Clarets sign Muslim Athlete Charter

[Greenmile]

You obviously didn't see the humour in "who" comment the poster made, it did need a sense of humour to appreciate it.

I mean, it wasn't that funny - a bit of a dad joke really - but I couldn't help myself.

I was a little surprised when it got a serious answer, though. Why would I ask on here who he is? I have access to Google.

[Nori1958]

I mean, it wasn't that funny - a bit of a dad joke really - but I couldn't help myself.

I was a little surprised when it got a serious answer, though. Why would I ask on here who he is? I have access to Google.

We must both like dad jokes..... obviously some don't.....or trying to be clever without thinking it through

[Greenmile]

No the difference of opinion is I don't consider "gammon" to be a racial slur and you do, although i am dubious as to your intentions in taking that stance on this particular word given your reputation on this messageboard for being someone who gets a kick out of creating confrontations.

The fact that you haven't even attempted to explain why you disagree with my other points tells me that you may even agree with my opinion, but that wouldn't create the confrontation you want, so you just completely ignored it.

I've "liked" a couple of your recent posts on this thread, but just want to clarify that it wasn't the bits accusing Rowls of deliberately creating confrontation I was expressing agreement with. Nowt wrong with a bit of confrontation now and then, as long at it doesn't spill over into anything more serious, and it would be a bit hypocritical of me to support someone calling another poster confrontational.

I'm in full agreement with the rest of the posts I "liked" though.

Just wanted to clear that up.

As you were GM x

[Rowls]

No the difference of opinion is I don't consider "gammon" to be a racial slur and you do, although i am dubious as to your intentions in taking that stance on this particular word given your reputation on this messageboard for being someone who gets a kick out of creating confrontations.

The fact that you haven't even attempted to explain why you disagree with my other points tells me that you may even agree with my opinion, but that wouldn't create the confrontation you want, so you just completely ignored it.

Hang on. You don't believe "gammon" is a term based on skin colour?

Really??

[Jellybean]

No the difference of opinion is I don't consider "gammon" to be a racial slur and you do, although i am dubious as to your intentions in taking that stance on this particular word given your reputation on this messageboard for being someone who gets a kick out of creating confrontations.

The fact that you haven't even attempted to explain why you disagree with my other points tells me that you may even agree with my opinion, but that wouldn't create the confrontation you want, so you just completely ignored it.

It's fair enough having this charter as I agree we should support Muslim staff and players to live their lives how they like as much as is feasible.

My question about your point would be what if there is a player who disagrees with halal and the suffering that goes with the slaughter of animals given they are not stunned. Can they request non halal meat or do they have to keep quiet like the rest of us do on that matter, like we have to when we see young girls covered head to toe, women treated appallingly, intelligent girls shipped off in year 10 to Pakistan to be married and not seen again, racism and homophobia quite openly used in society (yes I've witnessed all of this growing up in an area with a high Muslim population). But it's all okay and we have to keep quiet because it's Islam and we can't possibly question some of the questionable cultural elements that have seeped in.

I'm sure you know that using the term gammon is offensive and inflammatory, file alongside the use of bigot, fascist etc as a means to suffocate any comments by people you don't agree with. You can call me what you like, it's meaningless to me, I will never stop trying to advocate for all women living equally in this country.

[Foshiznik]

I've "liked" a couple of your recent posts on this thread, but just want to clarify that it wasn't the bits accusing Rowls of deliberately creating confrontation I was expressing agreement with. Nowt wrong with a bit of confrontation now and then, as long at it doesn't spill over into anything more serious, and it would be a bit hypocritical of me to support someone calling another poster confrontational.

I'm in full agreement with the rest of the posts I "liked" though.

Just wanted to clear that up.

As you were GM x

I'd have no issues with a healthy debate, particularly on the points i made. We can all learn from other's opinions. It's just a shame that in this case and in many threads that could be at worst entertaining and at best be cause for self reflection and the changing of opinions. However, Rowls has unfortunately decided to take the thread completely away from the topic and extraordinarily accuse me of making a racial slur, which i assume was to attempt to garner a response as some sort of entertainment for his afternoon and i've (possibly naively) responded.

[Rowls]

... Rowls has unfortunately decided to take the thread completely away from the topic and extraordinarily accuse me of making a racial slur, which i assume was to attempt to garner a response as some sort of entertainment for his afternoon and i've (possibly naively) responded.

You used the term "gammon". I thought that everybody under the sun knew it was a racial slur based on skin colour.

Many people think it's ok to use the term because it's directed at older, white men.

