Zoopla will finish with W. Brom over Anelka's "Quenelle"

RasTa

keane2097 wrote: »

I dunno, google it.

Sorry I meant the far-right and a Zionist

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

Probably as much as you have tbh

You said yourself that you don't know Dieudonné's routine so you couldn't say what his intentions are, I've watched a good few of his videos. So no, you haven't looked into as much as me.

Dempsey wrote: »

Did you know anything about the Quenelle before Anelka made his gesture?

No, I'd never heard of it before Anelka did it. Does that invalidate the research I've done into it since?

Owen_S

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well done to Zoopla here by the way.

I lack of action by either the club or the FA made a joke of all their 'kick it out' campaigns etc.

It's only when it hit the club in the pocket was action taken.

They have literally taken no action - they have decided not to renew their sponsorship deal at the end of the season with it expires. The fact that nobody has heard of them before they publicly commented on the matter might lead one to see why they aren't renewing the deal, it was unsuccessful in promoting their business, and they are manipulating the media into giving them attention over this.

Taking action would be withdrawing their name and logo from West Brom shirts immediately, cancelling the deal before the end of the season. Instead, we see Anelka wearing a shirt with their name for the next 6 months.

Finally, the condemnation of Anelka's actions in the media are hypocritical - in their columns they criticise the gesture and ramble on about the offense it causes, yet they have no problems reproducing images of said gesture alongside their articles.

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

You said yourself that you don't know Dieudonné's routine so you couldn't say what his intentions are, I've watched a good few of his videos. So no, you haven't looked into as much as me.



No, I'd never heard of it before Anelka did it. Does that invalidate the research I've done into it since?

I've read quotes from his routine that have received the criticism. No I havent sat down and watched his routines, do I need to?

Things like

Dieudonne said of a prominent Jewish journalist: "Me, you see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself: 'Gas chambers ... too bad

I've watched comedians make anti-Irish, anti-British, anti American, etc etc jokes and laughed because they are jokes and not suppose to be taken seriously but the Jewish community do have a hair trigger sensitivity to anything that appears anyway critical of the Jewish people.

Daniel Makonnen, spokesman for LICRA -- International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism wrote:

"In France people are taking sides. Are you for or against establishment? The fact that Anelka is doing the quenelle...

"Originally it was used by Dieudonne in his first shows. But the 'quenelle' has been used in front of Auschwitz and in front of the (Jewish) school in Toulouse," added Makonnen, referring to the Ohr Torah school where three children and a teacher were murdered last year.

"If you look closer these people say they are willing to fight the system, but it's a system they say is controlled by Jewish people."

"Dieudonne uses anti-Semitic discourse in his shows in the sense of fighting Zionism," Makonnen explained.

"He says he has Jewish friends. He is against Zionists who he says have power.

"He releases videos on YouTube and gets millions of views in 24 hours. YouTube is subject to American law. If those videos were published under French law those videos would be deleted.

"Dieudonne is very popular. He is very smart. People say it is hard to speak your mind in France because political power is too strong."

Philippe Auclair, the England correspondent of France Football magazine, said that Anelka and Nasri's support for anti-establishment views were very much in vogue in France.

"The idea that you are against the system invariably means that you are against anyone who disagrees with your point of view," he told CNN. "It has little to do with social or ethnic origin. You have young, white middle-class men and women saying the same thing.

"When I go back to France it is like there are two parallel universes; a government that is widely perceived as incompetent, with a social situation that is like a powder keg.

I dont think it was Anelka's intention to make an anti-Semitic gesture tbh and I'm sure you researched the current state of society in France in your "research".

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

I've read quotes from his routine that have received the criticism. No I havent sat down and watched his routines, do I need to?

Not necessarily. I guess you could make an intelligent and informed argument without actually listening to the man's words directly. And I don't speak French anyway, so there is always going to be the issue of whether or not to trust the various translators and reporters.

Your first post seemed to admit a lack of knowledge on the topic, which would explain your ignorant view. But you now claim you have actually done at least some reading on the subject to form that view.

Dempsey wrote: »

Things like...

"Dieudonne said of a prominent Jewish journalist: "Me, you see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself: 'Gas chambers ... too bad"

I've watched comedians make anti-Irish, anti-British, anti American, etc etc jokes and laughed because they are jokes and not suppose to be taken seriously but the Jewish community do have a hair trigger sensitivity to anything that appears anyway critical of the Jewish people.

I dont think it was Anelka's intention to make an anti-Semitic gesture tbh and I'm sure you researched the current state of society in France in your "research".

So Dieudonné is just joking about, yeah? And it's just that the Jews can't take a joke, right? We shouldn't pay too much attention to Daniel Makonnen, him being an over sensitive Jew and all, but Philippe Auclair, a non Jew, we can trust to be objective.

