| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason 14:06 - Dec 2 with 77759 views | chicoazul |
Now that the club has confirmed Morsy chose not to wear the armband, how do our LGBTQ fans feel about this?
Like I say I would continue the interesting conversation we were having but that thread is locked. |  |
| |  |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:20 - Dec 4 with 1457 views | waveneyblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:15 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
absolutely people have the right to believe what they want. i'm not sure how you plan to expunge these thoughts from people's heads? electric shock therapy? chinese style re-education? torture? what people can't do is act on their thoughts or beliefs (even if they are protected beliefs such as religion) if they actively harm the human rights of others. it has to be real harm, it can't be imagined or subjective or hypothetical harm however. these are fundamental human rights, and seeking to oppress freedom of thought conscience and religion or freedom of expression would indeed put you in the path to 1984esque totalitarianism. BUT if someone acts in a way which harms the human rights of others - discrimination, harassment, inciting hatred etc etc, not only will they breach multiple laws but no refernec to their human rights will defend them. people are not free to harm the rights of others. if you really disagree with this you are rejecting the european convention on human rights which puts out there with farage et al. |
Lovely to see this is still going with the usual willingness to see both sides of the situation.
Its got potential for an entry into TWTD folklore this one |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:21 - Dec 4 with 1465 views | eireblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:15 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
absolutely people have the right to believe what they want. i'm not sure how you plan to expunge these thoughts from people's heads? electric shock therapy? chinese style re-education? torture? what people can't do is act on their thoughts or beliefs (even if they are protected beliefs such as religion) if they actively harm the human rights of others. it has to be real harm, it can't be imagined or subjective or hypothetical harm however. these are fundamental human rights, and seeking to oppress freedom of thought conscience and religion or freedom of expression would indeed put you in the path to 1984esque totalitarianism. BUT if someone acts in a way which harms the human rights of others - discrimination, harassment, inciting hatred etc etc, not only will they breach multiple laws but no refernec to their human rights will defend them. people are not free to harm the rights of others. if you really disagree with this you are rejecting the european convention on human rights which puts out there with farage et al. |
So, then the question is,
Did Morsy do harm. |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:21 - Dec 4 with 1465 views | PassionNotAnger |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 11:29 - Dec 4 by tractorboy7777 |
As a gay man, I have sat back and watch the differing views people have. There is no doubt that homophobia is much lower now than before my time due to many events to create understanding of homosexuality.
There is continuing events to create acceptance for additional LGBT+ communities which have taken over the LGBT fight for acceptance and become equal in society. This is what I feel is causing the problem and some of it I can see why it is questionable and people are becoming ‘bored’ of it.
The intended support over the weekend was to show the younger generations at school that being gay isn’t wrong and they can be part of football. I am younger than 30 and this wasn’t seen at school so I felt wrong, confused and alone who shouldn’t be part of football. Because of this, when I look back at my teens, it isn’t great.
There is still no current openly gay footballers at the top level which would be why football is still involved in these campaigns.
I feel it is a shame that Morsy didn’t get involved with the campaign, being that he is the captain of the club. He should show support for inclusion for everyone. If his religion does not see that, he isn’t fit to be captain. Whose to say one of his teammates are gay and feel the need to hide it.
I don’t want to get involved in the religion debate, as religion is his choice. However, I will say that being gay isn’t a choice or preference and homophobia can be equalled to racism or sexism. |
Massive respect for sharing your experience, can only hope that some who are entrenched in their views take the time to read it |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:23 - Dec 4 with 1449 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 11:01 - Dec 4 by Benters |
I don’t know what you want me to say tbh ? |
Nobody wants you to say anything.
