RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: So in fact it's not that you think that "Gypsy" isn't a racial group, it's that you think no racial group is worthy of protection. That's not a question of people today being too sensitive so much as an improvement in race relations and the idiocy of the past being rejected.

Idiocy in your opinion, not mine.

So if someone walks up to Itoje or Joe Joseph and calls them a nigger, that would be just OK. Good to know.

Could well be acceptable, yes, but that would be up to Itoje or Joseph to decide.

Mikeyv wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:
Idiocy in your opinion, not mine.

So if someone walks up to Itoje or Joe Joseph and calls them a nigger, that would be just OK. Good to know.

Could well be acceptable, yes, but that would be up to Itoje or Joseph to decide.

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

cashead wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:

cashead wrote:
So if someone walks up to Itoje or Joe Joseph and calls them a nigger, that would be just OK. Good to know.

Could well be acceptable, yes, but that would be up to Itoje or Joseph to decide.

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

You might want to think before you type.

People call each other nigger all the time, without issue.

Ain't life complicated?

You wanna try playing rugby in NZ when your the only white fella playing. That was an eye opener.
So just to clarify with the mods on here does this mean if anyone is offended by "Mick, Sweaty, Nigel etc etc" they can report the poster?

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:You wanna try playing rugby in NZ when your the only white fella playing. That was an eye opener.
So just to clarify with the mods on here does this mean if anyone is offended by "Mick, Sweaty, Nigel etc etc" they can report the poster?

I don't think I've ever been the only "white fella" in a match in NZ but I've certainly been one of only 3 or 4 on either side. I've also played on teams in England where the only black player was my team mate. I never copped it anywhere as badly as black players did in England. That's partly because the sting is somewhat diffused when you are from the side of the racial divide that dominates politically and economically off the field - it's just an insult, not an affirmation of decades or centuries of discrimination.

There should always be room for genuine banter but normally that doesn't require reference to ethnic origins.

Mind you, I remember a large black guy turning up to club training in London out of the blue once. He explained that he'd always played football, had no idea about rugby, but was sick of diving and other wendyball BS and wanted to learn rugby. We figured, given his shape, that eventually he'd play front row but in the mean time stuck him on the wing out of the way. Turns out he was bloody rapid so we kept him on the wing Inga Tuigamala style. Anyway, once he has got to know the guys and after a few post-match pints he admitted that in fact he wasn't pure Carribean Black God as he'd had us believe. In fact, his mum was Irish. "Yep," he said, "I'm actually a Lepracoon". Now that's banter.

Some Saffer arse from Preston I think calling him "kaffir" and earning a broken nose that the ref, rightly, chose not to see before issuing a red card to the boer, is not banter.

Mikeyv wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:
Idiocy in your opinion, not mine.

So if someone walks up to Itoje or Joe Joseph and calls them a nigger, that would be just OK. Good to know.

Could well be acceptable, yes, but that would be up to Itoje or Joseph to decide.

Seriously?

cashead wrote:

gthedog wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:
Depression is an illness, an awful one at that, different altogether.

And nothing to do with being hard or soft, just getting a sense of perspective and using a bit of common sense.

Being a racist cnt is also an illness but I don't have any sympathy for it. No difference between a white racist or a black one. Or abusing someone from England or Scotland or Wales. Abuse is abuse and whilst you have the right to offend you have the right to be offended.
I don't necessarily agree with all those rights and I sometimes think people need to grow a pair but in today's world that is the way it goes. Steering massively clear of anything to do with creed or colour is a must

Have you ever had a racial epithet thrown in your direction? I have. Now ask me if I think I have the right to be offended about it.

Yes I have and I could have taken it on the chin but you may be offended by it. That's unfortunately the way the world works. People's right to offence is infinite

joshfishkins wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:

cashead wrote:
So if someone walks up to Itoje or Joe Joseph and calls them a nigger, that would be just OK. Good to know.

Could well be acceptable, yes, but that would be up to Itoje or Joseph to decide.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

As I posted earlier, plenty of people address each other in that way, so it would be up to the above mentioned as to whether it was acceptable.

Mikeyv wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mikeyv wrote:
Idiocy in your opinion, not mine.

