Banned for your beliefs

[Fen Canary 1,383]

4 minutes ago, chicken said:

We've been over this - the "majority on here" said that "declining to show support" in this instance would be to refuse to play in the shirt with the logo on. He elected to play, but to essentially remove an inclusivity logo from his shirt.

Little has said they feel that corporations should be allowed to express support for such symbols on uniforms or in commercial spaces. That's kind of a side issue because as things stand they are.

Do I think he should be punished if he had chosen not to play due to the shirt - no. Would he have been, probably due to obligations in his contract.

The question you posed here Fen, was do people feel it was fair to punish him for his beliefs. The reality is that if he refused to follow his employers directions or the contract obligations that he has, then that dictates that he is punished.

On the principle of covering up a non political logo that isn't owned and doesn't belong to anyone but that represents a community, yes, I think it's censoring. If it is on the outside of a building that is a charity or group that works with and for that community etc and is blanked out by an individual who believes that LGBTQ+ is immoral then yes, they deserve to be punished.

Any hateful attack on any such symbol should be treated as just that, hateful, whether you personally align with it or not.

Again, the big problem here is, we are in a different country, with different cultures and cultural and societal expectations than Monaco and France. What we think is therefore going to be different to them. It hasn't happened here yet.

 

As I’ve said, we’ll agree to disagree as this is simply going round in circles.

I don’t think it’s morally right for people to force others to show support for causes they don’t wish to support, with threats of punishment if they don’t fall into line. I think that’s an incredibly authoritarian direction for a society to take as the causes you currently support won’t always be the ones in vogue.

You believe it’s fine for employers to force their employees to show support certain causes because you deem them to be above discussion, therefore anybody who doesn’t wish to toe the line is obviously beyond the pale and deserving of any punishment that comes their way as a result.

[chicken 3,004]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

As I’ve said, we’ll agree to disagree as this is simply going round in circles.

I don’t think it’s morally right for people to force others to show support for causes they don’t wish to support, with threats of punishment if they don’t fall into line. I think that’s an incredibly authoritarian direction for a society to take as the causes you currently support won’t always be the ones in vogue.

You believe it’s fine for employers to force their employees to show support certain causes because you deem them to be above discussion, therefore anybody who doesn’t wish to toe the line is obviously beyond the pale and deserving of any punishment that comes their way as a result.

Completely demonstrated the opposite by actually being open to discussion with both you and Little. You've claimed to have an open mind about it but refuse to take on any views shared to the contrary.

Others have actually tried to suggest that racism isn't a cause, neither is homophobia or transphobia. A cause is more like raising money for famine, or awareness of some sort. Little has suggested it's political and given a small reason as to why, though it is a personal take on why it is political.

I have asked what makes it different from the kick it out logo that is frequently promoted? You haven't answered that. In fact Little hasn't really either.

If you could find out why the logo is on the shirts it might be a little easier than relying upon interpretation.

Ultimately what this comes down to is both you and Little's interpretation of a logo which you see as politically controversial. Little said he didn't believe that corporate bodies should be permitted to display any such logos full stop. You said you didn't think it was right for an individual to be punished for their beliefs. Two very different stances.

It's been pointed out that there is legal precedence for being punished for your beliefs if they don't fall within the parameters of law within the society hat the act was partaken in.

You agreed to disagree not me, and you did so because you didn't want to discuss it.

To be fair to little, he has, and entertained questions - which is what free society does. 

[Newtopia 563]

17 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

They can insist on the uniform, however I’m not sure they can force you to show support for groups that match their preferred political or moral leanings 

Ultimately we live a free country (well sort of) and the company can’t ’force’ them to do anything, but normally a company is also free to discipline people for not aligning with their values or complying with a reasonable request.  I have only heard of cases, not been directly involved, it seems a messy area (with some situations) where there is lot of interpretation of what is reasonable and what is the company values really mean- these are rare.

Yet if the discussion point is around one of the legally protected characteristics (Sexuality is one - so is political opinion) then that is a totally different ball game with dismissal being end result most times in a large company.

Edited June 1 by Newtopia

[Duncan Edwards 2,373]

So, is this thread gay or not? And what religion is it? 

[Fen Canary 1,383]

5 hours ago, chicken said:

Completely demonstrated the opposite by actually being open to discussion with both you and Little. You've claimed to have an open mind about it but refuse to take on any views shared to the contrary.

Others have actually tried to suggest that racism isn't a cause, neither is homophobia or transphobia. A cause is more like raising money for famine, or awareness of some sort. Little has suggested it's political and given a small reason as to why, though it is a personal take on why it is political.

I have asked what makes it different from the kick it out logo that is frequently promoted? You haven't answered that. In fact Little hasn't really either.

If you could find out why the logo is on the shirts it might be a little easier than relying upon interpretation.

