly comparison that, accurately or not, hints at partisanship on the issue.

You're right I wouldn't. And partisanship, when reasonably backed up, is not necessarily a bad thing. Israel does not want the annihilation of Muslims -- it has nukes, it could do it if it wanted. In contrast, Hamas' constitution calls for the complete annihilation of Jews: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews) when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees." (That sounds like something from Borat.) So while I would be more sympathetic to Israel government than the Palestinian one (and that's not to say I support the current campaign; and let's not get into a debate on politics either) so I wouldn't draw the comparison you cited, I would still censure the Tel Aviv guy as I would Di Canio/Kanoute. (Fecking Hammers causing trouble again.)

And before we get into a debate on "well, what's reasonable?", yes that's a debate, but it's the same debate as "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Define reasonable in that case? Simply because "reasonable" is not absolutely set in stone does not mean we don't send people to prison, nor does it mean we should tolerate Nazi salutes/homages to the 9/11 bombers/pictures of abortion clinics being blown up/pro-Israel dances.

Eirebear

Can i just clarify that Boruc actually got into trouble for giving the wanker gesture to Rangers fans after the act of blesing himself.

redout

I remember Henry displayed a shirt after scoring to celebrate the birth of his friend Sharleen Spiteri lead singer of Texas child and got in trouble for it. That was hardly offensive, must be a good 5 years back.

EDIT: 2002 it was.

keane2097

The Economist wrote: »

However I think it boils down to "what somebody could reasonably get offended at." Perhaps the Blackshirts hijacked that salute, but it's still a sensitive subject.

But sure who's qualified to make that distinction? You? Me? What if you and I have completely different ideas about what's "reasonable" to find offensive? The idea that a distinction can be made in this context between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is nonsense.

The Economist wrote: »

The difference, as far as I see it, is that religion is primarily internal and politics external. Religion tells you how to live your life; politics is about telling others to live theirs. I wouldn't get offended if Kanoute had a tshirt that had a big image of the Qur'an in a love-heart. I suspect Kanoute's religion plays a role in his political beliefs. That's fair enough, but when he mentions Palestine (and therefore politics, and therefore influencing other people) I think it crosses the line.

Why shouldn't a person be allowed to try and influence other people? People influence each other every day! When you ask someone to do something for you and you say "please" you're attempting to influence them to act the way you've asked! Should we ban "please"!?

The Economist wrote: »

I disagree. It is unreasonable for someone to get offended by a "Help us find Madeleine" tshirt. Ditto "I love Jesus" or "Mohammed saves" or "I'm an atheist". Again, I think unilateral political statements cross the line on what can cause offence.

I think people could easily get offened by each of these three statements. Certainly if you had a soocer player display the "I'm an atheist" one you'd have religious types calling for blood by the hundreds.

I personally wouldn't be offended, but I couldn't blame people if they saw a public affirmation of a belief they didn't agree with as a slight on those things they do believe in.

Already we have trouble with your idea of "things to get reasonably offended at".

The Economist wrote: »

Good point. My opinion is that boils down to the internal/reasonable offence thing again I reckon. Satanism is almost unique insofar as a large part of it is actually external in nature, burning of churches, etc. Unless a player were to clarify that wasn't his intention, with a slogan along of the lines of "I'm a believer in theistic Satanism but remain tolerant and liberal to other religions" (lol) then I think it's reasonable to expect people to get offended by that.

This entire point is nonsense and as you quite rightly point out it can be extended to fundamentalist Muslims, radical Christians and a slew of other sects that use violence.

Why does the fact that not all Muslims blow up buildings make "Mohammad saves" alright while the fact that not all Satanists burn down churches not extend them the right to wear "I belong to the devil" on their shirt?

Absolute nonsense imo.

The Economist wrote: »

In contrast, Hamas' constitution calls for the complete annihilation of Jews: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews) when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees." (That sounds like something from Borat.)

In all fairness, I could do without you interpreting the Hamas constitution for me.