Well Auclair doesn't agree with your view that it is just a bit of harmless fun:
"But context is – almost – everything in cases such as these. The quite extraordinary media reaction in France, where most radio stations opened their Sunday morning news programmes with the ‘Anelka story’, should suffice to prove that the quenelle can no longer be considered an innocent gesture.
If it ever was one." link

And here's a bit of context you overlooked when quoting Auclair's words, the paragraph following on from the bit you quoted:
"Ultra-nationalism is on the rise and it has become completely acceptable to be openly anti-Semitic and to say that there is a global Zionist conspiracy." link

Just to finish off, here's another quote from anti-Zionist comedian, Dieudonné, himself:
"All of them [Jews] are slave-straders who’ve moved into banking, show-business and, today, terrorist action" link

...Hilarious.

Dempsey

I didnt quote them to back up my view on the sensitivity of the jewish community but rather the mindset of french society and the motivation of Nicolas Anelka. The fact that his videos are fine in the USA but outlawed under french law harps back to my first first post.

I never said that Dieudonné was funny, nice strawman argument though

EDIT

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25837998

The man in the video is Roger Cukierman, head of Jewish organisation CRIF (Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions) and vice-president of the World Jewish Congress.

Speaking to French daily newspaper Le Figaro, he argues the "quenelle" is only anti-Semitic when it is performed at a Jewish site.

"This [potential punishment] seems a bit harsh to me," Cukierman said.

"That gesture can only have an anti-Semitic connotation when performed at a synagogue or a memorial to Holocaust victims. In a place that has no significance for Jews it is merely an anti-establishment gesture which I feel does not warrant any harsh sanction."

Interesting...

Fr Tod Umptious

Lennonist wrote: »

I'd agree with what Kiwi said there, it looks like Zoopla cynically preempted the FA charge in an attempt to seize the high moral ground and get publicity for themselves.

As for the incident itself, if Anelka is found to be guilty as charged of engaging in an offensive gesture, then he'll get a ban. Zoopla's cynical preemptive reaction ensures they come out of this whole thing with no credit themselves. I never heard of them before this, highly cynical publicity stunt on their part.

I don't get the suggestion that it was a 'preemptive action' by Zoopla, based on their knowledge that the FA were about to charge Anelka, it's a bit far fectched to be honest

Logic would suggest that Zoopla felt the FA were taking too long to deal with this, Zoopla made their announcement, and then the FA moved the very next moring in order to save some face, a full three weeks after the incident.

My biggest problem with all this is that it took them so long to act, for all their talk to any racism and respect etc.

As I said before the EPL brand was threatened here, due to the lack of action by the FA, and that's what is most important to them

Owen_S wrote: »

They have literally taken no action - they have decided not to renew their sponsorship deal at the end of the season with it expires. The fact that nobody has heard of them before they publicly commented on the matter might lead one to see why they aren't renewing the deal, it was unsuccessful in promoting their business, and they are manipulating the media into giving them attention over this.

Taking action would be withdrawing their name and logo from West Brom shirts immediately, cancelling the deal before the end of the season. Instead, we see Anelka wearing a shirt with their name for the next 6 months.

Finally, the condemnation of Anelka's actions in the media are hypocritical - in their columns they criticise the gesture and ramble on about the offense it causes, yet they have no problems reproducing images of said gesture alongside their articles.

To the best of my knowledge Zoopla do not operate in the ROI, that's why you may not be familiar with them.
There are loads of shirt sponsors of lower ranking teams I have never heard of, but that does not mean that theyu are unknown in the UK.

I wonder if peoples opinions on the actions of the sponsor would be the same in this hypothetical scenario

A low profile Irish company sponsors a middle to low ranking EPL team.
A player on that team makes, for whatever reason, a 'flute' gesture, like Gazza did back in his Rangers days.
If the sponsor decided to pull the plug over the gesture would people here feel it a publicity stunt, or being over sensitive, or would the servers in boards.ie melt with the volume of outrage at the incident and the calls for the sponsor to cut ties.
I think the answer would be the latter.

I also think that the offender being blank, and the offended being a rich white man makes some people find it harder to condemn the actions of Anelka here.

Richard Hillman

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Some of the captain's would want to be carefull how they adjust the armband in future!

I wouldnt worry too much, that Shearer guy has been getting away with Nazi salutes for years

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

I didnt quote them to back up my view on the sensitivity of the jewish community but rather the mindset of french society and the motivation of Nicolas Anelka. The fact that his videos are fine in the USA but outlawed under french law harps back to my first first post.

I never said that Dieudonné was funny, nice strawman argument though

I don't care whether you think he is funny or not. It is completely dishonest to claim that Dieudonné's anti Jewsish stance is purely comedic or that this incident is only an issue because the Jews are over sensitive, which is exactly what you tried to do. You are defending an anti-Semite and complaining about Jews being over sensitive. That is a ridiculous position to take.

It is true that the French legal system is extremely restrictive on freedom of speech and action when it comes to racial relations. It is very different to what we are used to in Ireland and what we see in America. That doesn't change the fact that Dieudonné is anti-semitic and Anelka is supporting him.

Dempsey wrote: »

EDIT

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25837998

Interesting...

That is interesting all right. VP of the World Jewish Congress is certainly a big deal on an issue like this and it's interesting that he has chosen to take that stance. Maybe he is trying to undermine the anti-Semitic message of Dieudonné, the guy who invented and trade-marked the gesture. But he is talking about the Quenelle gesture specifically. He does not mention Anelka's stated support for Deudonné, the anti-Semite.

