Liverpool FC Forum

Tottenham defend supporters over claims of antisemitic abuse
• Society of Black Lawyers takes issue with use of 'Y-word'
• 'Our fans adopt the chant in order to own the term,' say Spurs 

Tottenham have defended their supporters after the Society of Black Lawyers threatened to make a complaint to police over claims that antisemitic abuse is taking place at White Hart Lane.

Although widely recognised as an insult, some Spurs fans proudly call themselves "Yids" or "Yiddos" and chant "Yid army" at games as an act of defiance to those who discriminate against the club's large Jewish following.

Peter Herbert, who chairs the Society of Black Lawyers, believes this is not acceptable. He said: "It does not make a difference if it is Tottenham fans doing the chants or away fans – if they continue to do it we will report it to the police. There has to be zero tolerance and if that catches out Spurs then so be it."

Asked about Jewish fans themselves singing the chant, he said: "That's not acceptable either."

He said: " If neither Tottenham FC nor the FA are willing to take a stand then SBL will report the matter to the Metropolitan Police Service for investigation and, if necessary, prosecution. The report will be made if this behaviour does not cease by 20 November. We will have monitors in attendance to observe what occurs."

Spurs responded to Herbert's claims by defending their fans and pointing out that their fans have in the past been subjected to taunts about the Holocaust. "Our position on this topic is very clear," a Tottenham statement read. "The club does not tolerate any form of racist or abusive chanting. Our guiding principle in respect of the 'Y-word' is based on the point of law itself – the distinguishing factor is the intent with which it is used – if it is used with the deliberate intention to cause offence. This has been the basis of prosecutions of fans of other teams to date. "Our fans adopted the chant as a defence mechanism in order to own the term and thereby deflect antisemitic abuse. They do not use the term to others to cause any offence, they use it as a chant amongst themselves.

"The club believes that real antisemitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate."

Racism has been a major issue within the game over the last few weeks. The Chelsea captain John Terry was banned for four matches for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand – although he was cleared of criminal charges – and two weeks ago the European champions became embroiled in another race row when they accused the referee Mark Clattenburg of using "inappropriate language" towards their midfielder Mikel John Obi .

The language Clattenburg is alleged to have used is understood to have been interpreted as being racist. The referee denies the claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... yers-abuse

-----------------------------------------------------------

It's beyond a joke now it really fecking is. Cultural Marxist subversion has well and truly been indoctrinated into Western society. Black lawyers society? feck me, where does this reverse discrimination/racism stop - answer is, it doesn't, it's just going to evolve and become a bigger monster that demands feeding with even more fallacious laws.

Spurs fans have been singing this for years (mid 80's) and no there isn't any antisemitic abuse derived from it; in fact it's quite the opposite but now the Black Lawyers Society seem to be stirring up a bit more publicity for themselves with their Faux pas & ridiculously sensitive views.

Spurs fans, have down the years (due to their large Jewish contingent) been subjected to 'hissing' noises from Chelsea and West Ham fans, they refute THIS antisemitic abuse by singing their Yid Army (s.hitty chant), Yid and proud stuff. Herbert also said Jews singing this stuff is not also on, feck in hell where does his "societies" audacity end, does this sensitive and quite frankly disturbing view mean that Black rappers should cease to refer to themselves as nigger in their rap songs?

I'd love to here the liberal lefty views on this: Specifically Burjennio, failing him I'd love to hear the apologetic views of PC from SouthCoastShankly, Andy G, LFC2007 or any other person who advocates nannyism, PC and relentless faux pas advocates.

It makes me laugh how Suarez and Terry got fined for the reference of calling other people black. And yet there is the Society of Black Lawyers. Its a kind of hypocrisy which raises the question, why were they punished again?

Suarez was fined £40,000 and banned for 8 games for calling Evra a little black man.

Terry was fined over £200,000 and banned for 4 games for calling Ferdinand a black ****.

The reason why they were punished is because they used the word black.

And yet here are the Society of Black Lawyers. It boggles the mind.

It's not hard to figure out what is happening is it?

