Leinster to investigate racism claims

First topic message reminder :

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2011/0827/mujati.html

Leinster are holding a "full internal investigation" after Northampton prop Brian Mujati claimed he was the subject of racist remarks during last night's pre-season friendly at Donnybrook.

Mujati, 26, made the allegations on Twitter this morning. He later removed the postings, in which he claimed the remarks had come from Leinster prop Heinke van der Merwe and lock Steven Sykes.
Press Association Sport understands that Van der Merwe and Sykes deny the allegations.

The only comment that Leinster would make was in a statement which said: "Following allegations made by a Northampton Saints player this morning via his personal Twitter account, Leinster Rugby are holding a full internal investigation.

"The managements of both teams are in close communication and hopefully the matter will be resolved as soon as possible.

"No further comment will be made at this time until that resolution has been reached."

Zimbabwe-born Mujati, who has won 12 caps for South Africa, was clearly upset when he posted on the social networking site.
A Northampton spokesman told Press Association Sport:

"The club takes any allegations like this very seriously. We will be talking to the player concerned about it and contacting Leinster.
We will not make any further comment at this time."

The Rugby Football Union have confirmed that because the alleged incident took place on Irish soil it falls outside of their jurisdiction.

The IRFU have said they are in touch with Leinster and Northampton on the matter.

Mickado wrote:Good to see all those rushing to condemn Leinster are in an equal hurry to take their statements back.

I was only condemning Leinster because they were sweeping it under the carpet. Which they were!

I'm delighted though that this has been cleared up as I'm sure the two lads involved were. I remember Marcus Horan saying in interview that, that was a very low point in his rugby career. Hopefully they will find a new trigger word that won't be misunderstood in future!

I don't think anyone was rushing to condemn Leinster in all honesty. I think there was some criticism of players at Leinster based on the information thats out in the public domain.

Its important that claims like these are taken seriously; brushing them under the carpet hurts the reputations of those involved. Evidence is beginning to lean towards a genuine misunderstanding, which is a relief.

Kinda leans towards the old saying that Offense can not be given, only taken.

And to be fair to Mujati, I think if I was in his shoes and people kept shouting the word baboon and punching me in the face I think I too would draw the most obvious conclusion from that.

I doubt the idea it was a trigger call was the first thing that crossed his mind like! I think he has every right to say what he said. Probably unwise to do so on twitter. But understandable.

Its things like this that makes clubs want to ban their players from twitter.

There is still the problem of Leinsters reputation. The information has come from another forum, not from Leinster. As far as the wider rugby world is concerned, they've quickly found themselves not guilty of racism.

People who haven't heard this new evidence (basically because it swaps racism for opportunisticly punching the face of a player who's arms aren't free and that's not good PR as reasons go) will still think Leinster employ racists.

I was harsh before because that's precisely what I do not want to happen.

Sin é,

To be fair, you called Sykes a bad apple.

Is that spieceist?

It would have upset me a lot more had either of these lads been Irish.
Probably because Sykes is only in the door a wet week.

It's probably not the first time South African players were accused of making racist comments.

MBTGOG wrote:Sin é,

To be fair, you called Sykes a bad apple.

Well, he was the one who introduced that particular call to Leinster, the one that has a) Leinster answering charges of racism and b) has a trigger call for something that will get Leinster into more trouble.

I would now contend that he isn't the brightest. A black person making those calls will get away with it. A white person won't.

.

Maybe in future instead of using baboon as the trigger, just a simple 'hit the fecker' will suffice.

Now I'm going to get into trouble for saying this but are the people who were ready to condemn these lads not in any way concerned that they were willing to believe the call was racist because it was 2 white South Africans doing the calling?

Maybe it's just me but I find that quite disturbing in itself.

In all honesty I'm not concerned. I've only my own experience to draw on but some (not all) South Africans I've met would have thought that a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

I accepted a black players word that he was being abused. Because of the connotations of the word used and the treatment of black people in South Africa I believed it was the most likely scenario. I don't think it was a massive assumption on my part.

poissonrouge wrote:Now I'm going to get into trouble for saying this but are the people who were ready to condemn these lads not in any way concerned that they were willing to believe the call was racist because it was 2 white South Africans doing the calling?