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't care whether you think he is funny or not. It is completely dishonest to claim that Dieudonné's anti Jewsish stance is purely comedic or that this incident is only an issue because the Jews are over sensitive, which is exactly what you tried to do. You are defending an anti-Semite and complaining about Jews being over sensitive. That is a ridiculous position to take.

It is true that the French legal system is extremely restrictive on freedom of speech and action when it comes to racial relations. It is very different to what we are used to in Ireland and what we see in America. That doesn't change the fact that Dieudonné is anti-semitic and Anelka is supporting him.



That is interesting all right. VP of the World Jewish Congress is certainly a big deal on an issue like this and it's interesting that he has chosen to take that stance. Maybe he is trying to undermine the anti-Semitic message of Dieudonné, the guy who invented and trade-marked the gesture. But he is talking about the Quenelle gesture specifically. He does not mention Anelka's stated support for Deudonné, the anti-Semite.

No, I said other comedians make racist & discriminatory jokes and observations in their routines (some funny, some not) and it doesnt cause a stir. Anti-Semitic jokes or "jokes" on the other hand are not tolerated remotely in the same manner despite it all being under the umbrella of racism & discrimination. TBH, I had that view before I heard of Dieudonné or Quenelles, just an observation of media reactions to various incidents etc

Roger Cukierman had done is given a proper and informed context for what Anelka has done and its not anti-semitic like I said in my 1st post. Context and intent of the gesture is important in judging whether it was an anti-Semitic remark or not. People have been quick to take what he's done out of context imo

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

No, I said other comedians make racist & discriminatory jokes and observations in their routines (some funny, some not) and it doesnt cause a stir. Anti-Semitic jokes or "jokes" on the other hand are not tolerated remotely in the same manner despite it all being under the umbrella of racism & discrimination. TBH, I had that view before I heard of Dieudonné or Quenelles, just an observation of media reactions to various incidents etc

I read your ignorant opinion the first time you posted it. Trying to excuse gas chamber references from an out spoken anti-Semite and trying to blame the Jews for being over sensitive to it all.

Dempsey wrote: »

Roger Cukierman had done is given a proper and informed context for what Anelka has done and its not anti-semitic like I said in my 1st post. Context and intent of the gesture is important in judging whether it was an anti-Semitic remark or not. People have been quick to take what he's done out of context imo

Yet you insist on ignoring the context that Anelka has said he made the gesture in support of his friend Dieudonné.

Sir Gallagher

Dempsey wrote: »

No, I said other comedians make racist & discriminatory jokes and observations in their routines (some funny, some not) and it doesnt cause a stir. Anti-Semitic jokes or "jokes" on the other hand are not tolerated remotely in the same manner despite it all being under the umbrella of racism & discrimination. TBH, I had that view before I heard of Dieudonné or Quenelles, just an observation of media reactions to various incidents etc

Roger Cukierman had done is given a proper and informed context for what Anelka has done and its not anti-semitic like I said in my 1st post. Context and intent of the gesture is important in judging whether it was an anti-Semitic remark or not. People have been quick to take what he's done out of context imo

Who are these comedians who make racist jokes without causing a stir? Bernard Manning? Jim Davidson? It's seems clear that like the afformentioned "comedians" there's no sense of Irony in this Diudonne(?) bloke's routine. He sounds like a right tit and Anelka is a tit for supporting him with this bollox, whats worse is he doesn't even have the balls to admit to what he was doing. Choosing, instead, to play dumb when he got pulled up on it.

Everton remove interview with Lukaku in support of Anelka

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/21/nicolas-anelka-quenelle-romelu-lukaku

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

I read your ignorant opinion the first time you posted it. Trying to excuse gas chamber references from an out spoken anti-Semite and trying to blame the Jews for being over sensitive to it all.



Yet you insist on ignoring the context that Anelka has said he made the gesture in support of his friend Dieudonné.

I think it was a joke for the shock value, no different than other jokes I've seen where some people could find it racist or discriminatory.

Most people here are ignoring the context in which that gesture is made. The FA charge is about his gesture. The context for it to be an anti semitic gesture has been made crystal clear. I dont think he should be found guilty by association. Would you like to be found guilty of something by association, I dont think so

keane2097

WARNING, this may leave you utterly un-shocked.

Anelka's response to the charge sounding word for word like Suarez's defence that calling Evra a niglet would be sound in Uruguay.

Lennonist

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25845493

Anelka fighting the case insisting that his "quenelle" gesture was not meant to be interpreted as anti-Semitic and has asked that French Jewish representative Roger Cukierman be invited to give his view on Anelka's quenelle gesture. Anelka is likely to face a ban of some sort anyway after all this furore.

Meanwhile other sponsors of West Brom are considering not renewing their support of West Brom following after Zoopla's publicity stunt. This is a new development, commercial sponsors withdrawing support due to controversies that haven't even been given due process yet. Did Liverpool lose sponsors during Luis Suarez race row controversy with Patrice Evra? Are anti-Semitic race controversies more sensitive or more serious than other race controversies?