Maybe, just for once, you should listen. Actually listen to what people in this very thread are describing as their lived experiences. |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:24 - Dec 4 with 1425 views | pointofblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:06 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
they can indeed hold protected views. they can't express them in a form that harms others and they can't act on them in a way that harms others. not only do i feel that, it's what the european convention on human rights says. if you don't accept that you should join farage et al and push for the uk to exit the european convention. |
Though isn't the free speech argument that people are free to hold themselves beliefs, but others are allowed to push back against them, as part of their own freedoms? | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:25 - Dec 4 with 1417 views | Vegtablue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:15 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
absolutely people have the right to believe what they want. i'm not sure how you plan to expunge these thoughts from people's heads? electric shock therapy? chinese style re-education? torture? what people can't do is act on their thoughts or beliefs (even if they are protected beliefs such as religion) if they actively harm the human rights of others. it has to be real harm, it can't be imagined or subjective or hypothetical harm however. these are fundamental human rights, and seeking to oppress freedom of thought conscience and religion or freedom of expression would indeed put you in the path to 1984esque totalitarianism. BUT if someone acts in a way which harms the human rights of others - discrimination, harassment, inciting hatred etc etc, not only will they breach multiple laws but no refernec to their human rights will defend them. people are not free to harm the rights of others. if you really disagree with this you are rejecting the european convention on human rights which puts out there with farage et al. |
I don't profess to supporting those methods, you are right. You can click on my profile to read my contributions to this topic, in which I've made clear that it was of course Morsy's right to refuse the inclusivity message. The club should then have passed the armband on, though. I thought it was interesting that you defended people's rights to just state what's in their heads though, as I believe that is classified as hate speech in society now - speaking publicly about one's racist beliefs for instance, even if not from a platform of preaching them to others. Perhaps it was just your wording that was off, or maybe I misunderstand what is and isn't permitted in current British discourse. | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:27 - Dec 4 with 1410 views | Benters |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:09 - Dec 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Because we want everyone to feel welcome at FPR. |
I thought people were arguing about the rights and wrongs of the said armband,and Morsy religious beliefs. |  |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:32 - Dec 4 with 1362 views | Benters |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:23 - Dec 4 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
Nobody wants you to say anything.
Maybe, just for once, you should listen. Actually listen to what people in this very thread are describing as their lived experiences. |
So every other Captain wore an armband and ours didn’t,so you are saying if you were in that particular community him not wearing that armband would upset you,even though he is a practicing Muslim and they don’t like that said community? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:32 - Dec 4 with 1360 views | Vegtablue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:01 - Dec 4 by redrickstuhaart |
If a belief is built into faith it should be untouchable? Nonsensical. Believe what you like but if a belief is harmful, it cannot be untouchable.
See the KKK for instance.... Or indeed al quaeda. |
I agree it's highly dangerous thinking; we know Hitler's beliefs were deeply held, apologies for inserting that reference at page 28 or 29. I believe we should respect Morsy's right to hold his belief, but we shouldn't have respected what his belief is and we should have made that known publicly by removing the armband. I don't believe we should create a comfortable bubble around discrimination. | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:35 - Dec 4 with 1343 views | PassionNotAnger |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:27 - Dec 4 by Benters |
I thought people were arguing about the rights and wrongs of the said armband,and Morsy religious beliefs. |
No we are “debating” whether it’s acceptable for Morsy to use his religion as a reason not support the rainbow initiative to promote inclusion in the Premier League for years.
All of those with real lived experiences in this thread think not , some others have suddenly decided that religious freedom is one of their priorities so they can support Morsy | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:38 - Dec 4 with 1317 views | Benters |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:35 - Dec 4 by PassionNotAnger |
No we are “debating” whether it’s acceptable for Morsy to use his religion as a reason not support the rainbow initiative to promote inclusion in the Premier League for years.
