Foreign secretary advice to LGBT fans.... Be respectful

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
2,472
I have protested all my life, mostly without sacrifice. I have been detained by the police, other days others were. I was frequently prepared for that but if it didn't happen it didn't negate my protest.

Its the intent and belief that's important and the willingness to sacrifice. I think the reactions of the others showed Roy was out on a limb a little. Roy has shown us he's not afraid to speak his mind.


And he's not Che Guevara but I'm glad it's him there speaking up and not someone else saying feck all. In the moment he spoke up and while Id prefer he spent some of his football money creating a movement and organising a huge boycott, I'm still glad he spoke up. He said they should take a yellow card and Id say he probably might have.

His dissent is not huge but he spoke up.
I don't personally think you should have to sacrifice. I just feel this is the latest bamdwagon pundits are on whilst being in Qatar for no other reason than enhancing their bank balance.

The damage might be done, but what Keane, Wright or other pundits discuss during the world cup helps shape public opinion back home. It might not make a difference for Qatar, but it can make a difference in other ways. They're not journalists, but for better or worse for the duration of the world cup you could argue they're the public face of the media, so it's still an important job to talk about these topics even if they themselves don't sacrifice anything by being there or putting pressure on the FA and FIFA.
It's four weeks. How much do you think can be achieved?

Do you think Keane, Souness etc will say another word about LGBT issues once the world cup is over and they've had their pay?

I'd wager not.

Do you think ITV shouldn't be covering the World Cup at all?

Maybe they shouldn't - that would be one way to go about it.

But given that they are covering it, and given that they do need pundits, isn't it better that Keane and Wright are being explicitly critical about certain aspects of the tournament - rather than, say, just ignoring those aspects and "focusing on the football"?

Isn't it more impactful that Roy Keane and Ian Wright make statements about this in Qatar, in real time, as pundits for a major network, rather than...them not doing it?
A few pre rehearsed words and profiteering off the back of it is better than not going in the first place? No I don't think so.

This is the reasoning they use to justify beimg there. You're repeating Gary Neville's nonsense.

All the major pundits don't take part. Make a stand. Don't make money off it.

That wouldbe something of substance.

It's actually you with the naive take.

You are right, we all know why the WC is there and we all know people will put money first. That is, and sadly always will be, the reality of the situation.

But whilst there, surely it matters that some speak out and highlight it? In your way, nobody says anything...I'd take a voice, even one being paid a lot of money, over someone being paid a load of money and happily doing so whilst not giving a shit.

And it's the same for the players, I see some posts about a ranking of who's worse and it's not their fault, but the likes of Kane and Southgate have mouthed of about the armband and used that as their excuse for going, and yet when it comes down to it they shit themselves and decide just playing is more important. Just the same as those who never made a stance in the first place.

So again, whilst you are right about this tourney and the money, you should see that at least people using their voices on that stage is better than those that wouldn't. Keane and Wright spoke out and said things their replacements wouldn't, on live TV. Surely by any metric that's got to be a positive no?
There are plenty of groups saying lots.

A football pundit spending five mins a week talking about it, in order to make the broadcaster look responsible, is useless. Just by being there and taking the money thry have validated the world cup.

They are there to make money. Nothing more. You won't hear a peep from these guys about LGBT issues once the world cup and their payday is over.
 

Dumbstar

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
19,410
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
Thank you for making it clear, Dumbstar, and moving beyond the wilful slipperiness / vagueness that others in this thread are hiding behind. I respect you doing that.

It just seems so odd (and dangerous) to level sexuality as a choice, when I’m sure, deep down you KNOW that you’ve not chosen to be straight…

Like, I know that I didn’t choose to be straight. It’s ridiculous.

So I guess the deeper stance is that you actually believe that everyone is straight and some people are choosing to deny that in themselves…

But the massive problem with that is that the animal and natural world is full of homosexuality… and so it all falls down again.