I'm not at all comfortable about commercial sponsors setting themselves up as arbiters on race relations in football. The FA should be the sole arbiters of the game of football unless the Police need to be called in over certain matters. The FA have charged Anelka, and I presume there will be a hearing despite Anelka's request that the FA withdraw the charge. It should be left to those conducting that hearing to deliberate on this matter. Commercial sponsors weighing in with their tuppence worth before a hearing is even heard and deliberated on is a fairly disturbing development.

DM360

I recall reading that it's a kind of "up yours" gesture, the height at which you indicate being the length should should be shoved up your hole. They even sell t-shirts with graduations so you can mark an exact measurement of arm to be used.

keane2097 wrote: »

A gesture that looks remarkably reminiscent of a Nazi salute

It's not really similar to a Nazi salute though? No more than any action involving your arms, that link is only made because of some guy referred to it as a "reverse Nazi salute" because of his perceived connotations.

I personally think that Anelka shouldn't be charged, he made the gesture in support of a personal friend, not to try and stir up some anti-Semitic hatred.

Zoopla have had a hand in blowing it out of proportion, as well as all the white knights rushing in to defend the Jewish people. Granted there are those trying to say Dieudonné is innocent of all charges who I also don't agree with but honestly it just seems to be a small incident which has been over-analysed by the media. Cases like this make me think there will be a time when footballers are banned from celebrating altogether.

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

I think it was a joke for the shock value, no different than other jokes I've seen where some people could find it racist or discriminatory.

Most people here are ignoring the context in which that gesture is made. The FA charge is about his gesture. The context for it to be an anti semitic gesture has been made crystal clear. I dont think he should be found guilty by association. Would you like to be found guilty of something by association, I dont think so

You complain that people are ignoring the context, yet you completely ignore all context relating to Dieudonné's politics and Anelka's professed support for him.

You claim that Dieudonné's comment about sending a Jewish journalist to the gas chamber was just "a joke for the shock value", as if Dieudonné's active role in anti-Semitic political action isn't relevant to the context of that joke. You ignore the fact that Dieudonné contested the European elections representing an anti-Zionist party. You ignore the fact that he regularly rails against the supposed Zionist global conspiracy and has made a film called L’Anti-sémite. You ignore the fact that he has said "All of them [Jews] are slave-straders who’ve moved into banking, show-business and, today, terrorist action". You ignore all of that context and instead try to justify the joke in isolation.

You quote the journalist Philippe Auclair in an interview talking about the popularity of anti-establishment sentiment in France today, yet you don't include the part where he goes on to say that anti-Semitism is rife and openly expressed. That context doesn't fit your argument.

You point out that a leading Jewish figure has said that the Quenelle is not in itself an anti-Semitic gesture and can be just anti-establishment, yet you ignore the context that Anelka has stated that he did the Quenelle specifically to show support for Dieudonné.

In ignoring all this context you are doing the thing that you are claiming everybody else is guilty of. You are being hypocritical and you are doing it to justify your bigoted argument.

Lennonist

DM360 wrote: »

I recall reading that it's a kind of "up yours" gesture, the height at which you indicate being the length should should be shoved up your hole. They even sell t-shirts with graduations so you can mark an exact measurement of arm to be used.



It's not really similar to a Nazi salute though? No more than any action involving your arms, that link is only made because of some guy referred to it as a "reverse Nazi salute" because of his perceived connotations.

I personally think that Anelka shouldn't be charged, he made the gesture in support of a personal friend, not to try and stir up some anti-Semitic hatred.

Zoopla have had a hand in blowing it out of proportion, as well as all the white knights rushing in to defend the Jewish people. Granted there are those trying to say Dieudonné is innocent of all charges who I also don't agree with but honestly it just seems to be a small incident which has been over-analysed by the media. Cases like this make me think there will be a time when footballers are banned from celebrating altogether.

Anelka will be charged whether he meant the gesture to be anti-Semitic or not, because it's a political gesture that is anti-establishment. Some political gestures are permitted on football fields like poppies on shirts for example, but anti-establishment or non-mainstream political gestures are generally outlawed and met with suspensions and bans.

There has been a torrent of over-reaction to this incident from certain quarters lead and instigated by the publicity seeking Zoopla. Certain elements of the media have bought into the hysteria and judging by some comments on this thread one or two joe soap football fans have bought into the hysteria as well.

ArmaniJeanss

Lennonist wrote: »

Anelka will be charged whether he meant the gesture to be anti-Semitic or not, because it's a political gesture that is anti-establishment. Some political gestures are permitted on football fields like poppies on shirts for example, but anti-establishment or non-mainstream political gestures are generally outlawed and met with suspensions and bans.

There has been a torrent of over-reaction to this incident from certain quarters lead and instigated by the publicity seeking Zoopla. Certain elements of the media have bought into the hysteria and judging by some comments on this thread one or two joe soap football fans have bought into the hysteria as well.

Yes as always in these things those people on your side of the debate are displaying calm logical thinking appraising the facts, whilst those who are against you are overreacting or buying into hysteria.

