Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

First topic message reminder :

From BBC

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35887510

beshocked wrote:
1) Might constitute "racism" according to the UK law but it doesn't make it a logical or reasonable law. Why should gypsies be given special protective status? It does matter that one form of abuse is acceptable and one isn't.

There's no "might" about it: the law is clear.

beshocked wrote:
2) I do argue that the law is wrong to make abuse of one group unacceptable but others acceptable. It's "racist" to call someone Gypsy Boy but sheep shagger would have been fine....

I personally think abusing another person in any way is a poor way to behave. Are they different levels of abuse? Sure. In the same way a professional boxer who assaults a frail elderly person with his fists would probably be seen to have committed a more grievous offence than the other way around. Can it appear that some of the lines drawn are at best, arbitrary? Sure, again. But that is not really relevant as to whether Marler committed an offence, is it? A much more general debate over what should or shouldn't constitute racism is completely different to whether it did. Now by all means create a pressure group to have the laws changed, but don't argue that what Marler did wasn't racist because in your opinion Gypsies aren't a race. Your opinion, or anyone else's, has no relevance to the law.

beshocked wrote:
3) Lee was offended, okay and no one in the entire world has ever been called anything hurtful? Gypsy Boy in my opinion is very low on the insult scale and in terms of crimes is low too. What Marler did was wrong but it's been turned into a media circus.

My point was in response to those saying that he wasn't offended, and that that should therefore be the end of the matter. Yes, it's not a grievous crime, he shouldn't be thrown into prison and the key tossed away. Has it dragged on unnecessarily? Maybe, but that's partly down to an IMO ridiculous and contradictory judgement from the 6N panel. Letting someone off because it was "heat of the moment" is silly, as all offences are "heat of the moment", and contradicts all previous action they've ever taken.

beshocked wrote:
4) The incident should be concluded. It shouldn't be dragged on and on and turned into a media circus. It's something that should have been dealt with internally. I don't disagree with a punishment for Marler - I disagree with the way it's been handled. It's been made a much bigger deal than it should be.

See my previous response. Had Marler been handed a two week ban say, I doubt it would have dragged on at all. I completely disagree it should have been dealt with internally though. Why should this offence be different to a tip tackle, punch thrown, or any other offence punishable on the field of play?

beshocked wrote:
Fat people aren't a race so of course it's acceptable to abuse people because of their weight.....

The problem in our society it's acceptable to abuse someone for being different and get away with it but only if you don't fit a certain category.

Bashing the rich and white - that's fine. The overweight - sure why not? Bash Christians? Sure. Call the Welsh sheep shaggers? Acceptable.

If you do the same on hot topics like disabilities,women,homosexuals, black people you have to be very careful indeed. Now I don't have anything against anyone who fits those categories but "banter" interpreted wrongly could get someone in hot water.

Now you might say fair enough - is abusing someone for being wealthy right? For being different?

It's still intolerance. Just one that is accepted.

There's actually an interesting debate to be had somewhere here. Are some minorities seen as more "fair game" than others? Certainly it would appear so (though I see much more Muslim-bashing than Christian-bashing going on in the world around me). Is this right? I'm not sure I have an easy answer. Like I said, I think any sort of abuse is wrong, but there are abuses I think are worse than others, and groups who it is worse to abuse than others... A long philosophical debate on this could be a fascinating thing, but I am meant to be at work, and not sure this is the time of place for it TBH.

bumble I doubt Marler would have been in this amount of trouble if he had called Lee a sheep shagger.

After all on what basis? Would it be seen as an insult to the proud community of sheep shaggers? Could it be construed as racist?Discrimination against sheep perhaps? Maybe fornicators?

I am not saying it's right to call Welsh people sheepshaggers. I am saying it's generally an accepted stereotype even though it's of course inaccurate.