Maybe it's just me but I find that quite disturbing in itself.

+1

I will not claim to speak for all of South Africa but having visited there and met several South Africans here since I can safely say that none of those I have encountered would think that was an acceptable thing to do.

It does make you wonder who the real racists are though, no?

Not accusing anyone of course, just wondering if we all need to reassess our stereotypes a bit.

As I said, I'm afraid in my case I have met South Africans who think like that.

At worst I was guilty of stereotyping, certainly not racism. And there is a big difference. Racism requires intent and a belief that certain people are sub-human, I don't think that way.

I applied Occams Razor, as I said above. It never occurred to me that there was a scenario such as "Maybe it was a code word for punch the prop in the face". And no one else on here suggested it, it was new evidence brought to light.

Mickado wrote:

poissonrouge wrote:Now I'm going to get into trouble for saying this but are the people who were ready to condemn these lads not in any way concerned that they were willing to believe the call was racist because it was 2 white South Africans doing the calling?

Maybe it's just me but I find that quite disturbing in itself.

+1

Honestly? I think people connected the 2 saffers to it based on the fact that they were named as saying certain things. There are plenty of other saffer lads playing up here for whom the issue has not arisen and is not considered an issue.

I think it's reasonable given the specific race-rows that have dogged Mujati's career and the specific history there. There's a lot of resentment towards him from some sectors of the South African rugby world due to the row over quota players and his involvement. I think the fact that it's Mujati means it's more credible than if it was another black player. I also think Mujati's own history has probably made him a good bit more sensitive to this kind of thing than he otherwise would be. This wouldn't be the first time his race has been an issue on or off the rugby pitch.

Besides, if he had said it was Devin Toner and Jamie Hagan then we would be talking about those players in the exact same way!

Grey, on the first page of the post Notch put up the article from the times where it was suggested the word was a trigger call. And in my first reply I suggested that was a plausible explanation. All that's changed now is that the action the trigger word is used to provoke has been stated and it's been confirmed by a 3rd party that it's legit.

Occams razor was staring us in the face the entire time.

Notch I really don't think we would be talking about it in the same way if it was 2 Irish lads.

Grey,

I'm not accusing you or anyone here, just pointing out how quickly and easily we can assume stuff.

Makes you think eh?

I think I would be, I can't speak for anyone else. I resent the implication.

Mick, just saying trigger call was too vague, unless I knew what it was supposed to trigger I was never going to believe that story. I do now.

Also, while I accept the story as it stands, I notice everyone who said we should wait until the whole story is in are quite happy to accept all the available evidence has now been gathered because someone on another forum has said The Beast has confirmed it. Have we seen any proof that he has?

Well, we're not going to get anything better in the way of evidence have we?

The fact Mujati and Saints aren't contesting this leads me to believe it.

poissonrouge wrote:Notch I really don't think we would be talking about it in the same way if it was 2 Irish lads.
Grey,
I'm not accusing you or anyone here, just pointing out how quickly and easily we can assume stuff.
Makes you think eh?

I certainly would back the abused over the alledged abuser in any case of racism. If it was an Irish player or South African is immaterial.

Mujati may not be the most popular player on the planet, but if he believe he was abused then I took it on faith that he was. He wasn't, but he certainly believed he was. I wouldn't care who the accused would be in any sense whatsoever. I found it particularly unpleasant the way he has been treated. People should defend the accused, certainly, but not at the expense of a character assassination of the accuser, there's enough of that in the courts as it is ("Ah, her skirt was too short, she's to blame" is a particularly disgusting application of this logic)

Notch wrote:Well, we're not going to get anything better in the way of evidence have we?

The fact Mujati and Saints aren't contesting this leads me to believe it.

Oh, I believe it to, because I have no reason to doubt it. That's what this has been about for me, doubt.

greybeard wrote:

poissonrouge wrote:Notch I really don't think we would be talking about it in the same way if it was 2 Irish lads.
Grey,
I'm not accusing you or anyone here, just pointing out how quickly and easily we can assume stuff.
Makes you think eh?