****

Out of interest does anyone know what Anelka or the comic mean by anti-establishment politics? I've always understood it generally as a left-wing movement with a high level of cultural involvement - Monty Python, Robin Cook, Naomi Klein, Will Self, rights for women, LGBT rights, drug legalisation - these would be my idea of anti-establishment people and politics. Whereas I'd humbly suggest that Dieudonné wouldn't be a fan of such people or ideas.

keane2097

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Yes as always in these things those people on your side of the debate are displaying calm logical thinking appraising the facts, whilst those who are against you are overreacting or buying into hysteria.

****

Out of interest does anyone know what Anelka or the comic mean by anti-establishment politics? I've always understood it generally as a left-wing movement with a high level of cultural involvement - Monty Python, Robin Cook, Naomi Klein, Will Self, rights for women, LGBT rights, drug legalisation - these would be my idea of anti-establishment people and politics. Whereas I'd humbly suggest that Dieudonné wouldn't be a fan of such people or ideas.

According to Dieudonné the Jews are the establishment, they run the banks the media and presumably Zoopla as well.

The fact that anti-establishment and anti-Jew are utterly interchangeable to this sort of wingnut is being overlooked is pretty funny.

Lennonist

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Yes as always in these things those people on your side of the debate are displaying calm logical thinking appraising the facts, whilst those who are against you are overreacting or buying into hysteria.

No not as always - nice bit of misrepresentation and generalisation there. As I said I think there are some people reacting a bit hysterically to this incident. Also I'm not sure about what you mean by "side of the debate". I'm not speaking in support of Anelka or certainly not Diedonne per se, I'm commenting on how this incident has been portrayed and how certain elements have taken it upon themselves to influence the process and potential verdict on the case.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Out of interest does anyone know what Anelka or the comic mean by anti-establishment politics? I've always understood it generally as a left-wing movement with a high level of cultural involvement - Monty Python, Robin Cook, Naomi Klein, Will Self, rights for women, LGBT rights, drug legalisation - these would be my idea of anti-establishment people and politics. Whereas I'd humbly suggest that Dieudonné wouldn't be a fan of such people or ideas.

Since looking up Dieudonne - I didn't know of him before this - it does appear that he has said things that can be described as anti-Semitic and that cross the line of satire and comedy. He is connected with Le Pen's National Front party in France, having initially being an opponent.

Dieudonne is obviously a self publicist and Anelka is probably foolish to be connecting himself with him, but as Roger Cukierman has said the use of the quenelle is not necessarily an anti-Semitic gesture unless it is clearly indicated that it is meant to be anti-Semitic. Anelka has said that he isn't anti-Semitic and that he didn't mean it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. He will still face a charge and may still get a ban regardless.

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

You complain that people are ignoring the context, yet you completely ignore all context relating to Dieudonné's politics and Anelka's professed support for him.

You claim that Dieudonné's comment about sending a Jewish journalist to the gas chamber was just "a joke for the shock value", as if Dieudonné's active role in anti-Semitic political action isn't relevant to the context of that joke. You ignore the fact that Dieudonné contested the European elections representing an anti-Zionist party. You ignore the fact that he regularly rails against the supposed Zionist global conspiracy and has made a film called L’Anti-sémite. You ignore the fact that he has said "All of them [Jews] are slave-straders who’ve moved into banking, show-business and, today, terrorist action". You ignore all of that context and instead try to justify the joke in isolation.

You quote the journalist Philippe Auclair in an interview talking about the popularity of anti-establishment sentiment in France today, yet you don't include the part where he goes on to say that anti-Semitism is rife and openly expressed. That context doesn't fit your argument.

You point out that a leading Jewish figure has said that the Quenelle is not in itself an anti-Semitic gesture and can be just anti-establishment, yet you ignore the context that Anelka has stated that he did the Quenelle specifically to show support for Dieudonné.

In ignoring all this context you are doing the thing that you are claiming everybody else is guilty of. You are being hypocritical and you are doing it to justify your bigoted argument.

The context of the quenelle has gone over your head and so has the psyche of french society and the motivation of the likes of Nicolas Anelka to make that gesture. The British dont know what to do or how to interpret it properly and that has been evident since it was made.

Nothing I've said is bigoted but you'll happily play that card because its becoming more the done thing when discussing subject matter like this. You dont like what I've to say so you call it bigoted but it sounds more like you are the one that is intolerant of a different viewpoint to your own. I have respect for different viewpoints and ideologies even ones I dont agree with but I'm now finding it hard to respect yours.

Your argument boils down to guilty by association. You want to see him punished for an anti-Semitic gesture just for being associated with him and his gesture couldnt possibly meant anything other than what you think. Kinda shows the illogical thinking behind political correctness really. :rolleyes:

keane2097

Dempsey wrote: »

The context of the quenelle has gone over your head and so has the psyche of french society and the motivation of the likes of Nicolas Anelka to make that gesture. The British dont know what to do or how to interpret it properly and that has been evident since it was made.

Does this not all apply to Suarez calling Evra a niglet?

Dempsey

keane2097 wrote: »

Does this not all apply to Suarez calling Evra a niglet?

How does this incident simplify to that?

keane2097

Dempsey wrote: »

How does this incident simplify to that?

