Pandaemonium

REACHING FOR A MORAL HIGH GROUND LONG SINCE CROWDED

Today’s Premiership clash between Chelsea and Liverpool provides a good opportunity for me to write about something about which I have been thinking for a long time – the controversy over racism in English football. Chelsea and Liverpool are the two clubs at the heart of that controversy. Earlier this year, Luis Suarez, Liverpool’s Uruguayan forward, was banned for eight matches for calling Manchester United’s Patrice Evra a ‘negrito’. Suarez insisted that this was colloquial Spanish for ‘mate’. An FA disciplinary board found him guilty of racism. More recently Chelsea (and former England) captain John Terry was accused of racially abusing Queen’s Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand during a match. This time the police got involved. Terry was charged under the criminal law with using ‘abusive language’ but was acquitted in court. After that acquittal the FA charged him with the same offence and, with a lower burden of proof, found him guilty.  Then last month, Chelsea accused a referee, Mark Clattenburg, of using ‘inappropriate’, and reportedly racist, language towards two of its players, a claim currently being investigated by both the police and the FA.

The discussion of these cases by football authorities, politicians and the media has led to a growing sense of English football as a hotbed of racism. A number of leading black players, including Rio Ferdinand and Jason Roberts, have accused Kick It Out, football’s official antiracist campaign of being ‘soft’ on racism. Some have threatened to create a breakaway union black players’ union. A national poll revealed that 40 per cent of people think that racism is ‘rife’ in football and more than half believe it will never be eliminated.

As someone who has been both watching football and fighting racism for nearly thirty years, I find much of this discussion surreal. I am, for my sins, a Liverpool fan. I am Gary Neville’s worst nightmare – probably the only person brought up in Manchester who ended up supporting the real Reds. I arrived in Britain as a six-year-old, knowing nothing about football, still less about the sociology of tribal support. By the time I found out about the bitterness of the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester United, it was too late. The tribal, irrational, unconditional nature of football support meant that I was stuck with my loyalties.

In my teenage years visiting Anfield, standing on the Kop, I was often spat on, kicked, called a ‘fucking Paki cunt’ and worse. I was hailed not infrequently with a chorus of ‘There ain’t no black in the Union Jack, so all the Pakis can fuck off back’. Not just from the visiting fans, though that often happened, but also from the Kop faithful. Not by everyone on the Kop, of course, or even by most people, but by a significant number, and a significant number that was largely tolerated. In the 70s and 80s racism was endemic in the football, and the authorities did not want to know.

Why did I carry on supporting Liverpool despite the abuse? Partly because sporting obsessions are rarely driven by rational considerations. Partly because to have stopped watching football would have been to give into racism; and I am the kind of person who, if I am told I cannot do something, I insist even more on doing it. And partly because standing on the Kop was little different then from standing on any street corner in Britain. Britain was a very different place then, and so was football.  Racism then was vicious, visceral and often fatal. Stabbings were everyday facts of life, firebombings almost weekly events, and murders all too common.

This is why the current furore over racism seems so bizarre. I cannot remember the last time I faced the kind of abuse that was so common in the eighties.  Racism still exists, of course, and needs always to be confronted, but it is relatively isolated. Indeed, it is precisely because racism is so rare that it seems so shocking when we are confronted with it.

If I cannot remember the last time I faced the kind of abuse that was so common in the seventies and eighties, nor can most players. David James was for many years the England goalkeeper, one of England’s leading black players and a highly articulate opponent of racism. ‘I struggle with the racist issue in football’ he observed recently at a ‘Leaders in Football’ conference at Stamford Bridge. Not because he faces racism all the time, but because he so rarely does. ‘I don’t see it’, James said, ‘and that’s not because I’ve got my head in the sand. In the earlier days, yes, but the game’s changed.’ In the whole of the 2010-11 season, there were just 43 arrests in England for racist or indecent chanting. A number of black players have certainly faced nasty abuse on Twitter, but that tells us more about the character of Internet discussions than it does about racism in football.

The fact that racism is rare does not mean that it should not be challenged wherever it appears. But just because racism is not right does not mean that we should pretend that it is rife.

If racism is not the issue that once it was, why the sudden interest on the part of the football authorities in combating racism? Having spent decades ignoring racism in the sport when it was a real, live issue and required a robust response, the FA is now trying to gain the moral high ground by conducting a war that has largely been won.  It would have taken guts and commitment to have stood up to racism three decades ago. Today, the FA is trying to clamber on to a moral high ground that has long since become crowded.