The Economist wrote: »

And before we get into a debate on "well, what's reasonable?", yes that's a debate, but it's the same debate as "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Define reasonable in that case? Simply because "reasonable" is not absolutely set in stone does not mean we don't send people to prison, nor does it mean we should tolerate Nazi salutes/homages to the 9/11 bombers/pictures of abortion clinics being blown up/pro-Israel dances.

You can't just throw "let's not get into this debate" at the end of your post in order to stop people disagreeing with you.

juvenal

The Economist wrote: »

The difference, as far as I see it, is that religion is primarily internal and politics external. Religion tells you how to live your life; politics is about telling others to live theirs. I wouldn't get offended if Kanoute had a tshirt that had a big image of the Qur'an in a love-heart. I suspect Kanoute's religion plays a role in his political beliefs. That's fair enough, but when he mentions Palestine (and therefore politics, and therefore influencing other people) I think it crosses the line.

That's as far as you see it, and the issues arise as people have differing interpretations of what they find offensive and what they find appropriate.

At the end of the day, Kanoute had a t-shirt displaying a single word in a number of different languages - "Palestine". This wasn't a call to arms, or an explicit and defined message of support to Palestine, Hamas, or any other group. Of course, it would be naïve to think that the slogan, and wearing of the t-shirt, wasn't in some way related to the current conflict, but nonetheless it could be argued that it was unrelated and merely a coincidence, as it was just one word

The reality is that he is a celebrity and in the public eye, so therefore no matter what he does, it is influential to varying degrees. Do you think he endorses certain products or services for his own wellbeing? Of course not; David Beckham wears Adidas because he's so influential that people will purchase Predators on the strength of his celebrity alone. These people are influential, not just in political matters, so you cannot have freedom of fashion/commercial/religious expression but deny freedom of political expression.

The Economist wrote: »

That's not to say people are going to get offended by Kanoute's tshirt. But I think a line has to be drawn somewhere and I'd do it at anything political.

Personally I think you cannot absolve religion from censorship if you wish to keep political statements in check. We already have a debate here in this thread about where people would draw a line, and as we can see from the posts there are a number of opinions on the matter. Bring that into the public eye, in a worldwide sport such as soccer, and we've a minefield.

The Economist wrote: »

I disagree. It is unreasonable for someone to get offended by a "Help us find Madeleine" tshirt. Ditto "I love Jesus" or "Mohammed saves" or "I'm an atheist". Again, I think unilateral political statements cross the line on what can cause offence.

In your opinion it is unreasonable for someone to get offended by these statements. You really believe that religion is primarily internal, but millions don't. That's why we see outrage when religion is lampooned by comedians - look at the riots in response to the Danish cartoons. If religion is really internal, then who cares what anyone else thinks or says about it? But the reality is that people do care, so it's not just about personal beliefs.

So it's all for one or one for all to me.:)

Time Magazine

keane2097 wrote: »

But sure who's qualified to make that distinction? You? Me? What if you and I have completely different ideas about what's "reasonable" to find offensive? The idea that a distinction can be made in this context between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is nonsense.

You can't just throw "let's not get into this debate" at the end of your post in order to stop people disagreeing with you.

:rolleyes: You completely missed my point. If people are going to argue that "we can't define reasonable, therefore it should be all or nothing", they're going to have argue "I can't define what a reasonable doubt is yer honner so I'm either going to convict everyone I have a vague suspicion about or convict no one at all" at the same time.

To me, that's ludicrous.

juvenal

The Economist wrote: »

:rolleyes: You completely missed my point. If people are going to argue that "we can't define reasonable, therefore it should be all or nothing", they're going to have argue "I can't define what a reasonable doubt is yer honner so I'm either going to convict everyone I have a vague suspicion about or convict no one at all" at the same time.

To me, that's ludicrous.

So we should have a panel of twelve adjudicate everytime someone displays a slogan on their shirt, and they can decide for the rest of us whether it's acceptable or not.:pac:

Why do you find political slogans unacceptable and religious ones acceptable? I don't buy the internal/external point you made above, but I see where you're coming from. Ideally individuals could believe what they want, and wouldn't care a whit about what anyone else thinks - but we all know that real life is far removed from this.