If you've got an explanation as to why you thought it was an acceptable term please share it. If you somehow weren't aware it was a racial slur just apologise and we can move on.

[Rowls]

My motivation is the same as ever with these kind of threads:

So much of what is done in the name of equality is actually divisive and counter productive.

I'm far from convinced this charter is of any use and I believe it has the potential to be divisive rather than an initiative that brings us together.

I've taken specific umbrage at the casual use of a racial slur - this certainly isn't the kind of language that will bring people together.

[Foshiznik]

It's fair enough having this charter as I agree we should support Muslim staff and players to live their lives how they like as much as is feasible.

My question about your point would be what if there is a player who disagrees with halal and the suffering that goes with the slaughter of animals given they are not stunned. Can they request non halal meat or do they have to keep quiet like the rest of us do on that matter, like we have to when we see young girls covered head to toe, women treated appallingly, intelligent girls shipped off in year 10 to Pakistan to be married and not seen again, racism and homophobia quite openly used in society (yes I've witnessed all of this growing up in an area with a high Muslim population). But it's all okay and we have to keep quiet because it's Islam and we can't possibly question some of the questionable cultural elements that have seeped in.

I'm sure you know that using the term gammon is offensive and inflammatory, file alongside the use of bigot, fascist etc as a means to suffocate any comments by people you don't agree with. You can call me what you like, it's meaningless to me, I will never stop trying to advocate for all women living equally in this country.

That's a fair point. I assume (and i have absolutely no skin in this game as a white male) that those who don't agree with halal would, as you say keep quiet. If an opinion is strong enough then i would also expect the Club to be respectful of such an opposing view.

However, your point about women is a moot point in this particular topic. No one, not this charter at least is demanding we allow for others to break the law, be racist or offensive. Racism is racism, homophobia is homophobia and hate crime is hate crime. This Charter doesn't demand the opposite.

As for the term gammon, it's a term for those middle aged people who rage about things they don't understand, usually because they don't understand them. it's the same as people who are right wing call those they disagree with "woke", "lefties", "snowflakes" or "liberals". It doesn't "suffocate" anyone though. That's an overreaction.

[Foshiznik]

You used the term "gammon". I thought that everybody under the sun knew it was a racial slur based on skin colour.

Many people think it's ok to use the term because it's directed at older, white men.

If you've got an explanation as to why you thought it was an acceptable term please share it. If you somehow weren't aware it was a racial slur just apologise and we can move on.

In my opinion you are reaching by calling it a racial slur and i mean that in the literal sense. If you genuinely think it's up there with the n-word or those other words known for Asians, Jews, etc. then i do apologise if it offended you. The term "racial slur" would express that you believe this to be the case.

I see it as the juxtaposition of "woke". If i'm in the minority view, i won't use it on this messageboard.

[Rowls]

As for the term gammon, it's a term for those middle aged people who rage about things they don't understand, usually because they don't understand them. it's the same as people who are right wing call those they disagree with "woke", "lefties", "snowflakes" or "liberals". It doesn't "suffocate" anyone though. That's an overreaction.

You think it's to do with age as opposed to skin colour?

Tell me, in what part of the world is gammon known for being "middle aged" rather than pink?

[Rileybobs]

The term gammon refers to the high-blood-pressured, flushed coloured face of an angry man who shouts at clouds. It's childish and divisive and I can see why people might not like it, but to suggest it's a racist slur is laughable and insincere...unsurprisingly.

[Foshiznik]

You think it's to do with age as opposed to skin colour?

Tell me, in what part of the world is gammon known for being "middle aged" rather than pink?

It's both. It's referring to the flush skin of someone raging over a different opinion usually of a right wing person. It just so happens that those in the UK who fit that description are white, middle aged men. It isn't an exclusive term for white people. So as to avoid such confusion and outrage i will instead use the term "bigot" instead to describe those people. Ironic given the back and forth with you today i must note.

Again I apologise for the clear upset i have caused you.

[Middle-agedClaret]

Would it be particularly offensive if the white, middle-aged man deemed “gammon” were a committed vegan?

[martin_p]

The specific point is that this charter says that if a Muslim makes any sort of comment about any matter pertaining to his faith, it should be accepted without judgement. It's only one point of 10 in the charter, but it's a highly dubious one. Christians do not have (nor, in most cases, do they expect) that right.

Again, I’m missing the word ‘accept’ in the version I’ve seen.

[Rowls]

The term gammon refers to the high-blood-pressured, flushed coloured face of an angry man who shouts at clouds. It's childish and divisive and I can see why people might not like it, but to suggest it's a racist slur is laughable and insincere...unsurprisingly.