This has ***** all to do with "cultural marxism" or any of that stupid noise. It runs across the political spectrum.

It's about the power to silence and extort a bit of revenue, that's all and that doesn't have a left wing or a right wing to it. Certain interest groups are determined to be professionally offended, because there is money in it and they use lobbying to extend that muscle.

You do your quite reasonable POV an extreme dis-service bringing such nonsense into the frame KK.

Frankly, I believe that either everyone has the right to say Yid, Jap, Nigger, Wop, Mick or Paddy...or NOBODY does. This bullshit of "taking the word back" is a load of old bollox.

Besides, I never thought "Yid" was a bad term? I always thought it was just short for Yiddish. Oi Vey! 

Also, Kharhaz, Suarez was fined and banned because the word he used was a little bit too close to "Nigger" and Terry got his because of the obviously aggressive nature of "black cnut".

If they'd had called them "black lawyers"...there probably wouldn't have been a problem. 

tonyeh » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:05 am wrote:This has ***** all to do with "cultural marxism" or any of that stupid noise. It runs across the political spectrum.

It's about the power to silence and extort a bit of revenue, that's all and that doesn't have a left wing or a right wing to it. Certain interest groups are determined to be professionally offended, because there is money in it and they use lobbying to extend that muscle.

You do your quite reasonable POV an extreme dis-service bringing such nonsense into the frame KK.

Frankly, I believe that either everyone has the right to say Yid, Jap, Nigger, Wop, Mick or Paddy...or NOBODY does. This bullshit of "taking the word back" is a load of old bollox.

Besides, I never thought "Yid" was a bad term? I always thought it was just short for Yiddish. Oi Vey! 

Also, Kharhaz, Suarez was fined and banned because the word he used was a little bit too close to "Nigger" and Terry got his because of the obviously aggressive nature of "black cnut".

If they'd had called them "black lawyers"...there probably wouldn't have been a problem. 

Tonyeh, your first paragraph proves to me you have no idea what you are talking about. You've totally missed the point.

Had the toxic phenomenon of "political correctness" never been indoctrinated into British society as it patently has, then these morally faux pretenses (like the OP one) would have never been given the voice, attention and media coverage they now seek, or, more worryingly, legal opportunities to alter and authorise such pretenses as the 'new norm'.

Now, you may want to write off the concept of Cultural Marxism  as "stupid noise" but in doing so, you're also implying PC doesn't, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

And, just to add to this whole broad concept of CM, or PC whichever term you wish to believe (that's of course if you do believe these terms actually do exist), they weren't brought into existence as a 'money making scheme', in my eyes they were brought into existence to discriminate further and in other's eye's (cultural Marxist's eyes) they were brought in to existance to bring equality into society, which obviously I find hypocritical, I mean Black Lawyer's Society.  It just so happens people of BLS ilk have jumped onto the coat tails of this "subversion" as a way to make money from it, not the other way round.

Kenny Kan » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:47 am wrote:Tottenham defend supporters over claims of antisemitic abuse
• Society of Black Lawyers takes issue with use of 'Y-word'
• 'Our fans adopt the chant in order to own the term,' say Spurs 

Tottenham have defended their supporters after the Society of Black Lawyers threatened to make a complaint to police over claims that antisemitic abuse is taking place at White Hart Lane.

Although widely recognised as an insult, some Spurs fans proudly call themselves "Yids" or "Yiddos" and chant "Yid army" at games as an act of defiance to those who discriminate against the club's large Jewish following.

Peter Herbert, who chairs the Society of Black Lawyers, believes this is not acceptable. He said: "It does not make a difference if it is Tottenham fans doing the chants or away fans – if they continue to do it we will report it to the police. There has to be zero tolerance and if that catches out Spurs then so be it."

Asked about Jewish fans themselves singing the chant, he said: "That's not acceptable either."

He said: " If neither Tottenham FC nor the FA are willing to take a stand then SBL will report the matter to the Metropolitan Police Service for investigation and, if necessary, prosecution. The report will be made if this behaviour does not cease by 20 November. We will have monitors in attendance to observe what occurs."