So if someone walks up to Itoje or Joe Joseph and calls them a nigger, that would be just OK. Good to know.

Could well be acceptable, yes, but that would be up to Itoje or Joseph to decide.

In the most narrow of defined circumstances. I imagine coming from someone barely known on the opposing team representing their country at a live televised event who was trying to get a rise falls outwith those narrowly defined circumstances. It's context, a mahoosive difference in context and the - I've been called worse/I've got a black mate and we call each other all sorts - type of arguments are meaningless.

Marler must've thought it was white boy day.

It ain't white boy day is it?

No its English boy day

Lizard wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:You wanna try playing rugby in NZ when your the only white fella playing. That was an eye opener.
So just to clarify with the mods on here does this mean if anyone is offended by "Mick, Sweaty, Nigel etc etc" they can report the poster?

I don't think I've ever been the only "white fella" in a match in NZ but I've certainly been one of only 3 or 4 on either side. I've also played on teams in England where the only black player was my team mate. I never copped it anywhere as badly as black players did in England. That's partly because the sting is somewhat diffused when you are from the side of the racial divide that dominates politically and economically off the field - it's just an insult, not an affirmation of decades or centuries of discrimination.

There should always be room for genuine banter but normally that doesn't require reference to ethnic origins.

Mind you, I remember a large black guy turning up to club training in London out of the blue once. He explained that he'd always played football, had no idea about rugby, but was sick of diving and other wendyball BS and wanted to learn rugby. We figured, given his shape, that eventually he'd play front row but in the mean time stuck him on the wing out of the way. Turns out he was bloody rapid so we kept him on the wing Inga Tuigamala style. Anyway, once he has got to know the guys and after a few post-match pints he admitted that in fact he wasn't pure Carribean Black God as he'd had us believe. In fact, his mum was Irish. "Yep," he said, "I'm actually a Lepracoon". Now that's banter.

Some Saffer arse from Preston I think calling him "kaffir" and earning a broken nose that the ref, rightly, chose not to see before issuing a red card to the boer, is not banter.

This. context matters. If anyone wants to report anything they consider to be beyond the bounds of banter they are encouraged to do so. Whether any action would be taken on it would depend on whether the mods agree with a view not only to how the particular poster who was targeted felt but as to how others who read the post who may also feel offended might feel.

ETA Threatening, insulting or abusive words or behavious that you know will or may alarm, harass or distress another person is a criminal offence and if done using racial words with the intent that someone be caused alarm or distress is imprisonable by up to 2 years.

Have any players been banned during or after an Ashes series for sledging?
Sledging's been going on for years and I've no doubt cricketers have been called a lot worse than "gypsy boy".
This incident probably happened on the spur of the moment and apparently an apology was given so let it rest at that.

Context is everything; which is why Jason Mohammed was able to repeat the insult verbatim on television, whereas in the putative case of racist abuse to Itoje or Joseph, he would not have been. In the latter case, the words themselves are proscribed in any context because of their power. "Gypsy boy" is different, in that it is a term that could be freely used in a positive context, for example in a character piece on Samson Lee. What makes it racist abuse is the intent of the speaker, which in Marler's case is unequivocally abusive.

Sourdust wrote:Context is everything; which is why Jason Mohammed was able to repeat the insult verbatim on television, whereas in the putative case of racist abuse to Itoje or Joseph, he would not have been. In the latter case, the words themselves are proscribed in any context because of their power. "Gypsy boy" is different, in that it is a term that could be freely used in a positive context, for example in a character piece on Samson Lee. What makes it racist abuse is the intent of the speaker, which in Marler's case is unequivocally abusive.

Unless he wanted to buy some lucky heather and forgot the second part of what he was going to say

gthedog wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Context is everything; which is why Jason Mohammed was able to repeat the insult verbatim on television, whereas in the putative case of racist abuse to Itoje or Joseph, he would not have been. In the latter case, the words themselves are proscribed in any context because of their power. "Gypsy boy" is different, in that it is a term that could be freely used in a positive context, for example in a character piece on Samson Lee. What makes it racist abuse is the intent of the speaker, which in Marler's case is unequivocally abusive.

