Kanoute facing fine for showing Palestine t-shirt.

juvenal

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.

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...

That's fair. Everyone is aware of the yellow-card rule, so if you lift up your shirt and get booked (even if it's a second yellow), then you're a f*cking muppet and have more talent than brains.

I just feel if you're going to start fining Henry 5k because he was celebrating the birth of his friend's child; Everton nothing because they were doing it for a "noble cause" (Madeline McCann); and Kanoute 20k because he unveiled a slogan that didn't really sit well with the game's administrators and political establishment, then it's opening up a minefield as to what is censorship and what's not.

Either slogans are in, or they're out. The message/wording/cause is irrelevant. Keep it simple.

keane2097

What if someone had a pro-Tibet message written on their jersey?

Would that be a "noble cause" a lá Madeline McCann or would you be fined for it?

inforfun

juvenal wrote: »

That's fair. Everyone is aware of the yellow-card rule, so if you lift up your shirt and get booked (even if it's a second yellow), then you're a f*cking muppet and have more talent than brains.

I just feel if you're going to start fining Henry 5k because he was celebrating the birth of his friend's child; Everton nothing because they were doing it for a "noble cause" (Madeline McCann); and Kanoute 20k because he unveiled a slogan that didn't really sit well with the game's administrators and political establishment, then it's opening up a minefield as to what is censorship and what's not.

Either slogans are in, or they're out. The message/wording/cause is irrelevant. Keep it simple.

It is simple.... Fifa rules say it is a bookable offense. So to me it is obvious: Slogans are out.

That in the examples you give the FA gives fines (or not as with Everton) and now the Spanish football association is doing the same with Kanoute... yeah well... that is more a local issue, isnt it?

In the Dutch example i gave the club fined the 2nd offender for stupidity...

Warper

Stekelly wrote: »

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.

Lol that is never going to happen because even soccer players have some level of intelligence (Ronney, Aaron Lennon and Nani exempt) - every logical thinking person can sympathise with the Palestine people for what is happening and recognise that it is Israel who are engaging in their own form of genocide. As i said previously sportspeople should not be allowed to wear political propaganda and im sure Kanoute knows this but sometimes rules should be broken for the benefit of mankind.

JPA

How is this thread not moved or closed?

eagle eye

The Economist wrote: »

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?

Germany were at war with the UK in 1942, obviously wearing a German flag or even something with Germany on it would be utter madness. Similarly wearing a Palestine T-Shirt in Israel, or vice versa would be utter madness.

My point is that none of the above is an issue. What we have here is a someone wearing a T-Shirt with the name of a country emblazoned on it in a democratic country.

Someone mentions that only the uneducated would not see what it meant. I disagree with that statement in its entirety, those people that read into this any more than whats written on it are the very same people who would find some way to ignite controversy over some wearing an Australia shirt if they had nothing better to do.

Edit to add, and you bring up flags. There was no flag involved here, just a shirt with the name of a country on it.

eZe^

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.

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".

There's so much wrong with this line of thought it's untrue. That's actually prejudice, it's ok for a Christian footballer to display their on their shirt 'I belong to Jesus', yet it's not ok for somebody to say 'I belong to the devil' without clarifying that they are tolerant to other peoples beliefs. Why doesn't the Christian footballer have to make the same clarification? I don't see how 'I belong to the devil' is a statement that would cause alot more offense than 'I belong to Jesus'.....

keane2097 wrote: »

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.

Agreed 100%.

Warper wrote: »

[/B]

Lol that is never going to happen because even soccer players have some level of intelligence (Ronney, Aaron Lennon and Nani exempt) - every logical thinking person can sympathise with the Palestine people for what is happening and recognise that it is Israel who are engaging in their own form of genocide. As i said previously sportspeople should not be allowed to wear political propaganda and im sure Kanoute knows this but sometimes rules should be broken for the benefit of mankind.

You couldn't be more wrong. Lets even go as far as to assume that Kanoute was showing his support to the Palestine people. So you're saying it's wrong for Kanoute to show support for the Palestinians but it would be more wrong if he had showed support to Israel because in YOUR opinion it is the Israeli's who are at fault. That criteria is far far far to objective to be the basis and grounds for punishment and reprieve. It would never work.

