Job Marler racially abusing a Welsh player? No Sanction

[biffer]

It is my genuine opinion that your comment can be stretched beyond reason to be construed as an attack on an English stereotype and and can be deemed offensive in a similar degree to the term used by Marler in the context that it was used and which has been stretched beyond reason.

Where did I use any English stereotype?

My perception of a comment made about attitudes to others. When we're all digging deep...

Which comment and how did it in any way allude to a stereotype?

[kend]

The problem I have with this is you only thinking about harm to the individual. You also have to look at harm done more widely to a group of people.

The social authority principle - respect is due Biffer!

There is a broader definition of harm (beyond the individual) which includes societal harm. Since I have JS Mill's book to hand:

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

The rules covering racism, sexism, homophobia etc fall into the category of causing societal harm, which is why they are proscribed by every sporting body. The same principle covers freedom of speech; we have the freedom to say what we please (even if it offends others), but not the freedom to incite others to violence.

Causing offence isn't sufficient to justify intervention. So even if Marler was called a 'Posh English @#@#', that doesn't fall into the misconduct category (it also shows they have never met the bloke!). Neither would a response such as 'Common Welsh @#@#'. Both comments might be deemed offensive or upsetting and be condemned for language, but not misconduct in terms of “insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin”. His ban was inevitable and not too bad (4 weeks reduced to 2), the fine (IMHO) is disproportionately harsh. It's the RFU and the six nations that come out of this badly.

[biffer]

The problem I have with this is you only thinking about harm to the individual. You also have to look at harm done more widely to a group of people.

The social authority principle - respect is due Biffer!

There is a broader definition of harm (beyond the individual) which includes societal harm. Since I have JS Mill's book to hand:

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

The rules covering racism, sexism, homophobia etc fall into the category of causing societal harm, which is why they are proscribed by every sporting body. The same principle covers freedom of speech; we have the freedom to say what we please (even if it offends others), but not the freedom to incite others to violence.

Causing offence isn't sufficient to justify intervention. So even if Marler was called a 'Posh English @#@#', that doesn't fall into the misconduct category (it also shows they have never met the bloke!). Neither would a response such as 'Common Welsh @#@#'. Both comments might be deemed offensive or upsetting and be condemned for language, but not misconduct in terms of “insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin”. His ban was inevitable and not too bad (4 weeks reduced to 2), the fine (IMHO) is disproportionately harsh. It's the RFU and the six nations that come out of this badly.

JS Mill, higher authority than anyone else so far...

[h's dad]

The problem I have with this is you only thinking about harm to the individual. You also have to look at harm done more widely to a group of people.

The social authority principle - respect is due Biffer!

There is a broader definition of harm (beyond the individual) which includes societal harm. Since I have JS Mill's book to hand:

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

The rules covering racism, sexism, homophobia etc fall into the category of causing societal harm, which is why they are proscribed by every sporting body. The same principle covers freedom of speech; we have the freedom to say what we please (even if it offends others), but not the freedom to incite others to violence.

Causing offence isn't sufficient to justify intervention. So even if Marler was called a 'Posh English @#@#', that doesn't fall into the misconduct category (it also shows they have never met the bloke!). Neither would a response such as 'Common Welsh @#@#'. Both comments might be deemed offensive or upsetting and be condemned for language, but not misconduct in terms of “insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin”. His ban was inevitable and not too bad (4 weeks reduced to 2), the fine (IMHO) is disproportionately harsh. It's the RFU and the six nations that come out of this badly.

JS Mill, higher authority than anyone else so far...

I seem to have had a post from our little reductio ad absurdum removed biffer. I really don't know why.

Re this little bit of Mill and Marler, society's opinion does not seem to be totally clear, in fact there is something of a schism. I would also point out that Mill excluded the giving of offence (never mind when it's taken by people that it's not aimed at) and also that he was a strong proponent of free speech.

[biffer]

That's kind of the point - it's not about offence. It's about prejudice, or more accurately the potential to encourage prejudicial behaviour in wider society, which is what Mill refers to above. If you engage in behaviour which makes society more prone to prejudicial behaviour, you are doing societal harm and as such the behaviour is unacceptable.

[tigercaspian]

Does any one know if there is any truth in the rumour that Marler was called a "posh English ***t" just before the incident?

If so it's a misapprehension - two of them are correct, not sure about the posh.

Many thanks for the 66% validation!

I love the way this thread refuses to die - just when you think it's finished, someone blows on the embers. And how erudite too - John Stuart Mill.....brilliant...... !

[fleabane]

Spot on biffer. J.S. Mill accords with the Law too!

[Phil B]

My head hurts.

[GS]

I know what you mean Phil, mine started hurting about three weeks ago. One very interesting fact, to me at least, is that we are well into the 2nd day since ellis asked welshy, who started all this and fanned the embers of racism into a fire, if calling him welshy was in fact a racist act.......

Come on welshy, the tumbleweed is blowing down the street as we await your answer.

[biffer]

I know what you mean Phil, mine started hurting about three weeks ago. One very interesting fact, to me at least, is that we are well into the 2nd day since ellis asked welshy, who started all this and fanned the embers of racism into a fire, if calling him welshy was in fact a racist act.......

Come on welshy, the tumbleweed is blowing down the street as we await your answer.

Again that misses the point by focussing on personal offence rather than wider societal damage.

[ellis9]

I'm confused! What's this personal offence and wider societal damage cobblers? Surely if something is racist, it's racist?!