So a slur that relies on the colour of somebody's skin in order to work isn't racist?

Why, if somebody is "shouting at clouds", can't you argue their point instead of drawing attention to their skin colour?

[Rowls]

It's both. It's referring to the flush skin of someone raging over a different opinion usually of a right wing person. It just so happens that those in the UK who fit that description are white, middle aged men. It isn't an exclusive term for white people. So as to avoid such confusion and outrage i will instead use the term "bigot" instead to describe those people. Ironic given the back and forth with you today i must note.

Again I apologise for the clear upset i have caused you.

You claim that it "just so happens that those in the UK who fit that description are white".

Really? You think that "gammon" can equally refer to people with black or brown skin?

I don't think you're being serious.

[Nori1958]

So a slur that relies on the colour of somebody's skin in order to work isn't racist?

Why, if somebody is "shouting at clouds", can't you argue their point instead of drawing attention to their skin colour?

Surely the "pink" skin is only temporary whilst the person is angry...a bit like saying someone was red in the face?...absolutly nothing to do with their race, therefore cannot be deemed racist, and if it is the world is bonkers

[Rileybobs]

So a slur that relies on the colour of somebody's skin in order to work isn't racist?

Why, if somebody is "shouting at clouds", can't you argue their point instead of drawing attention to their skin colour?

The slur isn’t about the colour of somebody’s skin, as in their race, it is about the person getting flushed in the face. The term could be used about someone of any race.

Of course you know all this, and everybody on here knows you do.

[Rowls]

Surely the "pink" skin is only temporary whilst the person is angry...a bit like saying someone was red in the face?...absolutly nothing to do with their race, therefore cannot be deemed racist, and if it is the world is bonkers

Even if it's only temporary, why would it take the place of legitimate debate?

Should people who are passionate not be allowed opinions?

Should shy people or people who blush be allowed to speak?

It's based on skin colour. That's clear and obvious.

If somebody says something stupid we ought to be able to challenge it with debate without referring to their skin colour.

That ought to be clear and obvious too, but apparently it isn't.

[Nori1958]

Even if it's only temporary, why would it take the place of legitimate debate?

Should people who are passionate not be allowed opinions?

Should shy people or people who blush be allowed to speak?

It's based on skin colour. That's clear and obvious.

If somebody says something stupid we ought to be able to challenge it with debate without referring to their skin colour.

That ought to be clear and obvious too, but apparently it isn't.

But it's not racist

[spt_claret]

No, I meant it’s the main tenet of every religion.

Fair enough, misunderstood, apologies.

[Foshiznik]

You claim that it "just so happens that those in the UK who fit that description are white".

Really? You think that "gammon" can equally refer to people with black or brown skin?

I don't think you're being serious.

You really need to find a new hobby. This trivial anger is really is going to cause you a coronary.

You said if I apologised we could move on. I apologised that you were personally offended. You lied so I then explained myself further as you continue with your anger and now you won’t let it go. You know exactly what I mean and everyone knows you do. Enough with the trolling and let this thread, unlike the majority you ruin with your attempts of provocation get back to the topic being discussed.

[Rowls]

The slur isn’t about the colour of somebody’s skin, as in their race, it is about the person getting flushed in the face. The term could be used about someone of any race.

Of course you know all this, and everybody on here knows you do.

It's about skin colour.

Why on earth would somebody being passionate about anything disallow or lessen their opinion?

Its a slur. It's a slur based on skin colour. I don't think it's acceptable.

[Rowls]

You really need to find a new hobby. This trivial anger is really is going to cause you a coronary.

You said if I apologised we could move on. I apologised that you were personally offended. I then explained myself further as you continue with your anger and now you won’t let it go. You know exactly what I mean and everyone knows you do. Enough with the trolling and let this thread, unlike the majority you ruin with your attempts of provocation get back to the topic being discussed.

https://theswaddle.com/why-we-double-do ... ir%20flaws.

You can imagine I'm "angry" if you like.

I hope you refrain from casually using racial slurs in the future.

[Rowls]

But it's not racist

If the slur is based on skin colour why is it "not racist"?

Surely that is the definition of racism?

[Greenmile]

“Gammon” is the only “racial slur” (it’s obviously not a racial slur) you will be able to find Rowls complaining about on here.

Read into that what you will.

[Rileybobs]

It's about skin colour.

Why on earth would somebody being passionate about anything disallow or lessen their opinion?

Its a slur. It's a slur based on skin colour. I don't think it's acceptable.