Just as Scottish people allegedly live on only deep fried Mars bars, English people are uncouth,arrogant football hooligans whose normal destination abroard is Magaluf or Benidorm.

beshocked wrote:bumble I doubt Marler would have been in this amount of trouble if he had called Lee a sheep shagger.

After all on what basis? Would it be seen as an insult to the proud community of sheep shaggers? Could it be construed as racist?Discrimination against sheep perhaps? Maybe fornicators?

I am not saying it's right to call Welsh people sheepshaggers. I am saying it's generally an accepted stereotype even though it's of course inaccurate.

Just as Scottish people allegedly live on only deep fried Mars bars, English people are uncouth,arrogant football hooligans whose normal destination abroard is Magaluf or Benidorm.

We'll never know what amount of trouble Marler would have been in had he called Lee a "Taffy Muppet" or a "Welsh boy" or a "Sheepshagger" etc.

The fact is, he didn't do that. He chose to pick a fight with Lee and abuse his heritage instead.

If you pick a fight with someone and insult their heritage, you deserve all you get. Which should be considerable punishment. Ian Ritchie and John Feehan should also get sacked over this. They've been an absolute disgrace to Northern Hemisphere rugby.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

beshocked wrote:
1) Might constitute "racism" according to the UK law but it doesn't make it a logical or reasonable law. Why should gypsies be given special protective status? It does matter that one form of abuse is acceptable and one isn't.

There's no "might" about it: the law is clear.

The law is not clear about it at all, it states that Gypsies are an ethnic minority (not a race) but it does not state whether the use of the word Gypsy is racism which it quite clearly is not.

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

Hurt and anger? Yes, you can feel those things, for they are emotions.
Offended? No, that is not an emotion, it is an invention of the society we live in.

You just invented that.

To offend is to cause hurt. The comment by Marler was to cause hurt. The reaction of Lee demonstrates quite clearly that he found the comment to be offensive. The comment did what it was designed to do. It caused hurt.

Even if Lee didn't find the comment offensive (he did), others did. Marler didn't simply insult an individual, he insulted a people group, a minority. In fact, he insulted two different minorities - the Travellers and the Gypsies.

6N's decision not to take action is baffling. It was clearly a racist comment, caught on mic, and it's clear that some sort of penalty should have been imposed, on Marler. Did they really think by brushing it under the carpet it would simply be forgot about? Because of their refusal to take action against Marler, the issue has now become more complex, as WR has had to step in. Stupid.

How exactly did he insult any group of people or are you talking out your arse like everyone else.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:How exactly did he insult any group of people or are you talking out your arse like everyone else.

You're not big on brains:

What’s meant by race?

The Equality Act says it’s only unlawful discrimination if you’re treated unfairly because of certain reasons. These reasons are called protected characteristics. Race is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

It’s race discrimination if you’re treated unfairly because of one of the following things:

colour
nationality
ethnic origin
national origin.
Some Gypsies and Travellers are protected against discrimination on the basis of their ethnic origins.

Are all Gypsies and Travellers protected against race discrimination?

The courts have said that Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are protected against race discrimination because they’re ethnic groups under the Equality Act.


What’s an ethnic group?

The law says an ethnic group is a group who share the same history and cultural traditions. In addition, the group may share one or more of the following things:

the same language
the same religion
the same literature
the same geographical origin
being an oppressed group
being a minority.
It’s the courts who decide who can be an ethnic group. Gypsies and Travellers who have not been recognised as ethnic groups by the courts, are not currently protected against race discrimination under the Equality Act.

That is all very interesting but does nothing to answer the question posed, nobody is disputing that Gypsies are an ethnic group, none of which you have copied and pasted makes Marler's comment offensive to the whole community.

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

Hurt and anger? Yes, you can feel those things, for they are emotions.
Offended? No, that is not an emotion, it is an invention of the society we live in.

You just invented that.

To offend is to cause hurt. The comment by Marler was to cause hurt. The reaction of Lee demonstrates quite clearly that he found the comment to be offensive. The comment did what it was designed to do. It caused hurt.