If the character of racism has changed over the past three decades, so too has the character of antiracism. Antiracism has all too often become less about challenging discrimination or hatred, more about moral posturing. ‘A lot of the issues that we’ve gone on about in the last season or so, it’s more about people driving the issue than the issue being a real focus’, as David James put it.

Antiracism has also increasingly become a matter of social control, of the law defining what is and is not acceptable for people to say. Consider two recent cases. Last month, Rangers fan Connor McGhie was jailed for three months for ‘religiously aggravated breach of the peace’ for singing ‘offensive songs which referred to the Pope and the Vatican and called Celtic “Fenian bastards”’. Meanwhile the Society of Black Lawyers have threatened Spurs fans with court action if they continue to refer to themselves as ‘Yids’ or the ‘Yid Army’. The Rangers fan was undoubtedly motivated by bigotry, the Spurs fans mostly by a desire to challenge bigotry. Both cases reveal, however, how antiracism in football has become part of the wider campaign to use the criminal law to ban speech deemed offensive or hateful.

I have long argued that the giving of offence, and even hate speech, should be a moral matter but not a matter for the criminal law. That is as true on the football pitch as on the streets. We should always challenge racism. We should also always challenge attacks on liberties in the guise of faux antiracism.

About these ads

4 comments

  1. mo79uk

    There’s also an issue about intent. I’m Asian but I admit I find some racist jokes funny, while understanding they’re based on gross stereotypes than reality. However, I only find them fine when they’re delivered by a friend who I know is sharing an edgy joke and is not really trying to offend me.

    It’s sort of the same thing with Paki, at least to people with ancestry to there. The word is just a contraction like Brit or Aussie, but said by a far-right supporter in a certain way it sounds nasty; just as nasty as if they didn’t contract the word. Paki said by friend in a neutral way should be fine.

    So, I guess I mean to say what one says isn’t so much as important as what one means. The odd word lapse doesn’t mean you’re racist. You can be a real racist without even using racist terminology.

  2. Certainly you got some good points here. Reducing racism to a matter of law and legal rights, can easily lead to a situation where the moral and political dimensions of racism are removed from the agenda.

    As to racism in UK before and now, in Norway, where I live, racism also used to be manifest a few decades back, compared to now. One reason is that a considerable segment of people of Pakistani origin (which used to be the largest immigrant group from outside Europe, now overtaken by Somalis, I think), experience a different social status compared to their parents. Surprisingly many (females in particular) goes to universities, and quite a few distinguish themselves in the media as e.g. prolific lawyers or successful businessmen. To the Norwegian public, these persons become icons for the “secular” (and hence acceptable) muslims.

    Persons of Pakistani origin who belongs to the lower classes, however, probably experience more racism, which also is more direct and harsh in its form, than those who have “climbed the ladder”. Moreover, the Somalis have taken over the former status of the Pakistanis as the ”paria caste” among immigrants, and their experience with racism is certainly quite different than that of the new generation of Pakistani origin.

    In other words, racism may be experienced quite differently depending on which position in society one has. Racism is not only about “races”, but perhaps just s much about social classes. We should subsequently be cautious about drawing too generalizing conclusions about its prevalence.

  3. I’m nowhere near as eloquent as you Kenan. Whilst I love your blog and read it avidly, I usually fail to write a comment because I just don’t think I can add anything! Today, however, I’ll make an exception because this is an argument particularly close to my heart and I’ve written about this myself when Blatter made his unfortunate comment. My post is here:

    http://kenthinksaloud.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/blatter-and-the-nanny-state/

    I make similar points to you though, as I’ve already said, I don’t do so with your eloquence and rigorous argument.
    As you say, the PC brigade are jumping on a bandwagon that is already a battle mostly won. I remember the 70s and 80s, seeing racism from a white point of view, and can appreciate how far the UK has come but also how far it has to go. We may not talk insultingly about ‘pakis’ any more, but instead we shake our heads at the ‘awful immigration’ problem and complain about aid given to other ‘undeserving’ countries. True racism is not found on the hard and simple football ground. It’s grown up, become sophisticated and wound its way into the infrastructure of the country.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,786 other followers