Jump to content
IGNORED

East End Racist Chants - Wtf?


Martyn Hocking

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't call anyone from Pakistan a Paki, I'd call them Pakistani. Paki is an old school racist term from the 70's used to describe all Asians. I would never use the word. Doh, I just did. :doh:

To be fair though, I've never met a white Pakistani, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You could just try calling people by their names though, if that helps. I don't refer to my mates (of which most are English) as Englanders. I would hate to be called that myself, despite being proud of my heritage.

:englandsmile4wf:

I dont call anyone pakis either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is ok, as i guess the majority of cardiff fans are white, like most football fans in the country still. (For one reason or another)

There you go YOU think its ok, others may be offended, we cannot have one rule for one and another rule for another, to fit perfectly everything should be uniform, that includes not calling Welsh ppl sheep sh@ggers as this is in my view more offensive than shortening the word pakistani

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go YOU think its ok, others may be offended, we cannot have one rule for one and another rule for another, to fit perfectly everything should be uniform, that includes not calling Welsh ppl sheep sh@ggers as this is in my view more offensive than shortening the word pakistani

By "i" think, i mean societies perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difference between that and singing a small town in wales? Places like cardiff have a very big asian and Portuguese community, dating back 100's of years.

I don't intend to get drawn into a big debate here about what does and does not constitute racism, but the chants were racist, simple as.

I'm not saying things that we sing to fans of other clubs aren't racist and I'm not saying anything that we heard on Saturday was actually any different. But as human beings capable of rational, grown up thoughts (most of us anyway) we can engage our common sense to deem when something is and is not appropriate.

It doesn't take a genuis to work out that making anti-Asian comments to fans of an English football club and making anti-Welsh comments to the Cardiff fans are likely to be taken in entirely different contexts. Anti-Leicestershire comments would have been taken in good humour no doubt.

Common sense failure I think by those participating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in the Atyeo and heard the following, or things like it:

- Small town in Asia

- There's only one Chicken Tikka

- Where's your poppadom?

Wow!! can i frame your post and put it up in the EE as we have found someone who admits to hearing the eastend from the Atyeo :tounge:

On another note I think city fans like pakistanis as they have sang ''i'd rather be a paki than a taff'' :cool2:

Where does this stand in the debate?? oppps now i've gone and done it :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave L did state ... The club charter states: 'Bristol City Football Club is committed to confront and eliminate discrimination whether by reason of sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality, ethnic origin, colour, religion or disability'.

The Welsh are not a different race to the English. Race is biological. They could be considered an ethnic group, as share a certain consciousness of a group, primarily driven by language and celtic heritage. Therefore, songs about sheep-cuddling, etc .. can't be considered racist, but are unwelcome according to DL's reply, as are covered by ethnicity, nationality and maybe even sexual orientation! :baa:

Thats your opinion, I'm sorry whilsy I respect your opinion I do not accept it as fact.

I would suggest you ask any Welshman and I honesly suspect he would disagree with you, the Welsh celebrate their own culture and lauguage and whilst centuries of integration have brought them into the UK there are still those that use their democratic right to vote for independence and see themselves totally as seperate. Even those that do subscribe to the United Kingdom do so as an componant part with their own proud identity.

I agree with David Lloyds comments as posted above, my concern is that the policy / law must aplly to all members of society the law as it stands is for equality for ALL, not just a chosen group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a great thread...so revealing. It's quite clear who lives in the modern world and who was more comfortable living in the 1970's...who is oblivious to the impact of the language and behaviour on others and who isn't.

Dave L was right to raise this. Boy, it really challenges a few of the regulars on here. Fair play to Robbo, AJ and Martyn and others for articulating views that have a place in the 21st century. A few of the others on here...well, bit of a throw back aren't they? The racist right wing is alive and well in much of Britain...shame to see the attitudes that allow it to flourish alive and well on OTIB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those of you wanting a legal definition of racism, here is the law:

R v Rogers {[2007] UKHL 8}This case was decided by the House of Lords. What exactly constitutes racist behaviour? The defendant directed abuse at a group of Spanish women, and used the phrase "bloody foreigners". The defendant appealed against conviction for an offence of racially aggravated threatening behaviour, contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, arguing that the phrase used was not capable of demonstrating hostility based on membership of a racial group. It was accepted by the defendant that if he had used the phrase "bloody Spaniards" then he would be guilty.

This was clear from the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Stoke on Trent Magistrates' Court {QBD (Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Goldring): 16 June 2003}.
In that case, the defendant was charged with attending a football match and chanting the words, 'you're just a town full of Pakis'
. At the trial, he admitted to the charge but submitted that the words were not of a racist nature within the meaning of section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.

The district judge acquitted the defendant and found that the term 'Paki' was nothing more than 'Brit', 'Aussie' or 'Kiwi' and was short form for 'Pakistani'. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated.

The Divisional Court allowed the application. It held that the chant was insulting and racist, because it was implicit that Oldham was inferior because of the nationality of a number of citizens, and 'Paki' demonstrated that it was those of Pakistani origin who were the cause of the inferiority; that the term 'Paki' was used in a derogative sense, the word 'just' in the chant was indicative of that fact; and that accordingly, the defendant's admitted behaviour fell within the mischief at which the statute was aimed and the case would be remitted to the judge with a direction to convict.

Having considered that case, the House of Lords considered the phrase "bloody foreigners". The House of Lords held that the definition of a racial group goes beyond groups defined by their colour, race or ethnic origin. In addition, it encompasses both nationality and national origins. The House of Lords held that the aggravated versions of these offences are not only directed at racism but also directed at xenophobia. Their essence is the denial of equal respect and dignity to people who are seen as different. This is more deeply hurtful, damaging and disrespectful to the victims than the simple versions of these offences. It is also more damaging to the community as a whole, by denying acceptance to members of certain groups not for their own sake but for the sake of something they can do nothing about.