Even if Lee didn't find the comment offensive (he did), others did. Marler didn't simply insult an individual, he insulted a people group, a minority. In fact, he insulted two different minorities - the Travellers and the Gypsies.

6N's decision not to take action is baffling. It was clearly a racist comment, caught on mic, and it's clear that some sort of penalty should have been imposed, on Marler. Did they really think by brushing it under the carpet it would simply be forgot about? Because of their refusal to take action against Marler, the issue has now become more complex, as WR has had to step in. Stupid.

Being offended is a choice. You choose to take offence, or you don't.

Bernard Hopkins once said to Joe Calzaghe - "I will never let a white boy beat me." Calzaghe chose not to take offence, in this instance.

I presume all these people dragging up the law of England and Wales also want Joe Marler to be hauled before a magistrate as well, for committing a public order offence?

At the end of the day, it's sport. Things get said on the pitch. They should bloody well stay on the pitch. Far worse things than 'Gypsy boy' have been uttered on the field of play, where no further action has been taken.

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

Hurt and anger? Yes, you can feel those things, for they are emotions.
Offended? No, that is not an emotion, it is an invention of the society we live in.

You just invented that.

To offend is to cause hurt. The comment by Marler was to cause hurt. The reaction of Lee demonstrates quite clearly that he found the comment to be offensive. The comment did what it was designed to do. It caused hurt.

Even if Lee didn't find the comment offensive (he did), others did. Marler didn't simply insult an individual, he insulted a people group, a minority. In fact, he insulted two different minorities - the Travellers and the Gypsies.

To play devil's advocate, a friend of mine is Albanian and loves nothing better than to have a pop at the English (just banter) at which point I just refer to him as the Macedonian, which really annoys him as he sees them as inferior. Lee is an Irish traveller, not a Roma gypsy. If he was insulted at being compared to a Roma gypsy, rather than seeing 'gypsy boy' as a derogatory term about his background, then who is the racist?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That is all very interesting but does nothing to answer the question posed, nobody is disputing that Gypsies are an ethnic group, none of which you have copied and pasted makes Marler's comment offensive to the whole community.

Sorry, I forgot to add the link Race

It was in response to those arguing that the comment can't be defined as racist. Legally, it can.

Of course any abusive/offensive comment which cites an ethic minority, with the intent of offending an individual, is not only offensive to that individual, but offensive to the whole community.

Sorry but that is complete and utter garbage, an offensive comment made to an individual is offensive to only them not the whole community as a whole.

Again you have done nothing to say how the comment can be defined as racist, all you have done is copy and paste a few paragraphs stating that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are under UK Law deemed to be Ethnic groups.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Sorry but that is complete and utter garbage, an offensive comment made to an individual is offensive to only them not the whole community as a whole.
.

Absolute 100% horse manure.

So if a player called Itoje the N word, it's picked up by Microphone, but nobody on the pitch hears it.......... then nobody on planet earth would have the right to find the comment offensive?

You've lost it.

Hoonercat wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

Hurt and anger? Yes, you can feel those things, for they are emotions.
Offended? No, that is not an emotion, it is an invention of the society we live in.

You just invented that.

To offend is to cause hurt. The comment by Marler was to cause hurt. The reaction of Lee demonstrates quite clearly that he found the comment to be offensive. The comment did what it was designed to do. It caused hurt.

Even if Lee didn't find the comment offensive (he did), others did. Marler didn't simply insult an individual, he insulted a people group, a minority. In fact, he insulted two different minorities - the Travellers and the Gypsies.

To play devil's advocate, a friend of mine is Albanian and loves nothing better than to have a pop at the English (just banter) at which point I just refer to him as the Macedonian, which really annoys him as he sees them as inferior. Lee is an Irish traveller, not a Roma gypsy. If he was insulted at being compared to a Roma gypsy, rather than seeing 'gypsy boy' as a derogatory term about his background, then who is the racist?