Warper

Warper wrote: »

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.

Eze you picked me up wrong - see above, all acts of political support by sports persons should be treated the same way.

keane2097

Warper wrote: »

Eze you picked me up wrong - see above, all acts of political support by sports persons should be treated the same way.

Are you deliberately repeatedly contradicting yourself or is it just me?

eZe^

Btw, if the mods think this isn't suitable for discussion in the soccer forum then lock it by all means. I think it hasn't strayed off topic that much though.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

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

Thats the first I heard of that one.

I saw a video from within the Rangers supporters, he faced the Rangers goals and bless himself and the supporters went nuts, shouting all sorts of abuse.

He does that ritual at every single match but Rangers are the only ones to get offended by it

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

Thats the first I heard of that one.

I saw a video from within the Rangers supporters, he faced the Rangers goals and bless himself and the supporters went nuts, shouting all sorts of abuse.

He does that ritual at every single match but Rangers are the only ones to get offended by it

Mate i'm not defending any Rangers supporters for the "offence" taken about hinm blessing himself, of which there were many.

But he wasnt charged for this, i cant be arsed going looking for proof right now but it was because of gestures made after the event.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Mate i'm not defending any Rangers supporters for the "offence" taken about hinm blessing himself, of which there were many.

But he wasnt charged for this, i cant be arsed going looking for proof right now but it was because of gestures made after the event.

It was hard to see that on the video because as he blessed himself, everyone in front and around the guy with the camera phone, or whatever, stood up and went ballistic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5292656.stm

No mention from any eye witness of a 'wanker' gesture

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

It was hard to see that on the video because as he blessed himself, everyone in front and around the guy with the camera phone, or whatever, stood up and went ballistic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5292656.stm

No mention from any eye witness of a 'wanker' gesture

But also according to that he want fined for blessing himself.

He gestured something to the Rangers fans (again i am not justifying their actions) aside from the sign of the cross......

All i would like to do is get that straight

Kirnsy

either you ban any sort of tee shirt message or anything goes.

im for the first one.

carlop

I really don't see how anyone can compare Kanoute displaying the word Palestine on a t-shirt with Di Canio's fascist salute.

Ok so they're both footballers expressing a political message on the pitch, but one is showing his solidarity and support for an occupied nation that has seen 700 of its people killed in a week. The other is showing his solidarity and support for a moronic group of Lazio ultras whose xenopohobic ideology still manifests itself daily in racist slogans and attacks all across Italy. I'd also have guessed that Di Canio's gesture is illegal.

Thanx 4 The Fish

eZe^ wrote: »

Btw, if the mods think this isn't suitable for discussion in the soccer forum then lock it by all means. I think it hasn't strayed off topic that much though.

Worry not eze, if we thought it was not suitable it would be closed already

And fair play to Kanoute too, he felt strongly enough to put a message on there and he showed it, much the same as fowler did when he supported the dockers. He got a card, is it not the case that if a player is carded for an offence he cannot get further punishment within football the league.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

But also according to that he want fined for blessing himself.

He gestured something to the Rangers fans (again i am not justifying their actions) aside from the sign of the cross......

All i would like to do is get that straight

That article refers to no other gesture than the blessing and

"Witnesses describe him smiling or laughing at a Rangers section of the crowd and making 'come on' gestures"

Yes they couldn't do anything about the blessing, they done him on the resulting crowd trouble from the reaction to the blessing. The other gestures from Boruc, that is the above, were after the crowd got incensed about the blessing.

A complete cop out from Police tbh

juvenal

carlop wrote: »

I really don't see how anyone can compare Kanoute displaying the word Palestine on a t-shirt with Di Canio's fascist salute.

Ok so they're both footballers expressing a political message on the pitch, but one is showing his solidarity and support for an occupied nation that has seen 700 of its people killed in a week. The other is showing his solidarity and support for a moronic group of Lazio ultras whose xenopohobic ideology still manifests itself daily in racist slogans and attacks all across Italy. I'd also have guessed that Di Canio's gesture is illegal.