I certainly would back the abused over the alledged abuser in any case of racism. If it was an Irish player or South African is immaterial.

Mujati may not be the most popular player on the planet, but if he believe he was abused then I took it on faith that he was. He wasn't, but he certainly believed he was. I wouldn't care who the accused would be in any sense whatsoever. I found it particularly unpleasant the way he has been treated. People should defend the accused, certainly, but not at the expense of a character assassination of the accuser, there's enough of that in the courts as it is ("Ah, her skirt was too short, she's to blame" is a particularly disgusting application of this logic)

+1

He made some allegations, seemingly in all sincerity, the burden of proof is on Leinster and the players involved to disprove those allegations. It appears the matter is now settled to everyones satisfaction and to be honest it just seems like a misunderstanding. If anything, he seemed very upset at what had happened more than anything else.

I'm not accusing Mujati of anything here I'm just saying we should all be careful about the assumptions we make. Of course he should have raised the issue if he felt there was racial abuse going on but it would seem that the only player who thought the call was anything to do with race was him. That is completely understandable given his background but still based on assumption.

I'm just saying that it highlighted to me how much we all make assumptions based on racial stereotypes even when we are not aware of it and in fact are trying our best to comdemn it.

Just made me think is all.

I don't think we would have been talking the same way if the accused lads were Irish because the context would have been different. Didn't you say the context was important?

I did, but ultimately if someone said they were racially abused in a game by an Irish player I would be inclined to take that at face value. At the very least I would demand an investigation and the results of it to be made public.

Which is what I've done here.

I'm not trying to get at anyone, just raising the issue that perhaps we all have more prejudice than we think or hope we have.

When you heard the accusations against Matt McCullough was your first gut reaction "guilty"or "innocent"?

I'm just saying that perhaps we were more likely to stereotype these Leinster lads because of their origins and that we need to guard against it.

I'll be honest and say I only heard about the McCullough thing after the fact ie. after the claims have been debunked.

It was pre-Wireless internet/twitter and I was living in Scotland. It was difficult to follow Ulster, I seldom heard much news unless I was talking to someone at home, and I only heard about the controversy later.

Maybe a more appropriate comparison is the Ferris thing. I was very disappointed when I heard about that, I could see it being true. My gut reaction was he did beat that guy up. Although other factors point towards it not being too serious. Still don't really know either way, guess we'll find out in November.

Notch wrote:I'll be honest and say I only heard about the McCullough thing after the fact ie. after the claims have been debunked.

It was pre-Wireless internet/twitter and I was living in Scotland. It was difficult to follow Ulster, I seldom heard much news unless I was talking to someone at home, and I only heard about the controversy later.

Maybe a more appropriate comparison is the Ferris thing. I was very disappointed when I heard about that, I could see it being true. My gut reaction was he did beat that guy up. Although other factors point towards it not being too serious. Still don't really know either way, guess we'll find out in November.

Hold on a second here. Scotland has the internet?!

On the other hand, when those Cuddle in a bad way claims were made about Isaac Boss I never really believed it based on what I knew of the man.

poissonrouge wrote:When you heard the accusations against Matt McCullough was your first gut reaction "guilty"or "innocent"?

Guilty, as it happens.

poissonrouge wrote:
I will not claim to speak for all of South Africa but having visited there and met several South Africans here since I can safely say that none of those I have encountered would think that was an acceptable thing to do.

It does make you wonder who the real racists are though, no?

Not accusing anyone of course, just wondering if we all need to reassess our stereotypes a bit.

Poison - you must be lucky then because I have met and played with plenty of thoroughly dislikable Saffers who have a massive superiority complex. I have also visited the country and would never go back - the younger SA's have a semblance of grace about them but the older ones can be truly disgusting inn their attitude.
Who knows what was said and in what context but there are plenty of white Saffers who will have a long list of previous convictions for making racist statements so you can't blame people for jumping to conclusions.

Injured,

You seem happy to condemn an entire ethnic group for racism?