Well, we don't know exactly how Lee interpreted the comment, other than to find it offensive. Generally speaking, people do refer to travellers as Gypsies, and it's far more likely that Lee understood Marler to be referring to the Traveller community. A background that he himself has said he is proud of.
The fact is, it doesn't matter how he interpreted it, or even that if he was personally insulted, or not. What matters is that the comment was racially abusive, and so should have incurred some sort of penalty.

I think I should say; although Marler made a racist comment, it doesn't mean Marler is racist. I would doubt that. I accept it was probably just a silly comment intended to wind up an opponent. Just a very unfortunate, stupid, comment to make. I don't believe he should be hung, drawn and quartered, but because it is so much in the public eye, and because it was in fact a racist comment, some sort of action should be taken, in the hope that players may be more careful to watch their P&Q's in the future.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Sorry but that is complete and utter garbage, an offensive comment made to an individual is offensive to only them not the whole community as a whole.

Again you have done nothing to say how the comment can be defined as racist, all you have done is copy and paste a few paragraphs stating that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are under UK Law deemed to be Ethnic groups.

Hammersmith, we don't have any common ground to debate with. Seriously, if you actually believe what you write, then you are at a level I can't reach down to.

Think I will leave it there.

Munchkin wrote:Seriously, if you actually believe what you write, then you are at a level I can't reach down to.

The above text is the perfect written example of someone who can't debate.

Duty281 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Seriously, if you actually believe what you write, then you are at a level I can't reach down to.

The above text is the perfect written example of someone who can't debate.

I would say it's the perfect example of someone not willing to debate with the wilfully ignorant (it's a waste of time), but you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/key-questions-six-nations-chiefs-11090099

LordDowlais wrote:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/key-questions-six-nations-chiefs-11090099

Carling hasn't covered himself in glory over this either

https://twitter.com/willcarling/status/709849110019493888

Munchkin wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Sorry but that is complete and utter garbage, an offensive comment made to an individual is offensive to only them not the whole community as a whole.

Again you have done nothing to say how the comment can be defined as racist, all you have done is copy and paste a few paragraphs stating that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are under UK Law deemed to be Ethnic groups.

Hammersmith, we don't have any common ground to debate with. Seriously, if you actually believe what you write, then you are at a level I can't reach down to.

Think I will leave it there.

You have nothing to add so resort to personal insults, if that's your level then you're welcome to it.

bumble wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/key-questions-six-nations-chiefs-11090099

Carling hasn't covered himself in glory over this either

https://twitter.com/willcarling/status/709849110019493888

Because he would like to think that Marler's intention was antagonistic rather than racist?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Sorry but that is complete and utter garbage, an offensive comment made to an individual is offensive to only them not the whole community as a whole.

Again you have done nothing to say how the comment can be defined as racist, all you have done is copy and paste a few paragraphs stating that Gypsies and Irish Travellers are under UK Law deemed to be Ethnic groups.

Hammersmith, we don't have any common ground to debate with. Seriously, if you actually believe what you write, then you are at a level I can't reach down to.

Think I will leave it there.

You have nothing to add so resort to personal insults, if that's your level then you're welcome to it.

Considering you are not shy in dishing out the abuse, I thought you would be a bit more thick skinned, or at least not point to the faults of others, which you yourself suffer from:

"Sorry but that is complete and utter garbage"

"are you talking out your arse like everyone else"

I admit I can dish out the abuse and, as a weak defence, I only really do that as a response. I shouldn't though.

Duty281 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

Hurt and anger? Yes, you can feel those things, for they are emotions.
Offended? No, that is not an emotion, it is an invention of the society we live in.

You just invented that.

To offend is to cause hurt. The comment by Marler was to cause hurt. The reaction of Lee demonstrates quite clearly that he found the comment to be offensive. The comment did what it was designed to do. It caused hurt.