In any society there are several examples of mass religion telling society to live their lives. In fact, many of society's social standards have their roots in what was/is the dominant religion of the time. So whether we like it or not, religion and sport and politics (and a number of other things) are all related, as they all involve a common denominator - humans.

juvenal

Bottom line is, if I were earning 30/40/50/60k a week, I'd have no problem coughing up a 5k fine if I really wanted to display a slogan on my t-shirt!

Time Magazine

juvenal wrote: »

So we should have a panel of twelve adjudicate everytime someone displays a slogan on their shirt, and they can decide for the rest of us whether it's acceptable or not.:pac:

Lol.

Why do you find political slogans unacceptable and religious ones acceptable? I don't buy the internal/external point you made above, but I see where you're coming from.

If you disagree, that's fine, but that's just how I see it. I think people should be allowed to have their religious beliefs (Boruc crossing himself, for example). Political beliefs are different, and of course people (in the right time and place) should debate them. The Danish cartoons are an example of people transposing their religious beliefs over their political beliefs, namely where we draw the line on the right to free speech. This debate, imho, is entirely separate to the prophet/deity status of Jesus. As I said if you don't draw that distinction as clearly as I do that's grand, but I think that line would be a reasonable (;)) line.

Ideally individuals could believe what they want, and wouldn't care a whit about what anyone else thinks - but we all know that real life is far removed from this.

Agreed. I'd go so far to say that in an ideal world people could make Nazi salutes, too. Like just about everything else in life it's about balancing the rights of the individual (here, freedom of expression) vs the right of the society (to not be pissed off). I think a viable solution is trying to ensure political activism (which I loosely define as telling other people how to live (which is fine in general, I think you should pay less taxes, etc.)) does not occur on the pitch, and anything else is okay.

In any society there are several examples of mass religion telling society to live their lives.

I never claimed organised religions don't overstep the mark. This is where they step into politics, too, and I think they're wrong to do that (a few notable exceptions aside). Different fora. Similarly I think politics and football are different fora. Of course I also see religion and football are different fora, but the transcendental aspects of religion mean they're not entirely separate (e.g. players crossing themselves).

In fact, many of society's social standards have their roots in what was/is the dominant religion of the time.

Historical roots are moot in this debate imho. Might as well get into genetic mark-ups while we'd be at it.

I think I've addressed all the points you raised in your post just above my last, but do you want me to respond to them anyway?

eagle eye

This is becoming very political.

Anything we wear that has a slogan, statement etc. on it is basically making a statement, just like saying it out loud. To punish someone for wearing a harmless shirt like this is the same as telling someone they do not have freedom of speech.

The T-Shirt simply said Palestine in many languages. What is wrong with that?

Its the same thing as one of us going out and putting up our shirt and displaying a shirt with Australia in many languages. What is wrong with that?

There is no political statement made here, there is no way anyone can call this incitement in any way.

Great post earlier Juvenal. And the economist should stick to the economy and steer well clear of political issues.

Racing Flat

Babybing wrote: »

I agree sport and politics dont mix

Shankly and the boot room had an unwritten rule that politics and religion should not be discussed by the football team/club, as they were potentially divisive subjects and not good for team spirit.

Time Magazine

eagle eye wrote: »

The T-Shirt simply said Palestine in many languages. What is wrong with that?

Its the same thing as one of us going out and putting up our shirt and displaying a shirt with Australia in many languages. What is wrong with that?

If you can't see a distinction between a tshirt that says "Palestine" and one that says "Australia" in January 2009 then I think it's you that should stay out of politics :pac:

Think there's no difference between donning a German flag in London in 1942 and donning one in London in 2008?

juvenal

The Economist wrote: »

If you disagree, that's fine, but that's just how I see it. I think people should be allowed to have their religious beliefs (Boruc crossing himself, for example). Political beliefs are different, and of course people (in the right time and place) should debate them. The Danish cartoons are an example of people transposing their religious beliefs over their political beliefs, namely where we draw the line on the right to free speech. This debate, imho, is entirely separate to the prophet/deity status of Jesus. As I said if you don't draw that distinction as clearly as I do that's grand, but I think that line would be a reasonable (;)) line.