Ultimately what this comes down to is both you and Little's interpretation of a logo which you see as politically controversial. Little said he didn't believe that corporate bodies should be permitted to display any such logos full stop. You said you didn't think it was right for an individual to be punished for their beliefs. Two very different stances.

It's been pointed out that there is legal precedence for being punished for your beliefs if they don't fall within the parameters of law within the society hat the act was partaken in.

You agreed to disagree not me, and you did so because you didn't want to discuss it.

To be fair to little, he has, and entertained questions - which is what free society does. 

I dont believe they are two separate stances, I believe they’re linked in this case. The logo represents a cause, and I don’t believe anybody should be forced to support any cause against their wishes. If a company tries to force an employee to wear something that signifies support for a chosen cause against the employees wishes (and threatens punishment if they don’t) then I believe that’s morally wrong. Therefore I believe LYB is correct that an employer shouldn’t be allowed to force an employee to wear something that proclaims support for any cause, group, charity etc.

[scoop 53]

2 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

So, is this thread gay or not? And what religion is it? 

That's a brave comment for this thread, gotta admire your commitment ... top bants 😅

[canarybubbles 2,148]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I dont believe they are two separate stances, I believe they’re linked in this case. The logo represents a cause, and I don’t believe anybody should be forced to support any cause against their wishes. If a company tries to force an employee to wear something that signifies support for a chosen cause against the employees wishes (and threatens punishment if they don’t) then I believe that’s morally wrong. Therefore I believe LYB is correct that an employer shouldn’t be allowed to force an employee to wear something that proclaims support for any cause, group, charity etc.

You list 'cause, group, charity', but how about commercial enterprises which offer products such as gambling, alcohol, soft po*n, etc? Are they OK because they are in it for profit, so employees can be forced to wear their advertising slogans? We can all remember the brouhaha around the Thai company which almost became our sponsor. I suspect most people would argue that in this situation a player would be contractually bound to wear the shirt or choose to leave the club.

You yourself say in a previous comment that everything is political, and I agree with you about that. But does the argument change so obviously if the politics is covert rather than overt?

In reality, of course, players would end up wearing the advertising slogan because a situation where anyone could object to anything would be sheer chaos (like the example someone gave earlier of a strongly vegan employee refusing to sell burgers). I am just concerned that commercial companies get an easier ride than charities, simply because of what they are. It's similar to how some religious people assume they have greater rights because of their religious beliefs. Things get neatly divided into 'political' (e.g. LGBT groups) and 'non-political' (e.g. business and religious belief).

Also in reality, people and institutions generally make murky compromises. That's life, and although this is perhaps a form of hypocrisy, sometimes it's the best solution.

Edited June 2 by canarybubbles

[wcorkcanary 4,609]

5 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

So, is this thread gay or not? And what religion is it? 

Need more of this on a sunday morning. Congrats.

[Nexus_Canary 1,161]

15 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’d support him covering some symbols demanded by his employer but not others? Who gets to decide which ones are ok to be taped over and which ones are worthy of punishment? Don’t you think that opens a rather tricky can of worms? 

No I don't because frankly if your a homophobe you should keep that bigotry to yourself.

Hiding it behind a religious curtain does not make it ok. 

Move to Russia or somewhere that backwards thinking is supported.

 

( I'm not aiming that at you fen I'm aiming it at the player as the wording could seem a bit iffy)

Edited June 2 by Nexus_Canary

[shefcanary 2,854]

19 hours ago, chicken said:

Sort of. Charities might be non profit but it doesn't make them "not-for-profit". It's another topic at the moment that often gets discussed as charities are murkier than you'd think.

For examples, a lot of Private Schools set up their own charities that pay into the school. The charity might be non-profit but it is set up to pay into a very profitable system. In many cases it's to take advantage of tax relief on donations to charities and knowing that their pupils come from wealthy families. That's just one example.

Some charities are set up directly by corporate bodies so the body itself can donate to charity to get tax relief.

Then there is the entire sponsorship of charities to promote PR and again tax relief. And as you say, they can be political in some way, shape or form, so businesses shouldn't be allowed to promote those either - so none of those Tesco blue token things, or charity collection boxes etc.

It is to note that the Charity Commission are supposedly more thorough nowadays when approving an organisation as being a registered charity. It still seems a bit hit and miss, but one of the organisations I chair took nearly 10 years to achieve charitable status as the Commission checked and rechecked how some of the income from secondary activities we delivered (an annual conference, the sale of old promotional material (?), even short educational programmes) benefitted both our target audience and supported the charitable work we delivered. It was very frustrating process as we were aware of charities based a coupe of miles away that we felt weren't really a charity got registered in less than 6 months! Proving again it depends on the personal view of the officer dealing with your case that matters, not the system! 