Even if Lee didn't find the comment offensive (he did), others did. Marler didn't simply insult an individual, he insulted a people group, a minority. In fact, he insulted two different minorities - the Travellers and the Gypsies.

6N's decision not to take action is baffling. It was clearly a racist comment, caught on mic, and it's clear that some sort of penalty should have been imposed, on Marler. Did they really think by brushing it under the carpet it would simply be forgot about? Because of their refusal to take action against Marler, the issue has now become more complex, as WR has had to step in. Stupid.

Being offended is a choice. You choose to take offence, or you don't.

Bernard Hopkins once said to Joe Calzaghe - "I will never let a white boy beat me." Calzaghe chose not to take offence, in this instance.

I presume all these people dragging up the law of England and Wales also want Joe Marler to be hauled before a magistrate as well, for committing a public order offence?

At the end of the day, it's sport. Things get said on the pitch. They should bloody well stay on the pitch. Far worse things than 'Gypsy boy' have been uttered on the field of play, where no further action has been taken.

Being offended is not a choice. A person is either offended (hurt) by a comment, or they are not. Because someone intends to be offensive, and fails in offending, doesn't mean that the person they intended to offend had a choice. It simply means that particular remark doesn't offend that person.

Yikes. That doesn't look good for Marler:

https://twitter.com/ScottThomas1927/status/712991743973728260

https://i.gyazo.com/91c0e67698e2fd328a6ca638660b930b.mp4

I have a bad feeling someone will be scouring the entire video now, as there were rumours of the caravan comment, being one of a number of comments made.

It's looking a bit ominous for Marler...

I do believe there are times when people go out of their way looking to be offended. It can thus be said they chose to be offended.

However when someone gets angry at the words uttered by someone else in their direction it is because they find what has been said to be offensive. The nature of this offensiveness causes anger and upset. It is apparently OK to be angry and upset, but not to be offended because this is an "artificial construct" yet it is the offensive nature of the comments that caused the anger and upset.

I feel we have been the unwitting victims of a second year philosophy student who believes they are the only intelligent person in the building.

We have been told by one poster that Marlers can be mentioned in the same breath as the holocaust - whilst a diametrically opposed poster tells us that racism does not exist and we just make it up because we want to be offended, nay enjoy seeking offence.

(Yes I may have exaggerated a bit - but to really try and highlight the absurd nature of internet arguments).

The fact is Marler knew as soon as the words were out of his mouth that he had stepped over the line. He is an intelligent and decent man and did what he could to correct matters. At the very least the 6Ns comittee committed a massive PR gaffe by failing to investigate the issue further.

I do firmly believe there are people seeking to make capital out of this and push their own agenda. People who think it is OK to abuse one group of people now shouting foul - but so what. Idiots like that will always be idiots, the people who are bleetiung that Marler can abuse someone with impunity because other people get away with pathetic abuse are being just as idiotic.

But then this board is really just a bunch of semi-literate idiots rambling on because where else will we get a reaction.


Thus:

Hi. I am LondonTiger. I have been an internet idiot for far too long.

Again doesn't really matter what peoples views on whether its racial etc. Marler acknowledged it,6 nations comittee let him off as it was heat of the moment; its not something used before so marler will justifiably get a ban.

Does 'heat of the moment' count when a similar insult has been used multiple times?

Fanster wrote:Does 'heat of the moment' count when a similar insult has been used multiple times?

7.5 is unable to answer that as he does not accept it was a reasonable defence.

Fanster wrote:I have a bad feeling someone will be scouring the entire video now, as there were rumours of the caravan comment, being one of a number of comments made.

It's looking a bit ominous for Marler...

The video quite clearly shows it above

bumble wrote:

Fanster wrote:I have a bad feeling someone will be scouring the entire video now, as there were rumours of the caravan comment, being one of a number of comments made.

It's looking a bit ominous for Marler...

The video quite clearly shows it above

The video shows what you want it to, you watched it with the preconceived idea of what was said.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

The video shows what you want it to, you watched it with the preconceived idea of what was said.