There's no question that people should be allowed have their religious beliefs, and they should equally be allowed have non- or even anti-religious beliefs should they feel the need.

Personally I don't believe that religious or spiritual beliefs supersede other beliefs, be they political, sporting or whatever.

An offensive statement is offensive because it goes against the standards we set in our society. Just because it's religious based doesn't give people a free reign to say what they want, just because they have the get-out-of-jail religion card in their hand.

The Economist wrote: »

Agreed. I'd go so far to say that in an ideal world people could make Nazi salutes, too. Like just about everything else in life it's about balancing the rights of the individual (here, freedom of expression) vs the right of the society (to not be pissed off). I think a viable solution is trying to ensure political activism (which I loosely define as telling other people how to live (which is fine in general, I think you should pay less taxes, etc.)) does not occur on the pitch, and anything else is okay.

Well this world is far from ideal, but there's a lot of good in it as well. I'm personally all for political activism in sport, as for too long it's been sanitised by people with no interest other than commercial. I don't get how activism is ok, as long as it's not political.

The Economist wrote: »

Historical roots are moot in this debate imho. Might as well get into genetic mark-ups while we'd be at it.

They're not moot, in fact they are the reason that we all have the standards we do today. I believe A, and you believe B; and our opinions are shaped by the society around us, and the different opinions, standards and propaganda we've been exposed to during our life.

The Economist wrote: »

I think I've addressed all the points you raised in your post just above my last, but do you want me to respond to them anyway?

No, I don't think it's necessary - I think the excessive quoting and reasoned debate has probably ensured that this thread will die an early death as it's not the norm for the soccer forum!:D:pac:

Guy:Incognito

I assume no one would have a problem with players haveing pro-Isreal t-shirts?



My opinion on this stuff is it has no place in the game. Your workplace is not a forum for you go go around promoting your political/religious beliefs. Spend your spare time doing as you please but these things shouldnt be involved in sport.

juvenal

The Economist wrote: »

If you can't see a distinction between a tshirt that says "Palestine" and one that says "Australia" in January 2009 then I think it's you that should stay out of politics :pac:

Think there's no difference between donning a German flag in London in 1942 and donning one in London in 2008?

What does the single word indicate though? There were no other words on the t-shirt apart for translations of the word "Palestine"

In fact, if I was a real antagonist, we could argue that Kanoute was talking about Palestine, Texas; but we know that even that would be pushing the bounds of what would be a reasonable argument.;)

Guy:Incognito

juvenal wrote: »

What does the single word indicate though? There were no other words on the t-shirt apart for translations of the word "Palestine"

I assume your just playing Dumb?


Everyone knows exactly what the T-shirt is supporting and that it's not just a randomly picked word.

eagle eye

Stekelly wrote: »

I assume no one would have a problem with players haveing pro-Isreal t-shirts?



My opinion on this stuff is it has no place in the game. Your workplace is not a forum for you go go around promoting your political/religious beliefs. Spend your spare time doing as you please but these things shouldnt be involved in sport.

I'd have a problem with someone wearing a pro Israel shirt but not one with just Israel in it.

Warper

Sportspeople should not be allowed to wear political messages - it would get way out of hand - you would have Cork hurlers having F*** Gerald McCarthy on their shirts. A severe punishment has to be put in place to stop this eg few games ban or something similar.

But there comes a time when certain events happening in the world are so horrendous that they need addressing - although i wasnt alive at the time i will always remember the iconic image of the 2 American black athletes on the podium at the Mexico 68 Olympics who raised their clenched right fists to represent "black power". This was a powerful political statement to the world in relation to the racism that was happening and it was one of the images of the 20th century.

Kanoute wearing the t-shirt represents the same type of idealogy - highlighting to the world the appalling oppression of the Palestine people by Israel and i congratulate him for having the courage to wear it. I am sure if it changes one person's mind over the conflict in Gaza it will be the best money Kanoute ever spent.

