Job Marler racially abusing a Welsh player? No Sanction

[chris11]

I have to say I agree with h's Dad and Donny on this. Politically correct massive over reaction. He apologised - move on.

We have, as a democratic society, thankfully taken the decision to bring abuse based on protected characteristics (gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) within the remit of the law, through the 2010 Equalities Act. What you call 'PC', I call "respectful, considerate conduct in civil society" (in short, good manners). I know some people find it too much of a chore to find forms of words that others don't find offensive....but they, as you put it, need to "move on" - and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Marler's abuse falls within the remit of the 2010 Act and he should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what his intent was or what he thought the context was (if you don't believe me, check out case law - it is possible to be convicted of discriminatory conduct even if the offender is mistaken about the characteristic of the victim....e.g. Straight person is abused on the way out of a gay club on the assumption that they are gay? Simple - homophobic abuse. Atheist abused leaving a cultural event at a synagogue? - simple, anti-Semitism.

You might not like it but the people have spoken by way of legislation.

[h's dad]

I have to say I agree with h's Dad and Donny on this. Politically correct massive over reaction. He apologised - move on.

We have, as a democratic society, thankfully taken the decision to bring abuse based on protected characteristics (gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) within the remit of the law, through the 2010 Equalities Act. What you call 'PC', I call "respectful, considerate conduct in civil society" (in short, good manners). I know some people find it too much of a chore to find forms of words that others don't find offensive....but they, as you put it, need to "move on" - and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Marler's abuse falls within the remit of the 2010 Act and he should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what his intent was or what he thought the context was (if you don't believe me, check out case law - it is possible to be convicted of discriminatory conduct even if the offender is mistaken about the characteristic of the victim....e.g. Straight person is abused on the way out of a gay club on the assumption that they are gay? Simple - homophobic abuse. Atheist abused leaving a cultural event at a synagogue? - simple, anti-Semitism.

You might not like it but the people have spoken by way of legislation.

And that it what is so so wrong in this instance. The sledgehammer is necessary but using it on the smallest of nuts is plain stupid.

[tigercaspian]

Sorry, Biffer, still not with you and I do think you are stretching the elastic beyond breaking point with that argument !

[Big Dai]

I have to say I agree with h's Dad and Donny on this. Politically correct massive over reaction. He apologised - move on.

We have, as a democratic society, thankfully taken the decision to bring abuse based on protected characteristics (gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) within the remit of the law, through the 2010 Equalities Act. What you call 'PC', I call "respectful, considerate conduct in civil society" (in short, good manners). I know some people find it too much of a chore to find forms of words that others don't find offensive....but they, as you put it, need to "move on" - and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Marler's abuse falls within the remit of the 2010 Act and he should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what his intent was or what he thought the context was (if you don't believe me, check out case law - it is possible to be convicted of discriminatory conduct even if the offender is mistaken about the characteristic of the victim....e.g. Straight person is abused on the way out of a gay club on the assumption that they are gay? Simple - homophobic abuse. Atheist abused leaving a cultural event at a synagogue? - simple, anti-Semitism.

You might not like it but the people have spoken by way of legislation.

Oi! And which people were they? Spoken my brushing Aunt Fanakerpan! Legislation imposed on the freethinking, free spirited people by sharp suited freeloaders in Brussels. We, the downtrodden masses demand common sense not law. You'll be telling me I can't have a bent cucumber next!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

[Isambard]

and still no one has mentioned that Marler is a prop!

I know that Dan Cole reads a lot but props have a no doubt misapplied reputation for cerebral thought,evidenced by penalties at scrum time.

Is there not a tradition of sledging amongst front rows, endangered by microphones all over the place. I suspect the use of Welsh, Gaelic, Basque, Italian and Georgian is most prevalent in the scrimmage.

To cause offence and then to immediately say sorry is a very honest part of this wonderful game. Just as Brown said sorry to the Irish scrum half so did Marler say sorry to the Welshman. If you cant apologise and thereby drawing a line then what's the point of saying sorry?

[Big Dai]

and still no one has mentioned that Marler is a prop!

I know that Dan Cole reads a lot but props have a no doubt misapplied reputation for cerebral thought,evidenced by penalties at scrum time.

Is there not a tradition of sledging amongst front rows, endangered by microphones all over the place. I suspect the use of Welsh, Gaelic, Basque, Italian and Georgian is most prevalent in the scrimmage.

To cause offence and then to immediately say sorry is a very honest part of this wonderful game. Just as Brown said sorry to the Irish scrum half so did Marler say sorry to the Welshman. If you cant apologise and thereby drawing a line then what's the point of saying sorry?

Not to mention French and Afrikaans!

[G.K]

Question is it ok to call someone a white boy or an English :censored:. Just asking because I'm not sure if I should start phoning plod and report this as racial abuse?