[Fromage Frais 14]

This is a very interesting thread.

There are some precedents.

Idrissa Gueye > missing a match due to rainbow design on kit (mentioned as a possible action on here)

Anel Ahmedhodzic > did not wish to wear a rainbow captains armband
 

To play devils advocate here it is easy for people in the UK in most communities to consider such symbols as non political and settled arguments.  You are safe to defend them and have a go at those whom may not agree with you.

In other countries it is not the case and sadly homosexuality is a criminal custodial offence, in some it is potentially a capital punishment offence.  

So what to us is a risk/cost free chance to signal our virtue/solidarity, to them may well cause harm, loss or maybe even danger/prosecution in their home countries for them or their families.




 

Edited June 2 by Fromage Frais

[littleyellowbirdie 3,047]

On 31/05/2024 at 22:36, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I completely agree with the decision to ban him.

Imagine if a player covered up an anti-racism patch on the basis that they're an open racist who hates black people. They'd be sacked on the spot. 

So why should it be any different when a player covers up an anti-homophobia patch because they're openly against homosexually?

Hiding behind religion is a load of bull. If your religion is teaching you to hate, and in some cases kill, someone because of their sexual preferences which are none of your concern, you don't have to blindly follow.

Hatred and persecution of others isn't free speech either, and those that do it are the intolerant ones, not the people who punish intolerance.

I'm going to massively backtrack.

With all the talk of rainbow flags, I completely missed that he was not covering up a rainbow flag, but specifically an anti-homophobia logo.

Given that's the case, I can't see how his action can't be viewed as anything other than promoting a specific prejudice that is very clearly illegal, so he totally deserves punishment. To be honest, I think given how specific it is, arguably it should be considered a hate crime.

With that said, I stiill think it's stupid for a body to make a big thing of being against something that's illegal; they've also made it very easy to present the footballer as being a victim of something, when he very clearly isn't. Given he's not a French national, I actually think there's a strong argument for deporting him.

Edited June 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[Robert N. LiM 5,754]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I'm going to massively backtrack.

Fair play to you- that happens vanishingly rarely on the Internet.

 

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

With that said, I stiill think it's stupid for a body to make a big thing of being against something that's illegal;

Not sure of the situation in France but had this been in England my response to this would have been that football remains, shamefully, miles behind our society in general when it comes to acceptance of male homosexuality

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

10 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I dont believe they are two separate stances, I believe they’re linked in this case. The logo represents a cause, and I don’t believe anybody should be forced to support any cause against their wishes. If a company tries to force an employee to wear something that signifies support for a chosen cause against the employees wishes (and threatens punishment if they don’t) then I believe that’s morally wrong. Therefore I believe LYB is correct that an employer shouldn’t be allowed to force an employee to wear something that proclaims support for any cause, group, charity etc.

What if a Norwich player signed a contract to join us, knowing that our shirt sponsor was Lotus, and then refused to wear it because they are environmentalists who don't believe in sports cars?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,488]

10 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

What if a Norwich player signed a contract to join us, knowing that our shirt sponsor was Lotus, and then refused to wear it because they are environmentalists who don't believe in sports cars?

We'd offer them a Lotus Eletre.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

We'd offer them a Lotus Eletre.

What about when the sponsor was Flybe?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,488]

22 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

What about when the sponsor was Flybe?

Let's be honest, all teams fly to away games at this level nowadays so any player who is against flying won't play professional football, unless they're prepared to spend a hell of a lot of time in an electric car. The biggest environmentalist I can think of among professional footballers is Morten Thorsby, and to the best of my knowledge, he uses planes. 

I suppose a more realistic example would be a gambling or alcohol sponsor, and I'm sure the club would be happy for the player to use an unbranded shirt. Even the sponsor would probably be pleased because it would be drawing attention to them.

[hogesar 10,387]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Fair play to you- that happens vanishingly rarely on the Internet.

 

Not sure of the situation in France but had this been in England my response to this would have been that football remains, shamefully, miles behind our society in general when it comes to acceptance of male homosexuality

Although, not as many miles behind as some of these religions - of course it depends on the individual in terms of how in-depth or entrenched they are, and before anyone says, it doesn't pertain to just one religion. I do get the argument that one is certainly more vocal about it in the modern era than others.

There is so much to do to work on the above without offending religion, as dated as I find it to be. The oppression of women in particular seems completely incompatible with modern society yet there seems very, very little publicity in helping that.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

12 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Although, not as many miles behind as some of these religions - of course it depends on the individual in terms of how in-depth or entrenched they are, and before anyone says, it doesn't pertain to just one religion. I do get the argument that one is certainly more vocal about it in the modern era than others.

There is so much to do to work on the above without offending religion, as dated as I find it to be. The oppression of women in particular seems completely incompatible with modern society yet there seems very, very little publicity in helping that.