"Means something innocuous in Uruguay, not meant as racist" etc.

Dempsey

keane2097 wrote: »

"Means something innocuous in Uruguay, not meant as racist" etc.

The incident happened in the UK, Niglet is a racial slur in Britain

As for the quenelle...

The man in the video is Roger Cukierman, head of Jewish organisation CRIF (Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions) and vice-president of the World Jewish Congress.

Speaking to French daily newspaper Le Figaro, he argues the "quenelle" is only anti-Semitic when it is performed at a Jewish site.

"This [potential punishment] seems a bit harsh to me," Cukierman said.

"That gesture can only have an anti-Semitic connotation when performed at a synagogue or a memorial to Holocaust victims. In a place that has no significance for Jews it is merely an anti-establishment gesture which I feel does not warrant any harsh sanction."

Thats the difference for me.

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

The context of the quenelle has gone over your head and so has the psyche of french society and the motivation of the likes of Nicolas Anelka to make that gesture. The British dont know what to do or how to interpret it properly and that has been evident since it was made.

Nothing I've said is bigoted but you'll happily play that card because its becoming more the done thing when discussing subject matter like this. You dont like what I've to say so you call it bigoted but it sounds more like you are the one that is intolerant of a different viewpoint to your own. I have respect for different viewpoints and ideologies even ones I dont agree with but I'm now finding it hard to respect yours.

Your argument boils down to guilty by association. You want to see him punished for an anti-Semitic gesture just for being associated with him and his gesture couldnt possibly meant anything other than what you think. Kinda shows the illogical thinking behind political correctness really. :rolleyes:

Political correctness is illogical and I am intolerant for thinking that your views are bigoted. Standard ad homenim response while falling to engage with any of the counter arguments presented to you. Well played.

Today Cukierman has rowed back on his support for Anelka and has clarified that he agrees that doing the quenelle and supporting the anti-semite Dieudonne should be punished.

"The quenelle is a Nazi salute reversed, there's no doubt in my mind because this is the will of the one who created and popularised it for purely ideological ends," said Cukierman.

"My statements in Le Figaro are no denial or renunciation on this subject, despite the interpretations that were made.

"However, I wished, perhaps too quickly, to demonstrate that it was important to show discernment, restraint, to avoid being drawn into a spiral that was difficult to control.

"It is clear the gesture of the quenelle has dangerously spread among our citizens and especially youth.

"They don't realise the severity and scope. They are doing this gesture for provocation rather than antisemitism, at least I hope so.

"Should we be hard on them? Definitely, as it glorifies crime against humanity, but we must also teach the youth who are manipulated by Dieudonne and his followers.

"It is up to teachers to do that, but also public figures from the worlds of culture and sport.

"This is why I was disappointed with the attitude of Anelka, whose behaviour is the opposite of what a top athlete must show the youth of our country.


"I was troubled by the fact the public man he is – a symbol for some of the youth of our country and so must therefore be perfect in his behaviour – can make this gesture 'to show his friendship to his friend Dieudonne', whose motivations are
without a doubt antisemitic."
link

keane2097

Yeah not surprised to read that, was baffled by the original statement and figured it must have been a misinterpretation somehow. Not that Cukierman's opinion should be the grand arbiter of whether something is ok carry on or not obv.

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

Political correctness is illogical and I am intolerant for thinking that your views are bigoted. Standard ad homenim response while falling to engage with any of the counter arguments presented to you. Well played.

Today Cukierman has rowed back on his support for Anelka and has clarified that he agrees that doing the quenelle and supporting the anti-semite Dieudonne should be punished.

"The quenelle is a Nazi salute reversed, there's no doubt in my mind because this is the will of the one who created and popularised it for purely ideological ends," said Cukierman.

"My statements in Le Figaro are no denial or renunciation on this subject, despite the interpretations that were made.

"However, I wished, perhaps too quickly, to demonstrate that it was important to show discernment, restraint, to avoid being drawn into a spiral that was difficult to control.

"It is clear the gesture of the quenelle has dangerously spread among our citizens and especially youth.

"They don't realise the severity and scope. They are doing this gesture for provocation rather than antisemitism, at least I hope so.

"Should we be hard on them? Definitely, as it glorifies crime against humanity, but we must also teach the youth who are manipulated by Dieudonne and his followers.

"It is up to teachers to do that, but also public figures from the worlds of culture and sport.

"This is why I was disappointed with the attitude of Anelka, whose behaviour is the opposite of what a top athlete must show the youth of our country.


"I was troubled by the fact the public man he is – a symbol for some of the youth of our country and so must therefore be perfect in his behaviour – can make this gesture 'to show his friendship to his friend Dieudonne', whose motivations are
without a doubt antisemitic."
link

Your counter argument is regurgitation of something I already addressed. There is no bigotry in my view, and no matter how many times you say it trying to provoke me into a negative reaction or say something that could get me banned, it doesnt make it true.

Strange that he says "there's no doubt in my mind" considering what he said only a few days ago.

"The quenelle is a Nazi salute reversed, there's no doubt in my mind because this is the will of the one who created and popularised it for purely ideological ends," said Cukierman.