[chris11]

[/quote]

And that it what is so so wrong in this instance. The sledgehammer is necessary but using it on the smallest of nuts is plain stupid.[/quote]

What actually is it that you find so wrong? Your use of the sledgehammer/nut idiom suggests that you don't object to society imposing sanctions on those who abuse others in a way that focuses on specific characteristics - simply that you don't want these sanctions to be disproportionate. If so, then we are probably in agreement. All I said was Joe Marler should be punished - I wasn't suggesting he committed a capital offence!

[chris11]

Question is it ok to call someone a white boy or an English . Just asking because I'm not sure if I should start phoning plod and report this as racial abuse?

Is it OK? To my mind, no, it is ill-mannered and uncouth (see my earlier post). Should you report it as racial abuse? That's entirely up to you, but if you choose to do so that is your right and it would fall within the remit of the Equalities Act.

[chris11]

I have to say I agree with h's Dad and Donny on this. Politically correct massive over reaction. He apologised - move on.

We have, as a democratic society, thankfully taken the decision to bring abuse based on protected characteristics (gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc.) within the remit of the law, through the 2010 Equalities Act. What you call 'PC', I call "respectful, considerate conduct in civil society" (in short, good manners). I know some people find it too much of a chore to find forms of words that others don't find offensive....but they, as you put it, need to "move on" - and join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Marler's abuse falls within the remit of the 2010 Act and he should be punished for it. It doesn't matter what his intent was or what he thought the context was (if you don't believe me, check out case law - it is possible to be convicted of discriminatory conduct even if the offender is mistaken about the characteristic of the victim....e.g. Straight person is abused on the way out of a gay club on the assumption that they are gay? Simple - homophobic abuse. Atheist abused leaving a cultural event at a synagogue? - simple, anti-Semitism.

You might not like it but the people have spoken by way of legislation.

Oi! And which people were they? Spoken my brushing Aunt Fanakerpan! Legislation imposed on the freethinking, free spirited people by sharp suited freeloaders in Brussels. We, the downtrodden masses demand common sense not law. You'll be telling me I can't have a bent cucumber next!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Très amusant , mon petit camarade pujadist! Although we have strayed some distance from the Joe Marler incident, so perhaps we could bring this back on topic....forget about the bent cucumbers - could we ask for some EU action on crooked feeds at scrum time?

[Big Dai]

Peut-être mon ami. and while we're at it straight throws to the line out and no foot up from the hooker!

[Dr H Flashman MBE]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35816178

Gatland appears to gave drawn a line under it. Which makes me thinks so has everyone else. So by Gatland appearing to end the debate about it dos that mean, A. It's over and it's his autocratic decision to end it. B. Samson lee has agreed it was a remark and the powers that be will deal with it. C. Gatland has gone against his players wishes and thoughts and come out with this statement. Or D. Welshy08 has got himself worked over this issue, whilst looking at his Welsh dragon flag ( praying that St George doesn't slay it) and thought " how can I vent my spleen and get everyone angry?

[h's dad]

And that it what is so so wrong in this instance. The sledgehammer is necessary but using it on the smallest of nuts is plain stupid.[/quote]

What actually is it that you find so wrong? Your use of the sledgehammer/nut idiom suggests that you don't object to society imposing sanctions on those who abuse others in a way that focuses on specific characteristics - simply that you don't want these sanctions to be disproportionate. If so, then we are probably in agreement. All I said was Joe Marler should be punished - I wasn't suggesting he committed a capital offence![/quote]
Actually I think this is more of a pea than a nut so actually on a different plane altogether. As I said before I find it closer to the ridiculous than the offensive. Unless you want to punish people for the use of terms like 'frog', 'sweatie' or 'rostbif' which are all more openly derogatory. Iain should clearly receive a ban for the use of 'English pig-dog' which he seems to find side splittingly funny and, in a similar and more pertinent vein, I am surprised that no one has mentioned Borat.

[tigercaspian]

Well Dr F, I believe this is the very first time I find myself agreeing with Gatland..........

[biffer]

Sorry, Biffer, still not with you and I do think you are stretching the elastic beyond breaking point with that argument !

Unfortunately, it's people not following or understanding the way that small abuses lead to larger abuses that build up levels of acceptance of underlying discrimination and abuse. Another way to look at it is if you're having to draw an arbitrary line of what's acceptable and what's not, then if you allow some abuse of a particular type, it's very easy to argue to move that line little by little over a long period. For example, if gypsy boy is acceptable, is gypsy :censored:? Does gypsy boy being ok mean black boy is ok? If that's ok, what about black :censored:? If you start making some of these ok and some not, you're on a downward spiral into worse abuse based on people's ethnicity or race, as it's human nature to push the barriers back a little to try to gain an advantage. And if anyone thinks the last of the ones I mentioned is ok, then they're a racist.