I just find it a bit of a contradiction that some are saying that football and politics shouldn't mix on one hand, while on the other hand saying that football has to allow itself to be bent over by those with religious sensitivities.

[hogesar 10,387]

1 minute ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I just find it a bit of a contradiction that some are saying that football and politics shouldn't mix on one hand, while on the other hand saying that football has to allow itself to be bent over by those with religious sensitivities.

Yeah, I agree. I also think football can be a force for good, and inevitably politics will creep in like it does with most things in life one way or another.

[TheGunnShow 7,094]

52 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Although, not as many miles behind as some of these religions - of course it depends on the individual in terms of how in-depth or entrenched they are, and before anyone says, it doesn't pertain to just one religion. I do get the argument that one is certainly more vocal about it in the modern era than others.

There is so much to do to work on the above without offending religion, as dated as I find it to be. The oppression of women in particular seems completely incompatible with modern society yet there seems very, very little publicity in helping that.

Frankly, regarding the bit in bold, if religious beliefs are so far behind justified, reasoned opinion with nothing to justify the reason why beyond "but our goatherder's guide the galaxy says so" then I see no reason to respect them, frankly. Totally agree with the last sentence.

Personally I would say the whole thing is about religious fundamentalists, regardless of stripe, arguing for special treatment masquerading under the mantle of "free speech" or "freedom of thought". They want to spread an unjustified, disparaging view of a normal brand of sexuality without penalty.

Edited June 2 by TheGunnShow

[mrD66M 149]

On 01/06/2024 at 06:27, TheGunnShow said:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

(Karl Pöpper - The Open Society And Its Enemies)

Herein lies the issue. There is no sensible, reasonable argument buttressing any belief that homosexuality is "inferior", "unacceptable", or "sinful". Some say it may be contradictory to be intolerant when generally promoting the notion of tolerance, but affording a freedom of belief to those who don't consider a group based on an inherent characteristic such as sexuality to be equal is likewise a paradox.

S#!T I hadn't seen this before. Excellent quote and post.

Edited June 2 by mrD66M

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

So in conclusion, Mohamed Camara is so insecure in his own sexuality that he isn't prepared to back an anti-Homophobia campaign in case his mates back in Mali get wind of his penchant for a cheeky look at the other sections on Xhamster.

Is that what we're saying?

[Newtopia 563]

9 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

What if a Norwich player signed a contract to join us, knowing that our shirt sponsor was Lotus, and then refused to wear it because they are environmentalists who don't believe in sports cars?

Or a director of football who doesn’t care about the football if it is played by a particular gender.

These discussions are hard, almost everyone ends up caught in the ‘I believe in free speech’ but not that speech.

My view is that speech should be free, as should the right to counter the comments and call it out for what it is.  Moaning about cancel culture is a different argument, if people do not want to listen and as a result they become unpopular - that is life.  

[canarybubbles 2,148]

According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, 98 percent^[a] of Malian adults believed that homosexuality is considered something society should not accept, which was the highest rate of non-acceptance in the 45 countries surveyed. (From Wikipedia)

So if he's homophobic, it's no surprise.  Most of us tend to end up believing what everyone else believes in our society and we can't expect Camara to be any different from the rest of us.

Edited June 3 by canarybubbles

[littleyellowbirdie 3,047]

2 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, 98 percent^[a] of Malian adults believed that homosexuality is considered something society should not accept, which was the highest rate of non-acceptance in the 45 countries surveyed. (From Wikipedia)

So if he's homophobic, it's no surprise.  Most of us tend to end up believing what everyone else believes in our society and we can't expect Camara to be any different from the rest of us.

Absolutely; had a Western player been in Mali and been forced to wear a shirt professing homosexuals to be bad and covered up the motifs, what would the reaction have been?

The distinction beween disapproving of homosexuality and being disapproving of homosexuals is an important one. The first has to be tolerated, albeit discouraged, as a viewpoint in an inclusive multicultural society, but the second can't be; protesting against anti-homophopia crossed over into the second category.

Edited June 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 3,047]

Seriously, who bought flipping rainbows into this discussion? It wasn't a rainbow he covered up, it was an anti-homopohobia motif.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,196]

15 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

What about when the sponsor was Flybe?

If he was an environmentalist how would he have got to the interview/medical?.............

[Captain Holt 580]

Is this any different to Farke and Zimmerman not taking the knee to support Black Lives Matter, a similarly anti-prejudice message?

[Newtopia 563]

1 minute ago, Captain Holt said:

Is this any different to Farke and Zimmerman not taking the knee to support Black Lives Matter, a similarly anti-prejudice message?

Totally right, Zimmerman made a stand, we all argued about the merits, and some people didn’t like Zimmerman as much and some thought he was a champion of free speech.  It would be interesting to know what the club felt.