"My statements in Le Figaro are no denial or renunciation on this subject, despite the interpretations that were made.

"However, I wished, perhaps too quickly, to demonstrate that it was important to show discernment, restraint, to avoid being drawn into a spiral that was difficult to control.

I dont see him saying that his definition of when the quenelle is anti-Semitic has changed.

They are doing this gesture for provocation rather than antisemitism, at least I hope so

He questioning the motivations of the youth in France and why they are using it. He seems worried that its a slippery slope to anti-semitism within the youth of france and he's probably right on that assessment.

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

Your counter argument is regurgitation of something I already addressed. There is no bigotry in my view, and no matter how many times you say it trying to provoke me into a negative reaction or say something that could get me banned, it doesnt make it true.

Strange that he says "there's no doubt in my mind" considering what he said only a few days ago.

I dont see him saying that his definition of when the quenelle is anti-Semitic has changed.

He questioning the motivations of the youth in France and why they are using it. He seems worried that its a slippery slope to anti-semitism within the youth of france and he's probably right on that assessment.

Cukierman is now saying that Anelka should be punished for using the quenelle and for showing support for Dieudonné, we can agree on that at least.

So now you no longer have any support from the Jewish community for your opinion that Anelka didn't do anything wrong and that Dieudonné was just making jokes.

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

Cukierman is now saying that Anelka should be punished for using the quenelle and for showing support for Dieudonné, we can agree on that at least.

So now you no longer have any support from the Jewish community for your opinion that Anelka didn't do anything wrong and that Dieudonné was just making jokes.

You're clutching at straws now, the definition of the gesture hasnt changed

.jacksparrow.

Hold on, isn't quenelle a chicken food dish???

cathalio11

Pro. F wrote: »

Cukierman is now saying that Anelka should be punished for using the quenelle and for showing support for Dieudonné, we can agree on that at least.

So now you no longer have any support from the Jewish community for your opinion that Anelka didn't do anything wrong and that Dieudonné was just making jokes.

You're right.

Cukierman believes that Anelka should be punished for supporting Dieudonné.
Cukierman also believes that it was not anti-semitic.

The FA have no right to punish Anelka for showing someone support. They have charged Anelka with an improper gesture related to religious belief.

So what ever Cukierman believes about Anelka supporting Dieudonné, the fact is that he already came out and stated that it was not an anti-semitic gesture.
That really should be all with regards to Cukierman.

dreamers75

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Hold on, isn't quenelle a chicken food dish???

I thought it was 2 pieces of ice cream made to look like an egg.

cathalio11

As for Zoopla. Their sponsorship with West Brom was set to expire this Summer and the likelihood is that they would not have renewed anyways.

But they got a lovely bit of free advertising by getting into all the big newspapers by announcing their disgust, so fair play to them.

I doubt they really cared though. In fact, they're probably thrilled with the attention their logo has gotten in all the Anelka pictures that have gone around. This is assuming that most people have the common sense to not judge the sponsor on the enigma who is wearing the shirt.

dreamers75

cathalio11 wrote: »

But they got a lovely bit of free advertising by getting into all the big newspapers by announcing their disgust, so fair play to them.

In fairness they have got some bad bad advertising.

Fans reaction seems to be "meh" and "cba" about what Anelka I am also "meh and Cba" about it.

But Zoopla sponsor a football club where the target audience is umm football fans.

Would love to see a poll on here to see what irish fans think of it all.

I dont think Zoopla gets any win here if they sponsor a football club then expect some sort of good PR with football fans.

We a fickle bunch.

billymitchell

Shirley tbe only thing that matters is what Anelka meant by the gesture, not what other people thought it to mean

cathalio11

dreamers75 wrote: »

In fairness they have got some bad bad advertising.

Fans reaction seems to be "meh" and "cba" about what Anelka I am also "meh and Cba" about it.

But Zoopla sponsor a football club where the target audience is umm football fans.

Would love to see a poll on here to see what irish fans think of it all.

I dont think Zoopla gets any win here if they sponsor a football club then expect some sort of good PR with football fans.

Well they pay a certain amount based on how many people will see their logo.

The fact that millions (Even if only 10,000 take notice, and 100 invest) in the UK would have seen it in the last week means that they've gotten a lot more than what they bargained for.

I can't see anything except an advantage in terms of advertising for them here.

dreamers75

cathalio11 wrote: »

Well they pay a certain amount based on how many people will see their logo.

The fact that millions (Even if only 10,000 take notice, and 100 invest) in the UK would have seen it in the last week means that they've gotten a lot more than what they bargained for.

I can't see anything except an advantage in terms of advertising for them here.

Millions of other fans IE not WBA fans see it.

Suppose it comes down to your opinion on it. Meh or CBA ????

Richard Hillman

This story is bordering Cardiff/Malky Mackay levels of boring. Everytime I turn on SSN they are blabbering on about.

Pro. F

Dempsey wrote: »

You're clutching at straws now, the definition of the gesture hasnt changed

It is absurd to deny that Cukierman has clarified that he believes the quenelle to be an anti-semitic gesture. I didn't bother pointing that out to you because at this stage it is obvious that you will not acknowledge any evidence presented to you.