You don't see any irony there?

poissonrouge wrote:
Injured,

You seem happy to condemn an entire ethnic group for racism?

You don't see any irony there?

Racism has been ingrained in their society for a long time. Do you seriously expect it to disappear that quickly? Its going to take a couple of generations. Look at the US and how it was such a big deal that Obama became President - nearly 50 years after racial segregation was abolished in the mid-1960s.

I did a goggle search on racism in SA to see if I'd get some information on the situation there - this article popped up from a BBC journalist. Note the opening paragraph!

I moved to South Africa just over a year ago, and the very first white man I met - the gregarious owner of a serviced-apartment complex in Johannesburg - casually offered me his thoughts about the "baboons" who would eventually wreck this "magical country."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/andrewharding/2010/04/hello.html

I really don't think thats relevant Sin.

Notch wrote:I really don't think thats relevant Sin.

You don't think what is relevant? I'm using the article to point out that the BBC have branded South Africans in general as being racist, so some of the comments here are not unusual.

If you are referring to just the term 'baboon' - I thought it was interesting that it seems to be a widely used racist term in SA. You'd worry about Sykes that he is only finding out now that its not a great word to be using in this neck of the wood.

Do feel slightly better now this evidence has came out.
I don't feel Mujati was jumping to conclusions, it was the most logical.
I'm grateful for the good of our sport that it appears to have been just a misunderstanding.

To be clear, Sin, I don't think the use of the word baboon as a racial slur by one South African man is relevant to this case. It may have racial overtones depending on the context in which it is used, but it doesn't in of itself. I heard the Ulster pack using the word 'Magners' in their lineout calls on Friday. Am I to presume they are all alcoholics? The connection is fairly tenuous.

Also, does South Africa have a problem with race relations? Obviously yes. Does every South African live up to that stereotype? Probably not. Is it fair to suggest any given South African will reflect those attitudes? Obviously not.

You spend a few seconds on google and suddenly you're the expert. Come on man!

Context is everything.

My mate farts, so I call him a smelly knacker.
If a traveller knocks on my door and I call him a knacker, that's a different story.

Also, Lisa calls homer a baboon about 15 times in one Simpsons episode.
And maybe baboon was the call for Sykes to dig the opposition TH, chimp was the call to collapse the scrum, lemur is the call to squeeze and shove. Who knows...?

Mickado, if Leinster change their call to "Orange scum" for the Ulster game, is that ok as long as it's just a trigger?

Shouldn't the potential for offens also be taken into consideration?

But orange scum can pretty much only be used in an offensive way. You can see a baboon in the zoo.

By the way, I agree they need to change it. But there was no offence intended.

Mickado wrote:But orange scum can pretty much only be used in an offensive way. You can see a baboon in the zoo.

"Baboon", while being punched in the face... can only be offensive unless you already know it's a trigger call. Even just "Orangeman" and a punch in the face would be offensive, even though there is nothing ostensibly offensive about the colour orange or the Orange Order.

Mickado wrote:By the way, I agree they need to change it. But there was no offence intended.

But there was offence taken, therein lies the problem.

If i overheard someone saying Orangeman or Orangeorder then i would know what they're talking about. If i overheard someone say baboon i wouldn't know what they were talking about unless i knew what the context was.

Because it's specific to your knowledge as an Irishman. But the situation that occurred in the Leinster V Northampton game involved three players who all speak Afrikaans.

Brian Mujati is from Zimbabwe, they do not speak Afrikaans there.

Mickado wrote:But orange scum can pretty much only be used in an offensive way. You can see a baboon in the zoo.

Rubbish - why do you think its considered racist when bananas are thrown at black footballer players. Surely they are just being nice to them? Or when soccer crowds make monkey noises? (A massive problem in Spain I believe).

Baboons, monkeys etc. have a recognised racist connotation to them when used in association with non-whites in a similar way, but opposite in direction that Lions are regarded to be a positive association with people.

I'd be pretty sure that the Leinster front row might say some very offensive things to the Ulster front row (and other way around), but I would be shocked to hear that any sectarian comments would be used by either front row to get an edge because they would know that would not be on in this island.