There were rumours that he said this last week. The video released this morning matches the rumours. If it was the other way round you'd have a point.

Bumble, Hammer

My point was I had heard about 2/3 other comments after the whole 'gypsy boy' parade via rumour, I didn't think they were worth listening to, and assume Marler is a decent guy who threw an inappropriate comment to antagonise Lee (Lets be honest we've all done it).

Now the video seems a bit condemning...

Speaking to the 'let Marler off' brigade is a bit like trying to debate with an army of Donald Trumps. Whenever you try setting out an argument about why something shouldn't be acceptable you just get called a unknowledgeable, oversensitive softy and a number of other small-minded slights.

End of the day I'd rather be annoyingly PC than an unsensitive, hypocritical, borderline intolerant pr!ck. Some of the so-called arguments people are using are just shocking.

Knowsit17 wrote:Speaking to the 'let Marler off' brigade is a bit like trying to debate with an army of Donald Trumps. Whenever you try setting out an argument about why something shouldn't be acceptable you just get called a unknowledgeable, oversensitive softy and a number of other small-minded slights.

End of the day I'd rather be annoyingly PC than an unsensitive, hypocritical, borderline intolerant pr!ck. Some of the so-called arguments people are using are just shocking.

>Gets escorted from venue 'USA, USA, USA'

Knowsit17 wrote:Speaking to the 'let Marler off' brigade is a bit like trying to debate with an army of Donald Trumps. Whenever you try setting out an argument about why something shouldn't be acceptable you just get called a unknowledgeable, oversensitive softy and a number of other small-minded slights.

End of the day I'd rather be annoyingly PC than an unsensitive, hypocritical, borderline intolerant pr!ck. Some of the so-called arguments people are using are just shocking.

Hurrah for the great hypocrisy of the above post.

Knowsit17 wrote:Speaking to the 'let Marler off' brigade is a bit like trying to debate with an army of Donald Trumps. Whenever you try setting out an argument about why something shouldn't be acceptable you just get called a unknowledgeable, oversensitive softy and a number of other small-minded slights.

End of the day I'd rather be annoyingly PC than an unsensitive, hypocritical, borderline intolerant pr!ck. Some of the so-called arguments people are using are just shocking.

I'd rather not think my opinion is gospel to be honest, this holier than thou attitude is pathetic. If you could explain how the comment was offensive you may not be met with such vitriol. It is the annoying PC brigade like you who are the problem.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It is the annoying PC brigade like you who are the problem.

Says the guy who made sure the mods banned me for a few days because of a comment I made about the queen

"Miss, miss, look what Steffan said. That's naughty init miss"

You really are unbelievable...

LondonTiger wrote:I do believe there are times when people go out of their way looking to be offended. It can thus be said they chose to be offended.

However when someone gets angry at the words uttered by someone else in their direction it is because they find what has been said to be offensive. The nature of this offensiveness causes anger and upset. It is apparently OK to be angry and upset, but not to be offended because this is an "artificial construct" yet it is the offensive nature of the comments that caused the anger and upset.

I feel we have been the unwitting victims of a second year philosophy student who believes they are the only intelligent person in the building.

We have been told by one poster that Marlers can be mentioned in the same breath as the holocaust - whilst a diametrically opposed poster tells us that racism does not exist and we just make it up because we want to be offended, nay enjoy seeking offence.

(Yes I may have exaggerated a bit - but to really try and highlight the absurd nature of internet arguments).

The fact is Marler knew as soon as the words were out of his mouth that he had stepped over the line. He is an intelligent and decent man and did what he could to correct matters. At the very least the 6Ns comittee committed a massive PR gaffe by failing to investigate the issue further.

I do firmly believe there are people seeking to make capital out of this and push their own agenda. People who think it is OK to abuse one group of people now shouting foul - but so what. Idiots like that will always be idiots, the people who are bleetiung that Marler can abuse someone with impunity because other people get away with pathetic abuse are being just as idiotic.