Guy:Incognito

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd have a problem with someone wearing a pro Israel shirt but not one with just Israel in it.

So even though you know exactly what it was supporting if a player decided to openly show support by showing a t-shirt with Isreal on it, theres only a problem if he spells out the obvious for the really thick amongst the audience at large?

Whats happens if theres an Isreali player playing against Kanute? It could be argued that it's a deliberate attepmt at getting their back up.

Warper wrote: »

Kanoute wearing the t-shirt represents the same type of idealogy - highlighting to the world the appalling oppression of the Palestine people by Israel and i congratulate him for having the courage to wear it. I am sure if it changes one person's mind over the conflict in Gaza it will be the best money Kanoute ever spent.

The Palestinians are not blameless.



It has no place in the game.

eagle eye

The Economist wrote: »

If you can't see a distinction between a tshirt that says "Palestine" and one that says "Australia" in January 2009 then I think it's you that should stay out of politics :pac:

Think there's no difference between donning a German flag in London in 1942 and donning one in London in 2008?

Was Kanoute in Israel when he wore that T-Shirt. Am I missing something?

Please explain the difference in wearing a shirt with the Slogan Palestine on it and the slogan Australia on it?

And don't add anything to the Slogan as all thats on it is the name of a country.

juvenal

Stekelly wrote: »

I assume no one would have a problem with players haveing pro-Isreal t-shirts?

Kanoute might :pac:

Stekelly wrote: »

My opinion on this stuff is it has no place in the game. Your workplace is not a forum for you go go around promoting your political/religious beliefs. Spend your spare time doing as you please but these things shouldnt be involved in sport.

Ideally perhaps, but the reality is that celebrities are very influential people, and IMO, should use this influence to make a positive impact on the world. Highly-paid sports stars are paid vast sums of money because the business they are in is maintained by Joe Public.

You cannot compare sport to the workplace, as when 80,000 people come to watch you work every week, it ceases to fall under what any of us would describe as work, apart from the fact that they collect a cheque every fortnight.

If it was really normal workplace, then Gerrard and Rooney and Terry etc would go about their "jobs" like any of us, and play down in the local park on a Saturday while getting a decent wage. You can't cash in on your celebrity when it suits with a multi-million Euro boot deal or endorsement, and then plead for privacy when it doesn't suit you to be famous.

bohsman

Racing Flat wrote: »

Shankly and the boot room had an unwritten rule that politics and religion should not be discussed by the football team/club, as they were potentially divisive subjects and not good for team spirit.

Also the only 2 things you are not allowed discuss at a poker table.

Fair play to Kanoute. Id be far more offended by the Kaka tshirt if I was the type of person that rang Joe Duffy. As long as the slogans aren't inciting hatred I dont see the problem.

lol at Di Canio and Buffons lame excuses after openly displaying fascist propaganda tho.

juvenal

Stekelly wrote: »

I assume your just playing Dumb?

Everyone knows exactly what the T-shirt is supporting and that it's not just a randomly picked word.

Perhaps it's indicating support for the existence of the state of Palestine, or perhaps it's indicating empathy with the current humanitarian crisis the people there are facing. No-one in the situation is blameless; perhaps he was doing it to highlight the needless loss of life on both sides of the conflict, and he felt that this word would highlight it to the masses. What exactly do you think it supports? There's no indication that he was supporting anything inappropriate - rather empathising with people involved. I'm sure only Freddie Kanoute knows what message he was trying to convey when he wore it - he's not really responsible for how people interpret a single word.

If Kanoute wore a t-shirt emblazoned with the word "Israel" on it, I would be here arguing exactly the same point, just with a different word as the hot topic.

Dave!

Stick to the sports lads

Once you start allowing politics into the game then you'll either have a free for all, or else you'll have to draw a line, at which point it becomes discrimination.

Similarly with religion tbh.

Time Magazine

juvenal wrote: »

There's no question that people should be allowed have their religious beliefs, and they should equally be allowed have non- or even anti-religious beliefs should they feel the need.