You’re hilarious Rowls. Do you believe people still think you act with an ounce of sincerity?

[Rowls]

“Gammon” is the only “racial slur” (it’s obviously not a racial slur) you will be able to find Rowls complaining about on here.

Read into that what you will.

If you want to type a racial slur I'll happily tell you how unacceptable it is.

Find a racial slur on this site and I'll condemn it.

If you knew the slightest bit about my personal life you'd be embarrassed.

Shame on you.

[Nori1958]

If the slur is based on skin colour why is it "not racist"?

Surely that is the definition of racism?

I've read several...one copied below...none mention someones face temporarily going a different colour through anger

belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.


Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-too-shuh-nl rey-siz-uhm, -tyoo-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [struhk-cher-uhl rey-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-stem-ik rey-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.

[Foshiznik]

Ironically acting like the definition of the word you are pretending to be outraged by at this point. Your gaslighting isn’t going to get you the attention you thrive now.

Go have a lie down.

[Greenmile]

If you want to type a racial slur I'll happily tell you how unacceptable it is.

Find a racial slur on this site and I'll condemn it.

If you knew the slightest bit about my personal life you'd be embarrassed.

Shame on you.

There’s often been out and out racism on this messageboard (admittedly less so nowadays than in the past) and - if you’re anywhere to be seen on those threads - you’re usually defending the racists (I still remember the Kelvin Mackenzie / Ross Barkley / Eni Aluko threads, amongst others).

You’re far more transparent than you seem to realise.

Since you asked, here are a couple of well-known racial slurs for you to condemn (for the first time).

“Picaninnies with watermelon smiles”

(of Muslim women who wear a burqa) “Like letterboxes or bank robbers”

[Rowls]

You’re hilarious Rowls. Do you believe people still think you act with an ounce of sincerity?

Double down all you like Riley.

I'll continue to post what I believe and I'm confident my side will win the debate.

The UK is already one of the least racist, most harmonious multi-ethnic countries in the world. That doesn't mean we rest on our laurels. No, we continue to oppose measures that divide us and we focus on the things that we have in common; things that bring us together.

There's still tonnes of work to do and the path isn't straightforward. Regressive steps like the adoption of terms like "gammon" need to be opposed as and when they occur.

The way forward isn't having a different rule or charter for each and every sect or race. These protections already exist in UK law - some of the most robust ant-discrimination legislation in the world.

The way forward is tolerance, unity and finding what unites us rather than obsessing about the differences.

Those casually flinging around racial slurs like "gammon" will be left behind like the racists of the 1970s.

[Rileybobs]

Double down all you like Riley.

I'll continue to post what I believe and I'm confident my side will win the debate.

The UK is already one of the least racist, most harmonious multi-ethnic countries in the world. That doesn't mean we rest on our laurels. No, we continue to oppose measures that divide us and we focus on the things that we have in common; things that bring us together.

There's still tonnes of work to do and the path isn't straightforward. Regressive steps like the adoption of terms like "gammon" need to be opposed as and when they occur.

The way forward isn't having a different rule or charter for each and every sect or race. These protections already exist in UK law - some of the most robust ant-discrimination legislation in the world.

The way forward is tolerance, unity and finding what unites us rather than obsessing about the differences.

Those casually flinging around racial slurs like "gammon" will be left behind like the racists of the 1970s.

stop

[Rowls]

There’s often been out and out racism on this messageboard (admittedly less so nowadays than in the past) and - if you’re anywhere to be seen on those threads - you’re usually defending the racists (I still remember the Kelvin Mackenzie / Ross Barkley / Eni Aluko threads, amongst others).

You’re far more transparent than you seem to realise.

Since you asked, here are a couple of well-known racial slurs for you to condemn (for the first time).

“Picaninnies with watermelon smiles”

(of Muslim women who wear a burqa) “Like letterboxes or bank robbers”

These aren't from this site. You've just posted them to prove a point which is entirely different.

Happy to condemn the first.
The second is taken out of context - it was from an article expressing support for Muslim women to wear what they please whilst not necessarily agreeing the clothing to be sensible or sociable.

[Foshiznik]

If it’s as bad a “slur” as you still hours later contend it to be, why do you keep using the word? You’ve said it at least double the amount of times I have on this thread alone. If you actually believed it was as bad as you say, you wouldn’t then use it too.

[Foshiznik]

Those casually flinging around racial slurs like "gammon" will be left behind like the racists of the 1970s.

Ok, now you are definitely trolling.