All of those with real lived experiences in this thread think not , some others have suddenly decided that religious freedom is one of their priorities so they can support Morsy |
I think I’m gradually getting it now thanks 👍 | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:39 - Dec 4 with 1306 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:25 - Dec 4 by Vegtablue |
I don't profess to supporting those methods, you are right. You can click on my profile to read my contributions to this topic, in which I've made clear that it was of course Morsy's right to refuse the inclusivity message. The club should then have passed the armband on, though. I thought it was interesting that you defended people's rights to just state what's in their heads though, as I believe that is classified as hate speech in society now - speaking publicly about one's racist beliefs for instance, even if not from a platform of preaching them to others. Perhaps it was just your wording that was off, or maybe I misunderstand what is and isn't permitted in current British discourse. |
all i've done (in the last few posts) is explain convention rights. "as I believe that is classified as hate speech in society now". hate speech when used in common language is highly subjective. legally, there are two things in uk law that are relevant here and get confused. one is that criminal offences can be 'aggravated' if the motive for them is racist, homophobic etc, and that then leads to additional sentencing if found guilty. then there is 'hate speech' - but there is no criminal offence of hate speech. hate speech may of course be the means by which some other law is broken - for example, incitement to racial hatred, or if the hate speech is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone. so the question is which law has the 'hate speech' broken and the criminal process is not different from that law being broken in another way. but we have a strange arrangement in the uk where by the police can record 'non-crime hate incidents' without any investigation, or any legal process or any offence having been committed (it can just recorded on the basis that someone has made an allegation). the police are supposed to do this if they believe that non-crime incident risks being escalated into a crime at some point in the future - but practice doesn't seem consistent with that. the recording of non-crime hate incidents (without any legal process or even investigation) is widely seen as having a chilling effect on free speech. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:42 - Dec 4 with 1281 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:24 - Dec 4 by pointofblue |
Though isn't the free speech argument that people are free to hold themselves beliefs, but others are allowed to push back against them, as part of their own freedoms? |
yes debate, challenge, disagreement, education, political campaigning change etc are exactly why freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. freedom of speech doesn't protect you from other people's freedom of speech. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:05 - Dec 4 with 1199 views | Swailsey |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:38 - Dec 4 by Benters |
I think I’m gradually getting it now thanks 👍 |
Fair play |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:10 - Dec 4 with 1168 views | tractorboy7777 |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:21 - Dec 4 by PassionNotAnger |
Massive respect for sharing your experience, can only hope that some who are entrenched in their views take the time to read it |
Thank you. I’m not normally one to talk about my sexuality however I feel people are losing the reason behind the different campaigns in football and what Morsy’s reasoning to not to be involved could create to those football fans/players who are gay.
Being the captain and removing himself from the campaign is what makes it worse. It’s difficult for the club as well as they have to support religion (they are often posting religious posts on Facebook etc) at the same time. My view is that using another player to show the clubs support should have been used, especially as Chaplin started at the weekend. He has been very proactive for the LGBT community at all the clubs he has been at. | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:22 - Dec 4 with 1086 views | Vegtablue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:39 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
all i've done (in the last few posts) is explain convention rights. "as I believe that is classified as hate speech in society now". hate speech when used in common language is highly subjective. legally, there are two things in uk law that are relevant here and get confused. one is that criminal offences can be 'aggravated' if the motive for them is racist, homophobic etc, and that then leads to additional sentencing if found guilty. then there is 'hate speech' - but there is no criminal offence of hate speech. hate speech may of course be the means by which some other law is broken - for example, incitement to racial hatred, or if the hate speech is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone. so the question is which law has the 'hate speech' broken and the criminal process is not different from that law being broken in another way. but we have a strange arrangement in the uk where by the police can record 'non-crime hate incidents' without any investigation, or any legal process or any offence having been committed (it can just recorded on the basis that someone has made an allegation). the police are supposed to do this if they believe that non-crime incident risks being escalated into a crime at some point in the future - but practice doesn't seem consistent with that. the recording of non-crime hate incidents (without any legal process or even investigation) is widely seen as having a chilling effect on free speech. |
Thanks for your summary. I'd also be interested to clarify your thoughts on whether Morsy's actions caused harm. I think your stance is that he was placed in an invidious position, whereby he would cause harm no matter his actions (either to himself and fellow bigots, or to the people he shunned, in my words), but please correct me if that's a misrepresentation. If it's a fair summary of your thoughts, I struggle with why you believe the club was right not to intervene, not to remove the choice or opportunity from him. Is it that you feel Morsy has earned his platform to publicly refuse this message of inclusion, or is that you feel bigoted views deserve a platform within the very campaigns against said bigotry, or is it something else that makes you feel the club was right in their actions? Or do you agree the club made a poor decision but haven't said so yet? | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:34 - Dec 4 with 1018 views | Jrm_72 |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czjd92z22yno
Just seen this about Man Utd and allegedly Mazraoui.
I think the line in the Utd statement sadly missing in Ipswich's was about opinions that 'sometimes differ from the club'.
Maybe its semantics, but I felt without making that clear it read as endorsing his view rather than his right to it (not that I personally believe you have a right to homophobia).