In short, the phrase "bloody foreigners" is capable of constituting a racially aggravated offence. Those who are not of British origin can constitute a racial group. Whether or not the evidence in any particular case, taken as a whole, proves that the offender's conduct demonstrated hostility to such a group, or was motivated by such hostility, is a question of fact for the decision-makers in the case. In other words, the defendant must have formed the view that the victim was a member of a racial group that included a group defined by race, colour, and nationality, including citizenship or ethnic or national origin, and must have said something to demonstrate the hostility to the victim based on that fact.

As you will see, the District Judge at the Magistrates Court went along with the general consensus of the apologists on this board; a higher court then ruled that he was wrong. According to the law of precedent, unless a higher court overrules them, that's the law.

I suggest that "just a small town in Asia" is making the same point as the chant in the case of DPP v Stoke (quoted in the second para onwards above) and is therefore just as racist.

So, presumably, now that has been defined for you, you can shut up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One really does wonder what the PC lot think of English cricket fans turning up in prisoner suits at matches and Aussies, sorry Australians, calling us Brits or Whinging Poms.

Possibly because the PC brigade haven't brainwashed me into thinking its racist, I'm not offended. Don't think the Aussies are either. We all make light of it and try to trump them with a better joke/greater irony. We don't run off to the nearest solicitor to threaten or sue.

The age of intolerance and compensation culture - welcome to PC World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats your opinion, I'm sorry whilsy I respect your opinion I do not accept it as fact.

I would suggest you ask any Welshman and I honesly suspect he would disagree with you, the Welsh celebrate their own culture and lauguage and whilst centuries of integration have brought them into the UK there are still those that use their democratic right to vote for independence and see themselves totally as sepera te. Even those that do subscribe to the United Kingdom do so as an componant part with their own proud identity.

I agree with David Lloyds comments as posted above, my concern is that the policy / law must aplly to all members of society the law as it stands is for equality for ALL, not just a chosen group.

Yes, but that is ethnicity, which is not very easy to define, but is separate from race. IT IS NOT racial difference. Race is biological. Scousers often refer to themselves as a different race, but it is tongue in cheek. Seeing yourself as different does not suddenly mean that you transform into a another race!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One really does wonder what the PC lot think of English cricket fans turning up in prisoner suits at matches and Aussies, sorry Australians, calling us Brits or Whinging Poms.

Possibly because the PC brigade haven't brainwashed me into thinking its racist, I'm not offended. Don't think the Aussies are either. We all make light of it and try to trump them with a better joke/greater irony. We don't run off to the nearest solicitor to threaten or sue.

The age of intolerance and compensation culture - welcome to PC World.

er..well it's not racist is it? The Aussies, by and large, share exactly the same racial background as the English cricket fans.

There is no PC brigade. That's an invention of the right wing press. Almost all the "baa baa white sheep stories" have been made up. But there are casual racists...in the press and on this forum...who don't like their casual racism being pointed out because it makes them feel a bit uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

er..well it's not racist is it? The Aussies, by and large, share exactly the same racial background as the English cricket fans.

There is no PC brigade. That's an invention of the right wing press. Almost all the "baa baa white sheep stories" have been made up. But there are casual racists...in the press and on this forum...who don't like their casual racism being pointed out because it makes them feel a bit uncomfortable.

Edging your bets there mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is ethnicity, which is not very easy to define, but is separate from race. IT IS NOT racial difference. Race is biological. Scousers often refer to themselves as a different race, but it is tongue in cheek. Seeing yourself as different does not suddenly mean that you transform into a another race!

I'll make this final point as positions are quite entrenched. The whole Race Relations act does not concern RACE as you define it, I reiterate it also concerns the number of topics that you quoted from David Lloyds weekly blog entry. My main concern is not trying to justify racsim which cannot be justified, but to ask for an equal and proportionate response on behalf of other groups including ethnicity and sexuality for example. The verocity in which some posters have dismissed other groups interests, indicates to me that as a scoceity we are increasingly puitting certian groups on a pedastal at the expense of others. When really the legilation should be enforced equally as it is written on the statute and not picked at when it is in the interest of a solitary group.

I'm affraid much on here is the result of social conditioning and not a genuine interest in integration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

er..well it's not racist is it? The Aussies, by and large, share exactly the same racial background as the English cricket fans.

There is no PC brigade. That's an invention of the right wing press. Almost all the "baa baa white sheep stories" have been made up. But there are casual racists...in the press and on this forum...who don't like their casual racism being pointed out because it makes them feel a bit uncomfortable.

As far as I'm concerned whether you're from a biologically different race, from a different country, county, village, religion the same principles of discrimnation apply. Maybe the PC lot are being very selective as to what offends them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned whether you're from a biologically different race, from a different country, county, village, religion the same principles of discrimnation apply. Maybe the PC lot are being very selective as to what offends them.

sorry - but you implied that banter at the Aussies was racist. It isn't. And I'm afraid that there is no PC brigade that is going to call you a racist for dressing as a convict at an Ashes match or an Australian a racist for calling you a Pom. Unless I've missed something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the things that are going on in this world at this moment in time people are moaning about a bit of banter between 2 sets of fans ,tell tou what next time lets jump the fence and knock 7 bells of shit out of each other that should be fine as long as we dont call each other names , god i despair sometimes , did anyone from leciester actually complain ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edging your bets there mate.

I really don't think I am. The stories never stack up...and they always appear in the same papers.... and the "PC brigade" is a term used to describe people who respect the sensitivites of others - as described by Robbo earlier in the thread from his experience of the NHS. I'm afraid it's a term often used by folk to dismiss anyone who calls their casual racism for what it is....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...