[Rowls]

There’s often been out and out racism on this messageboard (admittedly less so nowadays than in the past) and - if you’re anywhere to be seen on those threads - you’re usually defending the racists (I still remember the Kelvin Mackenzie / Ross Barkley / Eni Aluko threads, amongst others).

You’re far more transparent than you seem to realise.

We both know that if anyone is brain dead enough to post a racial.slur, the mods will remove it.

One day, they'll do the same for "gammon" too.

I'm completely transparent about how we need to tackle racism: by focusing on what unites us and opposing that which divides us - including racial slur like "gammon".

It's something I'm unashamedly passionate about.

[Rowls]

If it’s as bad a “slur” as you still hours later contend it to be, why do you keep using the word? You’ve said it at least double the amount of times I have on this thread alone. If you actually believed it was as bad as you say, you wouldn’t then use it too.

If you haven't noticed, I've put it in inverted commas.

I'm done now but hope you and the others think twice about using the term again.

If an argument is weak then you can challenge it without making even the slightest reference to skin colour.

[Greenmile]

These aren't from this site. You've just posted them to prove a point which is entirely different.

Happy to condemn the first.
The second is taken out of context - it was from an article expressing support for Muslim women to wear what they please whilst not necessarily agreeing the clothing to be sensible or sociable.

The point I’m proving - as you well know - is that your pearl-clutching about “racism” when it comes to the word “gammon” is transparently insincere to anyone with a passing knowledge of your posting history on here.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37336&p=1345594&hil ... s#p1345594

[Longsidejono]

Good move from the club

Cringe when the minority ‘boo’ the players breaking their fast at a night game and we are in the firing line again for crowd behaviour

[Hapag Lloyd]

Good move from the club

Cringe when the minority ‘boo’ the players breaking their fast at a night game and we are in the firing line again for crowd behaviour

Did they boo last season ?

[Longsidejono]

Did they boo last season ?

There was a few not last season the season before, more mumbles last season maybe because some of our players were taking part who knows

There was no vapes thrown on the pitch at players or first team buses smashed last season either

[Jellybean]

To any fans who do actually boo the snack break that is abhorrent but I think most fans weren't aware of it the first time and thought the opposition were time wasting and having a drink! Some people just can't wait to get on the backs of our fans.

[Nori1958]

There was a few not last season the season before, more mumbles last season maybe because some of our players were taking part who knows

There was no vapes thrown on the pitch at players or first team buses smashed last season either

Just Blackpool then

[Hapag Lloyd]

There was a few not last season the season before, more mumbles last season maybe because some of our players were taking part who knows

There was no vapes thrown on the pitch at players or first team buses smashed last season either

So that’s a no then.

[Longsidejono]

So that’s a no then.

Yes I heard one boo so it’s a yes.

[dsr]

Again, I’m missing the word ‘accept’ in the version I’ve seen.

I really think you are nitpicking to an unnecessary degree.

The point is that if a Muslim says "my religion decrees that ..... and as such I declare that ..... will all go to hell", then:

1. You can accept it, by which presumably we mean saying nothing and letting it go by.
2. You can refuse to judge it, by which we presumably mean saying nothing and letting it go by.

I agree that the relevant sentence is "Muslim athletes will be given space to express their views on their faith without judgement." I'm perhaps missing your point - how is "not judging" the comment different from "accepting" it?

[martin_p]

I really think you are nitpicking to an unnecessary degree.

The point is that if a Muslim says "my religion decrees that ..... and as such I declare that ..... will all go to hell", then:

1. You can accept it, by which presumably we mean saying nothing and letting it go by.
2. You can refuse to judge it, by which we presumably mean saying nothing and letting it go by.

I agree that the relevant sentence is "Muslim athletes will be given space to express their views on their faith without judgement." I'm perhaps missing your point - how is "not judging" the comment different from "accepting" it?

As I said early in thread you can vehemently disagree with a person’s viewpoint without judging them for it. As I also said I think you’re reading too much into the sentence anyway and the following bit makes it clear that the club still have final right of veto on public pronouncements so it’s not like anyone is going to be allowed to say anything daft anyway.

[Jellybean]

Footballer: I'm taking my school age daughter to Pakistan to find her a husband
It's okay, I disagree but I won't judge

Footballer: oh yes my daughter has undergone fgm, I see it as critical to her following her religion
It's okay, I disagree and it's actually illegal but I won't judge

Footballer: yes I cover my little girl head to toe and she wears a headscarf, my son is okay to run around in shorts and t-shirt but she needs to learn to cover up to be a good Muslim
It's okay, I disagree entirely but I won't judge

Is that how it works Martin?