Spurs responded to Herbert's claims by defending their fans and pointing out that their fans have in the past been subjected to taunts about the Holocaust. "Our position on this topic is very clear," a Tottenham statement read. "The club does not tolerate any form of racist or abusive chanting. Our guiding principle in respect of the 'Y-word' is based on the point of law itself – the distinguishing factor is the intent with which it is used – if it is used with the deliberate intention to cause offence. This has been the basis of prosecutions of fans of other teams to date. "Our fans adopted the chant as a defence mechanism in order to own the term and thereby deflect antisemitic abuse. They do not use the term to others to cause any offence, they use it as a chant amongst themselves.

"The club believes that real antisemitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate."

Racism has been a major issue within the game over the last few weeks. The Chelsea captain John Terry was banned for four matches for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand – although he was cleared of criminal charges – and two weeks ago the European champions became embroiled in another race row when they accused the referee Mark Clattenburg of using "inappropriate language" towards their midfielder Mikel John Obi .

The language Clattenburg is alleged to have used is understood to have been interpreted as being racist. The referee denies the claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... yers-abuse

-----------------------------------------------------------

It's beyond a joke now it really fecking is. Cultural Marxist subversion has well and truly been indoctrinated into Western society. Black lawyers society? feck me, where does this reverse discrimination/racism stop - answer is, it doesn't, it's just going to evolve and become a bigger monster that demands feeding with even more fallacious laws.

Spurs fans have been singing this for years (mid 80's) and no there isn't any antisemitic abuse derived from it; in fact it's quite the opposite but now the Black Lawyers Society seem to be stirring up a bit more publicity for themselves with their Faux pas & ridiculously sensitive views.

Spurs fans, have down the years (due to their large Jewish contingent) been subjected to 'hissing' noises from Chelsea and West Ham fans, they refute THIS antisemitic abuse by singing their Yid Army (s.hitty chant), Yid and proud stuff. Herbert also said Jews singing this stuff is not also on, feck in hell where does his "societies" audacity end, does this sensitive and quite frankly disturbing view mean that Black rappers should cease to refer to themselves as nigger in their rap songs?

I'd love to here the liberal lefty views on this: Specifically Burjennio, failing him I'd love to hear the apologetic views of PC from SouthCoastShankly, Andy G, LFC2007 or any other person who advocates nannyism, PC and relentless faux pas advocates.

You couldn't be more wrong, I actually think it is ridiculous. I take no offence whatsoever that Spurs fans use the term "Yid".

I think society is too PC, but not to the extremes you do and not with the associated conspiracy theory nonsense.

How can 'Critical Theory' be a conspiracy theory?

Dialectic of Enlightenment (German: Dialektik der Aufklärung) is a work of philosophy and social criticism written by Frankfurt School philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno and first published in 1944.
One of the core texts of Critical theory, it explains the socio-psychological status quo that had been responsible for what the Frankfurt School considered the failure of the Age of Enlightenment. Together with The Authoritarian Personality (1950; also co-authored by Adorno) and Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man (1964), it has had a major effect on 20th century philosophy, sociology, culture, and politics, inspiring especially the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s.

When it's 'common' knowledge that it has had a 'major effect' on 20th century dispositions?

The New Left was a range of activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who focused their attention on marginal identities and, eventually, identity politics.[2] They rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism's historical theory of class struggle.[3] Abandoning the Marxist goals of educating the proletariat, the New Left turned to student activism as its reservoir of power.

Sorry but how does making a paragraph bold make the theory an accepted truth?

Conspiracy Theory Definition:

the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

That fits the bill. Whilst you may genuinely belief critical theory is the root cause if all things politically correct in today's world, it is nothing but a perspective and opinion.

More worryingly an opinion commonly held by right wing Christian fundamentalists.

Sorry but how does making a paragraph bold make the theory an accepted truth?

The only accepted truth from that paragraph is that Critical Theory does exist and has influenced new left thinking.

That fits the bill. Whilst you may genuinely belief critical theory is the root cause if all things politically correct in today's world, it is nothing but a perspective and opinion.