I think Morsy's views are one thing, but the clumsy response from the club has been unhelpful, and something on the same lines as utd wouldve made it slightly better. | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:38 - Dec 4 with 1008 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:22 - Dec 4 by Vegtablue |
Thanks for your summary. I'd also be interested to clarify your thoughts on whether Morsy's actions caused harm. I think your stance is that he was placed in an invidious position, whereby he would cause harm no matter his actions (either to himself and fellow bigots, or to the people he shunned, in my words), but please correct me if that's a misrepresentation. If it's a fair summary of your thoughts, I struggle with why you believe the club was right not to intervene, not to remove the choice or opportunity from him. Is it that you feel Morsy has earned his platform to publicly refuse this message of inclusion, or is that you feel bigoted views deserve a platform within the very campaigns against said bigotry, or is it something else that makes you feel the club was right in their actions? Or do you agree the club made a poor decision but haven't said so yet? |
i think the premier league and the people who run the campaign have made the poor decision. it should never come down to one individual (the captain) having to take on a role whether they choose to or not. have a scheme where players opt in or just have a volunteer player as a champion who carries a flag onto the pitch or whatever. that avoids the whole issue.
being captain is a real thing with real duties not just some honorary thing. who is captain should depend only on football and not on who is or isn't willing to do other things. if you want a purely ceremonial role have a club captain in addition to the current team captain. or have ambassadors or whatever you choose to call them.
i don't believe that morsy declining to do this has caused harm in any legal or human rights sense. it has undoubtedly caused offence to some - but offence is not the same as harm and there is no right not to be offended. harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others, it can't just be upset or disagreement or a sense that some cause or campaign has been damaged. you can't demand that someone does something to support your cause or campaign and then say they have harmed you if they decline. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:49 - Dec 4 with 961 views | eireblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:38 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the premier league and the people who run the campaign have made the poor decision. it should never come down to one individual (the captain) having to take on a role whether they choose to or not. have a scheme where players opt in or just have a volunteer player as a champion who carries a flag onto the pitch or whatever. that avoids the whole issue.
being captain is a real thing with real duties not just some honorary thing. who is captain should depend only on football and not on who is or isn't willing to do other things. if you want a purely ceremonial role have a club captain in addition to the current team captain. or have ambassadors or whatever you choose to call them.
i don't believe that morsy declining to do this has caused harm in any legal or human rights sense. it has undoubtedly caused offence to some - but offence is not the same as harm and there is no right not to be offended. harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others, it can't just be upset or disagreement or a sense that some cause or campaign has been damaged. you can't demand that someone does something to support your cause or campaign and then say they have harmed you if they decline. |
So, if I see someone kicked in the shin, sure I don’t feel any harm.
If I hear someone being racially abused, I don’t feel any harm.
The recipient of the kick does. The recipient of the abuse does.
Do the thoughts of the community concerned lead you to think they are all simply offended, and that some don’t feel harmed? | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:03 - Dec 4 with 889 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:49 - Dec 4 by eireblue |
So, if I see someone kicked in the shin, sure I don’t feel any harm.
If I hear someone being racially abused, I don’t feel any harm.
The recipient of the kick does. The recipient of the abuse does.
Do the thoughts of the community concerned lead you to think they are all simply offended, and that some don’t feel harmed? |
jeez, apples and oranges. the first sounds like abh, the second like racially aggravated harassment. both are crimes, both involve objective harm that is recognised by the law.
in legal terms and human rights and freedom of expression terms, which is what i've been discussing with vegtablue, the thoughts of the community would not amount to harm. people may be offended and upset, and they can express that and challenge and criticise what has been said as they wish, but the thoughts of the community alone don't justify limiting freedom expression. i'm sure the life of brian at the time caused real offence, upset and hurt to some christian communities - that didn't amount to harm such as to ban the film. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:05 - Dec 4 with 869 views | gringoblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:38 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the premier league and the people who run the campaign have made the poor decision. it should never come down to one individual (the captain) having to take on a role whether they choose to or not. have a scheme where players opt in or just have a volunteer player as a champion who carries a flag onto the pitch or whatever. that avoids the whole issue.
being captain is a real thing with real duties not just some honorary thing. who is captain should depend only on football and not on who is or isn't willing to do other things. if you want a purely ceremonial role have a club captain in addition to the current team captain. or have ambassadors or whatever you choose to call them.
i don't believe that morsy declining to do this has caused harm in any legal or human rights sense. it has undoubtedly caused offence to some - but offence is not the same as harm and there is no right not to be offended. harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others, it can't just be upset or disagreement or a sense that some cause or campaign has been damaged. you can't demand that someone does something to support your cause or campaign and then say they have harmed you if they decline. |
I think our disagreement comes down to you seeing the role of a football captain as being solely on pitch. In the laws of the game, a captain's only responsibility is the coin toss. |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:05 - Dec 4 with 868 views | pointofblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:38 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the premier league and the people who run the campaign have made the poor decision. it should never come down to one individual (the captain) having to take on a role whether they choose to or not. have a scheme where players opt in or just have a volunteer player as a champion who carries a flag onto the pitch or whatever. that avoids the whole issue.