I disagree. We cannot decide that one player's actions are acceptable, yet another's are not, just because we don't agree with their statement. I'm sure that plenty of people agreed and disagreed with Di Canio, the same with Kanoute, but the freedom of political expression is not something that can be given just when people agree with the sentiments of the statement.

Either it's allowed or it's not.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Worry not eze, if we thought it was not suitable it would be closed already

Cheers mods, obviously not any of our calls, but IMO there are a lot more issues than just transfer activity and what Ronaldo/Gerrard/Terry etc did last Saturday, which are of huge importance to the game as a whole, even if they don't interest some armchair "fans" out there.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

And fair play to Kanoute too, he felt strongly enough to put a message on there and he showed it, much the same as fowler did when he supported the dockers. He got a card, is it not the case that if a player is carded for an offence he cannot get further punishment within football the league.

Not sure on the yellow card issue. I think you may be right in saying that they cannot be punished any further once it's dealt with by the referee during the match, but not 100% sure. A bit of a farce tbh when technology such as video replays are available to authorities, but that's another day's debating entirely.;)

ErinGoBrath

It must be a terrible affliction being a goal keeper or a full back with a religious/political message to get across.

Week in week out you put on your 'Baby Jesus Rulz' teeshirt under your jersey in the hope you'll bag a flukey goal...

bigstar

i dont see a problem with kanoutes gesture. it is nothing more than the name of a country/region written on a t shirt. would robbie keane be fined for displaying ireland on a t shirt. yes, there is an ongoing conflict in palestine, but kanoute is showing support for a people not a terrorist organisation or his t shirt would say hamas. are we to believe that football players dont watch the news, read papers or the search the net. are we supposed to believe that players can only extend their opinions to bland generic answers to post match bland generic questions.

i think di canio can do what he wants too, but id be almost sure giving a nazi salute is illegal

evil_seed

man, in these days of political correctness, some people are just far too sensitive on some subjects. I have no problems with any tshirt messages as regards being offended. I just think they are silly

DSB

I wouldn't be allowed wear a Palestine t-shirt into work, nor are most of us allowed make controversial political statements with our work attire. Why the hell should Kanoute be any different?

DSB

Seaneh wrote: »

How in the name of f*ck is someone expressing his faith the same thing as someone expressing extremist political views?

You're a ****ing idiot, and I don't give a fu*k if this gets me a temp ban, some things just need to be said.

Putting Palestine on a t-shirt isn't expressing extremist political views though. Obviously it is expressing support for Palestine but not much else.

Mr Alan

how is someone having a countrys name on their shirt an "extreme political view"?

because that country is involved in a conflict where many people die?

yea.... and religious views/organisations are responsible for zero deaths, isnt that right?

seriously, how many people have been killed in the name of "Jesus"?

Seaneh

Mr Alan wrote: »

how is someone having a countrys name on their shirt an "extreme political view"?

because that country is involved in a conflict where many people die?

yea.... and religious views/organisations are responsible for zero deaths, isnt that right?

seriously, how many people have been killed in the name of "Jesus"?

less of the name calling please.
plus, jesus wouldnt like it

It's not the fact that he has a country's name on it, it's the two lines of arabic text underneath which express a political views.

Also, no, I don't believe that religious views EVER caused deaths except where true martyrdom is involved.

Yes, religion has been used as an excuse by political groups for the suppression and perscuition of ETHNIC groups over the last 10,000 years but there are, as far as I can tell, NO major world faith structures that are based of a teaching of conversion by force.

Find one one passage in either the New Testament, Torah,Tao Te Ching, Shruti, Any Buddhist texts or Qur'an that states that the followers of the major world religions should advance their spiritual cause by violence?


[edit] I misread the t-shirt... it does just say Palestine in 6 languages...

Time Magazine

Seaneh wrote: »

NO major world faith structures that are based of a teaching of conversion by force.

Depends on whether you consider traditional Satanism as a major faith structure or not. It doesn't so much as teach conversion by force but does call for the eradication of one religion, which is even worse tbh. Then it becomes, by my loose definitions, "political". (For those that asked, that's why I draw the distinction between Christianity/Islam/Buddhism etc. and Satanism.)