This is where cognitive polyphasia is evident on my behalf, I don't know or have a definitive opinion on whether Critical Theory and other sociological studies were formed to 'bring down the West' subversively BUT Marxism as such was an indoctrination of Communism that challenged Capitalism within Western society. These studies and academics over the years have evolved such disciplines from their 'possible' original intentions. And as an academic would say - it certainly is "plausible" that political correctness was birthed from such sociological sciences. That's the theory I hold and view. And even some post-Marxist academics would acclaim and attribute such changes in social, cultural, political and economic spheres have occurred due to the philosophical and theorised nature of these studies. I think they have something to boast about, take that away from them if you want, I won't. For example, we have socialised health care and education which I think is a good thing and can be attributed to Socialism and possibly Marxism. I also believe capitalism has many greedy down falls, for example, recently pharmaceutical companies and researchers have run out of funds to f ind  cures for certain cancers. It isn't worth their while pumping billions into cancer research as the rewards aren't cost effective. They're more than happy to pump out medications for high blood pressure and anxiety etc where a customer has to come back once every month and pay 40 pound for ongoing dependent medication. Everything is not as black and white as you'd wish it to be SouthCoastShankly.

Perhaps, for me, Bad Bob would be a better poster to discuss this with as an academic himself I don't believe he'd be quite so ignorant about what it is, I am trying to say. Yes, it's a theory, but like I say it's a plausible one. Tonyeh believed the OP post  and the issue raised was born from a money making exercise, I think such issues are born from much more complex societal and cultural changes than merely money making.

More worryingly an opinion commonly held by right wing Christian fundamentalists.

This is typical of you. 1) Why do you imply that either you, or I should be worried that this view is held by such groups - politically correct-edly you "worry" or make out you worry because some views held by one are also held by a radicalized group, we couldn't have that could we. Ian brady no doubt believes the sky is blue, will you disagree with that notion just so you aren't lumbered and labelled as 'thinking the same thing' as a psychotic serial killer - that would worry you wouldn't it. You do seem to worry, to the extent that you worry what you or others say or think in case it offends.

You also use these ridiculous statements at the end of your posts, to sway opinion and make you appear morally right because you're too scared to believe or say something that believes you to be tarred as the next neo-nazi.

Just for the record SCS, I'd be in much more disagreement with right winged Christian fundamentalists then you try to imply, it's a very lazy and honestly it's a quite pathetic tactic to use to smear me with.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The theory here is that PC hasn't just popped up out of nowhere in the last 12 years or so. More likely it has has evolved from sociological studies which were given a generous and bias helping hand during the early to mid 20th century, primarily from Marxist 'think tankers'. Critical theory, socialization and off shoot subfield topics like post-colonialism, rationalization, feminism, critical whiteness and so forth. Here's a extract on the thinkings behind critical whiteness/ privileged:

Writers such as Peggy McIntosh say that there are social, political, and cultural advantages accorded to whites in global society. She argues that these advantages seem invisible to white people, but obvious to non-whites. For instance, "I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.

So I have begun in an untouched way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was 'meant' to remain oblivious" (188).[7] McIntosh calls for Americans to acknowledge white privilege so that they can more effectively attain equality in American society.

She argues, "To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects" (192).[8]

Note: Bold part, what a crock of antagonistic s.hit.

I have studied a subject on this myself and on a superficial level it is quite thought provoking at best and institutionally racist at worst. However, the trouble and danger with such disciplines like this (and the one's mentioned above), is, you get the eager beaver far-lefty studying disciplines like this, and they become indoctrinated into the systems belief and go out into the big wide world trying to re-hash their very own version of the Civil Rights Movements all over again, and save the world's problems while going about them all so wrong. With subjects like this being taught in Universities and students who thus become educated and believe this to be the word of academic-God, is it any wonder Black Lawyer's Society become an almost contemporary norm in society today? Of course, we now know why an institute like the White Lawyer's Society couldn't possibly exist, especially if we've all studied Critical Whiteness theory and joined in with other New Left ideas, affirmative action, substantial equality and all that hypocritical, double standard baloney, none of which can EVER bring true equality into society, because certain groups are getting a 'leg-up' at the expense of other groups, to me, that is wrong and will continue to feed the unbalanced socio-political norms that we see in society today. It's destructive and no good will come of it IMO, apart from social unrest - Enoch Powell I'm not.