But then this board is really just a bunch of semi-literate idiots rambling on because where else will we get a reaction.


Thus:

Hi. I am LondonTiger. I have been an internet idiot for far too long.

From one idiot to another:  Well said, and pure unadulterated common sense.  

But this board is better than most.  It's just folks.  

But what do I know, mate?  I am an idiot too.

LondonTiger has said it best. For those who deny this is racism. Get a grip. For those who run to law to define racism... Look at the dangers having those laws can cause wider society (went into that on a previous thread).

This is not the defend the racists. There is, however, a double standard on offense. A hard core religious person may be offended by gay people. We reject that offense as important in current society. There are good arguments why, however, you can see how the rules on what is allowed be offensive in polite society seems weird, even bigoted for those who do not share the wider society's values to the letter. People do not choose to be offended. But we (society) choose which times we care about the offended. And that shifts through time as what is socially accepted changes.

On balance PC is good. It has allowed hugely disadvantage groups to have legitimate grievances be acknowledged and improved upon. But we should not forget that it is a sloppy system and while appeals to 'PC gone mad' are often silly, there are times people have a point.

LondonTiger wrote:I do believe there are times when people go out of their way looking to be offended. It can thus be said they chose to be offended.

However when someone gets angry at the words uttered by someone else in their direction it is because they find what has been said to be offensive. The nature of this offensiveness causes anger and upset. It is apparently OK to be angry and upset, but not to be offended because this is an "artificial construct" yet it is the offensive nature of the comments that caused the anger and upset.

I feel we have been the unwitting victims of a second year philosophy student who believes they are the only intelligent person in the building.

We have been told by one poster that Marlers can be mentioned in the same breath as the holocaust - whilst a diametrically opposed poster tells us that racism does not exist and we just make it up because we want to be offended, nay enjoy seeking offence.

(Yes I may have exaggerated a bit - but to really try and highlight the absurd nature of internet arguments).

The fact is Marler knew as soon as the words were out of his mouth that he had stepped over the line. He is an intelligent and decent man and did what he could to correct matters. At the very least the 6Ns comittee committed a massive PR gaffe by failing to investigate the issue further.

I do firmly believe there are people seeking to make capital out of this and push their own agenda. People who think it is OK to abuse one group of people now shouting foul - but so what. Idiots like that will always be idiots, the people who are bleetiung that Marler can abuse someone with impunity because other people get away with pathetic abuse are being just as idiotic.

But then this board is really just a bunch of semi-literate idiots rambling on because where else will we get a reaction.


Thus:

Hi. I am LondonTiger. I have been an internet idiot for far too long.

My final contribution to this thread was to point fellow posters to the excellent article by Robert Kitson in his Sportblog in yesterday's Guardian.Then I read your post.

I was the poster who raised the Holocaust and i'd like to clarify why I did that.Drawing support from many non-National Socialist Germans and other population groups across Europe who harboured social prejudice towards the Roma,the National Socialists judged the Roma racially inferior.There was of course no right of appeal.It was only in 1982 that West Germany recognised the genocide of the Roma.Other European Governments took until the early years of this century.

My punishment for Marler,Gats,Jones and Lee would be for them to read the book by Ian Henderson,"Porajmos:The Romani Holocaust(1933-1945)".Perhaps you could read it too.

Samson Lee is of course an Irish Traveller not a Romani Gypsy.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Speaking to the 'let Marler off' brigade is a bit like trying to debate with an army of Donald Trumps. Whenever you try setting out an argument about why something shouldn't be acceptable you just get called a unknowledgeable, oversensitive softy and a number of other small-minded slights.

End of the day I'd rather be annoyingly PC than an unsensitive, hypocritical, borderline intolerant pr!ck. Some of the so-called arguments people are using are just shocking.

I'd rather not think my opinion is gospel to be honest, this holier than thou attitude is pathetic. If you could explain how the comment was offensive you may not be met with such vitriol. It is the annoying PC brigade like you who are the problem.