Unless he wanted to buy some lucky heather and forgot the second part of what he was going to say

Unless, as you wisely say, that.

RACE is something you have no control over, where it be where you are from genetically or how you look, you're race will not change.

Gypsy is not a race, its a way of life, a choice, just the same as you choose where to live when you grow up. In my eyes I see no difference from someone being called a "Valleys cnut" or a "Northern Pr1ck". Both which are derogatory, but far from racist, seeming as their is no racial affiliation

You just need to look at Samson Lee's old Beebo account to see his affinity to being a gypsy. I'm English but would never think for a second that if I was playing a foreign rugby team that if they called me an English cnut that they were being inherently racist.

The whole point being I think that this was used in a derogatory manner, whether it is race or not, it was intended to rile a response. Others will judge what Marler gets for this but considering an undeliberate few kicks to the head got nothing, and an undeliberate eye area contact (debatable but we will say this for now) just got 8 weeks I'm guessing a deliberate act of riling over race (creed/background/ whatever you want to call it) will get some sort of telling off plus his elbow/punch he may not see a rugby pitch in anger till about 2017

gthedog wrote:The whole point being I think that this was used in a derogatory manner, whether it is race or not, it was intended to rile a response. Others will judge what Marler gets for this but considering an undeliberate few kicks to the head got nothing, and an undeliberate eye area contact (debatable but we will say this for now) just got 8 weeks I'm guessing a deliberate act of riling over race (creed/background/ whatever you want to call it) will get some sort of telling off plus his elbow/punch he may not see a rugby pitch in anger till about 2017

Yeah, a closer analogy then the one a few pages back would be if someone was refered to as black, or if someone called them a black b@rstard, the context is key in this.

gthedog wrote:The whole point being I think that this was used in a derogatory manner, whether it is race or not, it was intended to rile a response. Others will judge what Marler gets for this but considering an undeliberate few kicks to the head got nothing, and an undeliberate eye area contact (debatable but we will say this for now) just got 8 weeks I'm guessing a deliberate act of riling over race (creed/background/ whatever you want to call it) will get some sort of telling off plus his elbow/punch he may not see a rugby pitch in anger till about 2017

I agree with that, but my main problem is just the way we toss out the word racism these days. I see Marler's comment on the same level as if a rich, private school was playing a state school as rugby and one of the players making crass, judgemental references to the players having a bad education, being poor, working class etc, which happened numerous times during my school rugby.

Its a dick move and should be avoided in the game, but its hardly making monkey noises.

padprop wrote:RACE is something you have no control over, where it be where you are from genetically or how you look, you're race will not change.

Gypsy is not a race, its a way of life, a choice, just the same as you choose where to live when you grow up. In my eyes I see no difference from someone being called a "Valleys cnut" or a "Northern Pr1ck". Both which are derogatory, but far from racist, seeming as their is no racial affiliation

You just need to look at Samson Lee's old Beebo account to see his affinity to being a gypsy. I'm English but would never think for a second that if I was playing a foreign rugby team that if they called me an English cnut that they were being inherently racist.

1. They fall under the Equality Act of 2010 because Gypsies - both Roma and Irish Traveller - fall under the category of ethnic groups, which is what they are, regardless of your bleating about it.

2. You clearly have no understanding of historical context and privilege.

Wow. I wish people would just behave like the adults that nearly all of us are. Nearly everyone involved on either side of this monumental circle jerk knows what they are doing.

Some of my best friends are adults... but...

[quote="padprop]
I agree with that, but my main problem is just the way we toss out the word racism these days. I see Marler's comment on the same level as if a rich, private school was playing a state school as rugby and one of the players making crass, judgemental references to the players having a bad education, being poor, working class etc, which happened numerous times during my school rugby.

Its a dick move and should be avoided in the game, but its hardly making monkey noises.[/quote]

I remember all that nonsense at public schools as well. Having to arrive and depart in kit, no shower, no after match tea, the continual shouts of Oiks from all the budding Nigels on the sidelines. Not very savoury at all. Funny thing was the only effect it had was to firm up ones resolve to beat the feckers. Marler must be a bit short of a few cells to think that his attempts at belittling Lee would have a much different effect.