Okay, so it's fair to say, the theory behind 'where' PC came from can be traced back to these disciplines. If anyone fancies refuting this, I'm all ears but remember your argument cannot state - PC has just popped up from nothing, circular logic is invalid.

Let's look at the so-called and perhaps aptly named conspiracy theory that Communism - Marxism in certain apsects sought to oooooh    take over the world with this ideology and bring nasty capitalism burning down to it's knees. Funnily enough, I stumbled upon a Wiki piece re this, here's an extract:

Post World War Two
A new upsurge of revolutionary feeling swept across Europe in the aftermath of World War II, though it was not as strong as the one triggered by World War I which resulted in failed (in the socialist sense) revolution in Germany and a successful one (for seventy years) in Russia. Communist parties in countries such as Greece, France, and Italy had acquired significant prestige and public support due to their activity as leaders of anti-fascist resistance movements during the war; as such, they also enjoyed considerable success at the polls and regularly finished second in elections in the late 1940s. However, none managed to finish in first and form a government. Communist parties in Eastern Europe, meanwhile, though they did win elections at around the same time, did so under circumstances regarded by some as mere show elections.

Revolts across the world in the 1960s and early 1970s, coupled with the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the establishment of the New Left together with the Civil Rights Movement, the militancy of the Black Panther Party and similar armed/insurrectionary "Liberation Front" groups around the globe, and even a bit of a resurgence in the labor movement for a time once again made it seem to some as though world revolution was not only possible, but actually imminent; thus, there was a common expression, "The East is Red, and the West is Ready". However, this radical left spirit ebbed by the mid-1970s, and in 1980s and 1990s there was a return to certain right-wing, economically conservative ideologies (spearheaded, among other examples, by Thatcherism in the United Kingdom and Reaganomics in the United States) and also free-market reforms in China and in Vietnam.

Within Marxist theory, Lenin's concept of the labor aristocracy and his description of imperialism, and – separately, but not necessarily unrelatedly – Trotsky's theories regarding the deformed workers' state, offer several explanations as to why the world revolution has not occurred to the present day. Many groups, however, such as the Progressive Labor Party (United States), still explicitly pursue the goal of worldwide communist revolution, calling it the truest expression of proletarian internationalism.

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution

It does appear that world domination re communism was a wet dream for such believers, perhaps not so much a conspiracy after all, eh. It's debatable certainly but it looks as though it has more credentials perhaps than the conspiracy theories of the Moon landing, aliens and Roswell etc.

Perhaps, for me, Bad Bob would be a better poster to discuss this with as an academic himself I don't believe he'd be quite so ignorant about what it is, I am trying to say.

                       

A little knowledge (and access to Google) is a dangerous thing.

Get over yourself KK.

there there Woof.

No knowledge and Sh*t for brains is equally dangerous. And you certainly would know that -hola!

tonyeh » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:05 am wrote:Also, Kharhaz, Suarez was fined and banned because the word he used was a little bit too close to "Nigger" and Terry got his because of the obviously aggressive nature of "black cnut".

If they'd had called them "black lawyers"...there probably wouldn't have been a problem. 

That wasnt the explanation though was it? They were both punished for referring to the skin colour.

A few years ago I showed a Chris Rock clip, about how he loves black people, but he hates n!ggers. I then asked where is the cut off point. Well now it would seem the word Black is right up there with N!gger.

If a group of black lawyers want to form a Black Lawyers Society, thats ok with me they can do what they like but how would the wider reaction be if a group of white lawyers formed the white lawyers society, would they be racist? Are white, or Asian or Eskimo Lawyers allowed to join the BLS, if not is that racist. It seems to me that racism only falls one way in the society we live in and maybe this BLS are bringing up this Spurs issue to widen the spectrum but where does it end.