Pro. F

cathalio11 wrote: »

You're right.

Cukierman believes that Anelka should be punished for supporting Dieudonné.
Cukierman also believes that it was not anti-semitic.

That is untrue. Cukierman has since clarified that he does in fact believe the quenelle to be anti-semetic.

cathalio11 wrote: »

The FA have no right to punish Anelka for showing someone support. They have charged Anelka with an improper gesture related to religious belief.

So what ever Cukierman believes about Anelka supporting Dieudonné, the fact is that he already came out and stated that it was not an anti-semitic gesture.
That really should be all with regards to Cukierman.

Of course the FA have a right to punish a player for showing support for someone. Why would you think they wouldn't have that right?

Anelka's claim that it was not an anti-semitic gesture is completely undermined by the fact that he has also said he did it in support of his friend Dieudonné, the well known and politically active anti-semite - the same man who invented the gesture, trademarked it and has used it while running for election on an anti-semitic ticket.

Whatever about the "youth of France" who may be misled into using the gesture without knowing who invented it and why (and the likelihood of that ignorance is extremely slim), the fact that Anelka has specifically said he used the quenelle to show support for his friend Dieudonné means that he must know what the gesture signifies. It is completely implausible that somebody could be a friend and supporter of Dieudonné without knowing that he is anti-semitic.

Cukierman has clarified his position since he first spoke on the subject. Speaking to a Paris radio station:
“The gesture conceived and realised by Dieudonné is anti-semitic and the sympathy of Nicolas Anelka (for Dieudonné) is clearly suspect. I have no desire to be an expert in this matter.” link

billymitchell wrote: »

Shirley tbe only thing that matters is what Anelka meant by the gesture, not what other people thought it to mean

And how do you propose we decipher what Anelka meant?

farna_boy

To be honest, I find this whole thing a farce. As an Arsenal fan, I have no great love for Anelka, in fact, I would regard him as a bit of a muppet but I have to wonder, if other French players have made this sign in the past, why is he the only one facing punishment? Also, if he is punished for this, shouldn't they also be punished retrospectively?

The other thing I find humorous in a way is that in many people's minds, Anelka is guilty by association: His friend is anti-Semitic and therefore so is he. What has not be publicised during this debate is that Dieudonne was once an anti-racist campaigner, and it is entirely possible that he and Anelka became friends at this stage, and not more recently when his views turned to anti-Semitism.

Fr Tod Umptious

billymitchell wrote: »

Shirley tbe only thing that matters is what Anelka meant by the gesture, not what other people thought it to mean

I have a black friend
I call him 'ni**er', he does not mind, he is a mate of mine and it's a friendly term we use between ourselves, he calls me 'pale tick fecker'' by the way
But when I call other black people 'ni**er' I always seem to get in trouble.

I mean it as a friendly term, but they do not think it is

I can't understand

Lennonist

Pro. F wrote: »

And how do you propose we decipher what Anelka meant?

He has said himself that he didn't mean it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. There will be a hearing, at the hearing he can and should elaborate on exactly what he did mean by it, other than showing some kind of support for Diuedonne. The hearing presided over by the FA is where this incident should be judged. Due process should apply and the judgement should not be pre-empted by commercial interests like Zoopla attempting to garner publicity for themselves from the incident, and potentially prejudicing the outcome of the hearing.

I'd imagine after all this they'll give Anelka a ban of some sort, but I can't see how they could arrive at a judgement that he meant it to be anti-Semitic, if he is saying himself that he didn't mean it to be interpreted as anti-Semitic. It's a curious case for lots of reasons and a lot of heat and not much light has been drummed up around this incident.

Lennonist

dreamers75 wrote: »

I thought it was 2 pieces of ice cream made to look like an egg.

Or a former Welsh Number 8.:pac:

Dempsey

Pro. F wrote: »

It is absurd to deny that Cukierman has clarified that he believes the quenelle to be an anti-semitic gesture. I didn't bother pointing that out to you because at this stage it is obvious that you will not acknowledge any evidence presented to you.

What he thinks is his opinion. The definition of the gesture hasnt changed and the context of what Anelka did doesn't make his gesture anti-semitic. You say it is on the basis of guilt by association which is bull imo

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Dempsey wrote: »

What he thinks is his opinion. The definition of the gesture hasnt changed and the context of what Anelka did doesn't make his gesture anti-semitic. You say it is on the basis of guilt by association which is bull imo

I've been reading this thread and I genuinely can't get over your sheer ignorance

Anelka is friends with this comedian. The gesture has massive anti-Semitic conitations (see the clowns doing it in Aushwitz) and all the BS about it being anti establishment is a smokescreen

keane2097

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I've been reading this thread and I genuinely can't get over your sheer ignorance

Anelka is friends with this comedian. The gesture has massive anti-Semitic conitations (see the clowns doing it in Aushwitz) and all the BS about it being anti establishment is a smokescreen

I literally guffaw at your username every time I see it. I've actually told people about it in real life because it's such a bizarre and hilarious collection of words.