Consensus ftw.

Personally I don't believe that religious or spiritual beliefs supersede other beliefs, be they political, sporting or whatever.

It's not an issue of supersession in my book. People have their religious beliefs; people have their political beliefs. Of course there's correlation between the two. I define religious beliefs as internal. If your religious beliefs lead you to blow up something, that's a political act imho. (Maybe the issue here is semantics?) A suitably loose definition I think is where your actions are enforced upon others. You can believe in transubstantiation/consubstantiation all you like, but giving a job to a Protestant/Catholic isn't a religious belief. Consequently I feel any belief that coerces itself on others (be that extremist Wahhabism/extremist fundamental Christianity/extremist Satanism) is a political belief dressed up as a religion. If you want to get people to act a certain way, do that through our established democratic means. It's not a matter of theism.

With this definition of religion vs politics, I really find it hard to see how somebody could be offended by anything "religious". In any case, and I'll absolutely agree that this assertion is purely my opinion, I would consider such offence to be unreasonable.

Similarly you don't have to step far into the political spectrum here to be offended. Nobody is going to get offended by "I'm voting for Eamonn Gilmore" or "I would like lower income tax, thank you." I'm sure you can see that the next step up could cause offence, and my argument that drawing the line just before "I'm voting for Eamonn Gilmore" tshirts is purely to eliminate any debate on whether "Israel is illegitimate" is offensive or not, when obviously it would antagonise many. I'll sacrifice footballers' right to express their love of the ginger one to avoid that antagonism; not in life in general, but restrict it to the time and the place for it.

They're not moot, in fact they are the reason that we all have the standards we do today. I believe A, and you believe B; and our opinions are shaped by the society around us, and the different opinions, standards and propoganda we've been exposed to during our life.

I'm not saying their not contributory factors, but I'm saying I don't think they're relevant to this discussion. Of course beliefs are framed by society. But I think the focus on the permission to express views should similarly be framed in not antagonising football fans. You don't bring up politics in your mother-in-law's.

No, I don't think it's necessary - I think the excessive quoting and reasoned debate has probably ensured that this thread will die an early death as it's not the norm for the soccer forum!:D:pac:

Yeah it feels weird doesn't it? In fact my attempts at brevity probably lengthened the subsequent debate. Whoops .

Time Magazine

juvenal wrote: »

What does the single word indicate though? There were no other words on the t-shirt apart for translations of the word "Palestine"

In fact, if I was a real antagonist, we could argue that Kanoute was talking about Palestine, Texas; but we know that even that would be pushing the bounds of what would be a reasonable argument.;)

I'm glad you appreciate the irony in that argument.

eagle eye wrote: »

Was Kanoute in Israel when he wore that T-Shirt. Am I missing something?

Please explain the difference in wearing a shirt with the Slogan Palestine on it and the slogan Australia on it?

I presume you see how a German flag in London in 1942 is different than in 2008. So you can see how the environment surrounding a flag/political statement/whatever impact on its perception/meaning? Honestly, then, can you not see how it'd be different to wave a Palestinian flag around today than an Australian one?

If not I think I'll be curtailing my debating to juvenal...

inforfun

It is really simple actually.
When a player takes off his shirt to celebrate or whatever, he gets a yellow card.
If a player lifts up his shirt like Kanoute, it is a yellow card.
Doesnt matter what is on the t-shirt below.

A couple of weeks ago 2 players of the same team in Holland took off their shirt after scoring a goal (seperate matches). Both got booked, for both it was their 2nd yellow and they were send off.
Their manager wasnt very impressed.....

Kaka got away with it because he did it after the match...

Guy:Incognito

inforfun wrote: »

It is really simple actually.
When a player takes off his shirt to celebrate or whatever, he gets a yellow card.
If a player lifts up his shirt like Kanoute, it is a yellow card.
Doesnt matter what is on the t-shirt below.

It very much does.

I could take it to an extreme and say what if a player lifted his shirt and it had a swastika on it.


I'd love to see all the outrage if a team of players ran around celebrating with Isreali flags at teh weekend.