Mr Alan

Seaneh wrote: »

It's not the fact that he has a country's name on it, it's the two lines of arabic text underneath which express a political views

wat do they say?

It was my understanding that it was just different forms of the word Palestine.

Mr Alan

Seaneh wrote: »

[edit] I misread the t-shirt... it does just say Palestine in 6 languages...

ok,fair enough.

so it is actually quite fair to compare having a countrys name on a tshirt & having a t-shirt, with Jesus, written on it.

Both are likely to offend some,make some happy,while a lot wont care.

Seaneh

The Economist wrote: »

Depends on whether you consider traditional Satanism as a major faith structure or not. It doesn't so much as teach conversion by force but does call for the eradication of one religion, which is even worse tbh. Then it becomes, by my loose definitions, "political". (For those that asked, that's why I draw the distinction between Christianity/Islam/Buddhism etc. and Satanism.)

By traditional Satanism do you mean the Church of Satan which was founded by an idiot less than 100 years ago and has less members world wide than the arsenal supports club?

Because in that case no, I wouldn';t call Satanism a major world faith.

Infact, I wouldn't call any form of Satanism a major world faith or a legitimate religion.

It's would be like calling atheism a major world faith.

Seaneh

Mr Alan wrote: »

ok,fair enough.

so it is actually quite fair to compare having a countrys name on a tshirt & having a t-shirt, with Jesus, written on it.

Both are likely to offend some,make some happy,while a lot wont care.

Do you think you owe me an apology for calling me a "****ing idiot"?

Yeah, sound, sorry.

I just though you were comparing an expression of religious belief to an expression of political ideals.

Mr Alan

Seaneh wrote: »

Yeah, sound, sorry.

I just though you were comparing an expression of religious belief to an expression of political ideals.

no worries man.

As someone said earlier in the thread, there should be a blanket ban on anything on t-shirts footballers display in celebration etc, or they should be allowed do whatever they want (as long as its legal obviously)....there should be no grey areas.

Highsider

Seaneh wrote: »

How in the name of f*ck is someone expressing his faith the same thing as someone expressing extremist political views?

You're a ****ing idiot, and I don't give a fu*k if this gets me a temp ban, some things just need to be said.

Ah here calm down.

Mr Alan

its sorted Highspider, let it go

we all need to let off a little steam now and then.

Seaneh

Highsider wrote: »

Ah here calm down.

I have...

Mitch Connor

Seaneh wrote: »

By traditional Satanism do you mean the Church of Satan which was founded by an idiot less than 100 years ago and has less members world wide than the arsenal supports club?

Because in that case no, I wouldn';t call Satanism a major world faith.

Infact, I wouldn't call any form of Satanism a major world faith or a legitimate religion.

It's would be like calling atheism a major world faith.

No, no it wouldn't.

Belief in, and submitance to, Satan would be a form of faith, and just as valid as a belief in God (If people believe in God, surely they believe in Satan and vice versa, its just a matter of who you 'support'.

Atheism, on the other hand, is a complete lack of belief in God, Satan or the flying spagetti monster. It is not a faith itself. If anything, Science would be in that case, and even if you stretch the analogy to breaking point i don't think it would work.

To point though, I am not saying Satanism is a major world faith, it would be a minority faith quite clearly, but to compare Satanism to Atheism is just wrong.

Time Magazine

Seaneh wrote: »

By traditional Satanism do you mean the Church of Satan which was founded by an idiot less than 100 years ago and has less members world wide than the arsenal supports club?

No. I mean traditional Satanism which goes back at least to the middle-ages and essentially consisted of violent hedonism.

stovelid

redout wrote: »

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.

I do find Texas pretty offensive myself, in fairness.

Seaneh

The Economist wrote: »

No. I mean traditional Satanism which goes back at least to the middle-ages and essentially consisted of violent hedonism.

As in Theistic Satanism?


Still, no, I wouldn't call it a major world religion, because there are even less acting "Thestic" satanists in the world than there are members of the church of satan.