being captain is a real thing with real duties not just some honorary thing. who is captain should depend only on football and not on who is or isn't willing to do other things. if you want a purely ceremonial role have a club captain in addition to the current team captain. or have ambassadors or whatever you choose to call them.
i don't believe that morsy declining to do this has caused harm in any legal or human rights sense. it has undoubtedly caused offence to some - but offence is not the same as harm and there is no right not to be offended. harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others, it can't just be upset or disagreement or a sense that some cause or campaign has been damaged. you can't demand that someone does something to support your cause or campaign and then say they have harmed you if they decline. |
"harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others..."
To be, refusing to participate in a show of support to a marginalised community can affect the treatment of others, because those who are more willing to act can feel emboldened and supported. | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:14 - Dec 4 with 817 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:05 - Dec 4 by pointofblue |
"harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others..."
To be, refusing to participate in a show of support to a marginalised community can affect the treatment of others, because those who are more willing to act can feel emboldened and supported. |
it has to be more direct and objective than that. it can't be because of what is essentially a political interpretation of speech. in terms of legal offences that might be the result of speech or expression i can not believe that there has been a single case of someone committing an offence by not speaking? it makes no sense at all. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:15 - Dec 4 with 812 views | Vegtablue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:38 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the premier league and the people who run the campaign have made the poor decision. it should never come down to one individual (the captain) having to take on a role whether they choose to or not. have a scheme where players opt in or just have a volunteer player as a champion who carries a flag onto the pitch or whatever. that avoids the whole issue.
being captain is a real thing with real duties not just some honorary thing. who is captain should depend only on football and not on who is or isn't willing to do other things. if you want a purely ceremonial role have a club captain in addition to the current team captain. or have ambassadors or whatever you choose to call them.
i don't believe that morsy declining to do this has caused harm in any legal or human rights sense. it has undoubtedly caused offence to some - but offence is not the same as harm and there is no right not to be offended. harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others, it can't just be upset or disagreement or a sense that some cause or campaign has been damaged. you can't demand that someone does something to support your cause or campaign and then say they have harmed you if they decline. |
We disagree in your judgement of the campaign and I think you attach misplaced importance on Morsy's armband, even with new rules limiting ref conversation to just the captain (Morsy's propensity for fouling means he hardly ingratiate himself with referees, let's be honest, and I wonder if his beliefs are respected universally within the camp). Morsy leads on the pitch with his tenacity and his demands of those around him, armband or not, just as there have been many such armband-less examples throughout football.
On your last paragraph, honestly I struggle with your answer that you'd have come to the same viewpoint if Morsy had refused to wear an anti-racism campaign armband, or an anti-violence-against-women campaign armband, as opposed to an anti-exclusion-of-LGBT-people armband, and I think these choices do cause harm, especially when from people as publicly important and influential as PL captains, which is why I don't believe the club should have afforded him the platform to express his defiance. Appreciate we again disagree here and cheers for elaborating on your thoughts. | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:26 - Dec 4 with 772 views | Swailsey |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 13:38 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
i think the premier league and the people who run the campaign have made the poor decision. it should never come down to one individual (the captain) having to take on a role whether they choose to or not. have a scheme where players opt in or just have a volunteer player as a champion who carries a flag onto the pitch or whatever. that avoids the whole issue.
being captain is a real thing with real duties not just some honorary thing. who is captain should depend only on football and not on who is or isn't willing to do other things. if you want a purely ceremonial role have a club captain in addition to the current team captain. or have ambassadors or whatever you choose to call them.
i don't believe that morsy declining to do this has caused harm in any legal or human rights sense. it has undoubtedly caused offence to some - but offence is not the same as harm and there is no right not to be offended. harm has to be something that affects the freedoms and treatment of others, it can't just be upset or disagreement or a sense that some cause or campaign has been damaged. you can't demand that someone does something to support your cause or campaign and then say they have harmed you if they decline. |
I fundamentally disagree with your opinion here, and I think this is the crux of the matter. I don’t think it’s up to you determine what causes ‘harm’ to an individual if you are not the person impacted. Define harm - physical? No. Mental? Yes. Is that not enough for you? | |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