If you believe that the issue of PC is of greater concern than racism, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice then all I can say is I find your thinking to be warped beyond belief.

I never said my opinion is gospel, I said it's my opinion. It is yourself and only yourself who is choosing to interpret my comments as such. Your remarks regarding my attitude are arbitrary and totally baseless. Do you always see red when somebody's opinion differs from your own?

In the end my frustration stems from what I percieve to be a blase, tolerant, 'let it go' attitude towards discrimination expressed by an unfortunate number of individuals. By professional individuals and organisations as well as people on this forum. It was a serious action no matter how much you may deny it. Marler himself recognised this after the fact, which is why he took it upon himself to apologise. An apology isn't quite sufficient (though I'd grant it is mitigating) which is why formal action was required. This isn't even so much about the incident itself as the 6N's failure to act when they were expected to uphold the values of the game.

Oh and btw, I and others have already strenuously tried to explain why the comment was offensive. It WAS offensive as at the specific time it did elicit a hostile reaction from Lee. You might as well review the footage yourself or scroll back through this thread to review the arguments you've thus far been ignoring.

I've been ignoring them because I don't agree with them and to be honest your whole attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you stinks, you haven't explained anything you've just written a load of nothing. Overt PC is a bigger problem than what Marler said because it simply was not racist, discriminatory or bigoted.

Well everyone involvved have accepted it shouldn't be said.

wolfball wrote:LondonTiger has said it best. For those who deny this is racism. Get a grip. For those who run to law to define racism... Look at the dangers having those laws can cause wider society (went into that on a previous thread).

This is not the defend the racists. There is, however, a double standard on offense. A hard core religious person may be offended by gay people. We reject that offense as important in current society. There are good arguments why, however, you can see how the rules on what is allowed be offensive in polite society seems weird, even bigoted for those who do not share the wider society's values to the letter. People do not choose to be offended. But we (society) choose which times we care about the offended. And that shifts through time as what is socially accepted changes.

On balance PC is good. It has allowed hugely disadvantage groups to have legitimate grievances be acknowledged and improved upon. But we should not forget that it is a sloppy system and while appeals to 'PC gone mad' are often silly, there are times people have a point.

Thank you Wolfball a measure of sanity in a sea of madness

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I've been ignoring them because I don't agree with them and to be honest your whole attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you stinks, you haven't explained anything you've just written a load of nothing. Overt PC is a bigger problem than what Marler said because it simply was not racist, discriminatory or bigoted.

You've just admitted you're ignoring arguments. If you disagree with them why not address them directly and specify where and how you disagree. How you come to the conclusion that ignoring people wins a point I can't say.

Whether Marler's comment was racist or bigoted is a matter of interpretation. As people say the law interprets it as technically racist but people might disagree on specific terminology. However it WAS discriminatory, which is effectively related and can lead on to racism and bigotry. It was discriminatory because it singled him out based on background. The lightness of the wording is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Marler's intentions at the moment he said it was to elicit a negative reaction from Lee and he got his wish. Lee DID react aggressively at the time. That's essentially a form of targeted discriminatory provocation regardless of the reconciliation which occurred afterwards.

As for the rest, like I said you're welcome to scroll back and read the arguments set out in posts throughout this thread. I do not feel like reciting what's already been written.

The law does not interpret it as racist, the law interprets Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers to be ethnic minorities, that does not mean comments made against someone of that heritage is racist. Rugby players react aggressively all the time and in fact Lee was already acting in an aggressive manner before the comment was even made.

Knowsit17 wrote:
If you believe that the issue of PC is of greater concern than racism, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice then all I can say is I find your thinking to be warped beyond belief.

But these days PC is just that. It's the reason why people like Trump can get a great following. Let's think about it for a moment, "gypsy boy" - come on... Not much in that! Gatland and Lee himself said it how it is.