Time Magazine

Seaneh wrote: »

As in Theistic Satanism?


Still, no, I wouldn't call it a major world religion, because there are even less acting "Thestic" satanists in the world than there are members of the church of satan.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by Theistic Satanism, I've usually just seen it referred to as "Satanism". I think we're in general agreement though.

Seaneh

The Economist wrote: »

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by Theistic Satanism, I've usually just seen it referred to as "Satanism". I think we're in general agreement though.

Well, Theistic as in they believe that satan is a deity or worthy of being submitted to or worshiped.

Where as in "church of satan" satanism they don't actually have any real belief in any deity.

Mitch Connor

so what the hell do the church of satan do? Dirty sex orgies?

Time Magazine

Seaneh wrote: »

Well, Theistic as in they believe that satan is a deity or worthy of being submitted to or worshiped.

Pretty much, yeah. Though in making reference to "traditional" Satanism I tried to make reference to what essentially a strange movement based with the intention of disruption moreso than a true ecclesiastical association.

Seaneh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

so what the hell do the church of satan do? Dirty sex orgies?

Wiki holds the answers, I can't be arsed, but basically, yeah.

SectionF

Hats off to the man.

It's great to see a footballer who lives in the real world and understands when inhumanity to fellow humans demands a response, even if his statement is muted. He probably has had more effect than a dozen mealy-mouthed EU/US foreign ministers.

Not everyone has to have the politics of David Beckham.

juvenal

DSB wrote: »

I wouldn't be allowed wear a Palestine t-shirt into work, nor are most of us allowed make controversial political statements with our work attire. Why the hell should Kanoute be any different?

That depends entirely on your place of work and the rules governing attire there.

And furthermore, anyone who really feels that a professional sports star, or celebrity, is subject to the same levels of scrutiny as you average office/factory etc. worker, based on the common fact that they all receive a payslip, is deluded.

eZe^

I also think it's important to note that Satanism has two branches, one being Theistic Satanism, which believes Satan to be a deity, and is thus seen as a form of Christianity. And the other type is based on some guy (can't remember his name), it sees Satan as being more a representation of the evil nature that is inherently present in the world around us everyday. It is silly that people here are all painting Satanism as a religion that is based on going around blasting death metal and burning down churches.

keane2097

eZe^ wrote: »

I also think it's important to note that Satanism has two branches, one being Theistic Satanism, which believes Satan to be a deity, and is thus seen as a form of Christianity. And the other type is based on some guy (can't remember his name), it sees Satan as being more a representation of the evil nature that is inherently present in the world around us everyday. It is silly that people here are all painting Satanism as a religion that is based on going around blasting death metal and burning down churches.

Aleister Crowley

I believe...

Guy:Incognito

bigstar wrote: »

i dont see a problem with kanoutes gesture. it is nothing more than the name of a country/region written on a t shirt. would robbie keane be fined for displaying ireland on a t shirt. yes, there is an ongoing conflict in palestine, but kanoute is showing support for a people not a terrorist organisation or his t shirt would say hamas. are we to believe that football players dont watch the news, read papers or the search the net. are we supposed to believe that players can only extend their opinions to bland generic answers to post match bland generic questions.

i think di canio can do what he wants too, but id be almost sure giving a nazi salute is illegal

The football pitch is not a forum for players to promote their political beliefs.

juvenal

Stekelly wrote: »

The football pitch is not a forum for players to promote their political beliefs.

According to whom? I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just believe that there has to be absolute clarity about what's acceptable and what is not.

You cannot censor Kanoute (Palestine), or Fowler (500 Mersey Dockers sacked); yet allow Everton players to wear t-shirts highlighting Madeline McCann's case; or let Gerrard wear a t-shirt referencing the Michael Shields case (Free Michael Now).

Irrespective of the topic and cause, there has to be a consensus on what is allowed and what is not. Either t-shirts with slogans etc are out, or they're in - the subject matter (as long as it's legal in the jurisdiction it's displayed) should be irrelevant.

Judging each case on it's merit will lead to a fiasco, as everyone has varying opinions on what really matters to them.