One thing I would like to know, and please be honest, is this -

If faced with 2 acts that are viewed by your religion as immoral, which does Islam generally support over the other? In this case, being gay vs oppressing people gay.

Which is generally viewed as the worse of those two things?

Example in the Western world - shoplifting is wrong, and beating someone up is wrong, but it’s really easy to see that it’s generally accepted that shoplifting is the lesser wrong. It carries lesser punishment legally than harming another person and it provokes a lesser reaction from us as Westerners.

I’m asking this because I’m trying to understand the real context of this within the modern Islamic world. And specifically within the nonsense that qatar are pulling, I want to know why they are being excused in their actions by some.
Before I answer I'd like to add that Roane is doing the right thing by keeping his counsel. These are deep matters that require proper discussions in appropriate forums. Generally not internet ones. His knowledge and delivery is on another level from me and I always listen to what he has to say about Islam.

I also sensed the frustrations of the forum so came in as a poor layman to try to help. However I'm not a good source for anything more involved.

Now to answer your question quickly, oppression is always worse in Islam. Also I want to reiterate Qatar is not the face of Islam. No country is any longer. Think of any Muslim country being the bastion of Islam as the USA being the bastion of democracy. It looks like it but it really isn't.
 

utdalltheway

Sexy Beast
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
19,402
Location
SoCal, USA
You must be joking! Do you really think it's going to happen? How many international tournaments have been held in the USA after they bombed the hell out and invaded Vietnam?
This is why I said it’s not the time. After this WC is over. No sense in derailing the thread to talk about other countries issues when we can stay focused on qatars.
 
Last edited:

Boavista

Full Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
499
It's four weeks. How much do you think can be achieved?

Do you think Keane, Souness etc will say another word about LGBT issues once the world cup is over and they've had their pay?

I'd wager not.
Nobody knows how much can be achieved, but is that the deciding factor as to what should be discussed?

Personally I think a realistic achievement would be showing the next generation of footballers and football supporters that standing up for certain issues matter to the public and will get positive support, as vague as that may sound. I think that already would be something positive, even if it's not much.
And in many ways this world cup, the attention on issues around it and FIFA's ridiculous response to the armband debate have been pretty unique. I'm sure there's going to be plenty more crazy developments and lessons to be learnt for the FA, UEFA or whoever on how to handle situations like that. And for that it's good to have pundits that don't just gloss over those topics.

Anyway, I don't know what can be achieved but I'm not sure why you're so focussed on whether the pundits genuinely care? At least to me it seems a bit irrelevant how "pure" Keane or Souness' motivations or convictions are when speaking out on human rights issues.
 

Mas Risky

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
20
What perplexes me about the recent campaign for LGBT rights in world football is why it is being voiced more by straight male players and club executives. What Colin Kaepernick did with his kneeling campaign to voice injustice against black people felt more relevant because he had a moral basis for his views.
That is the reason why for people in non-Western countries, the issue of LGBT at the World Cup feels forced. Racism is still a problem in football but never seems to be a major issue at the World Cup, a stage where players from different nations come together. Indeed, human rights should not be a political issue, but it can become a political issue when several countries with certain geopolitical powers want to dictate which issue suits them best.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
23,372
Location
London / Scotland
Supports
Everton
Above people are speaking about pundits and how those who went and spoke out about the injustices and created awareness etc (without any fear of reprisal) are more valuable than those who didn't / won't but is it not the same for the Players/ FAs who attempted to do something but were stopped by the governing body? Thereby creating awareness?

Aren't the players to be commended by sparking this conversation (which exposes fifa corruption) through their attempted actions?

Aren't the attempts (which have been shut down by FIFA) better than doing absolutely nothing at all? Aren't the players feelings pretty clear? Isn't it the governing bodies (FIFA and their FAs) which are preventing them from protesting?
They weren't stopped. They could have still done something but chose not to.

Why would they be commended? They'd be commended if they followed through with their words. It's not commendable to say you're for and support a cause and then drop that cause the moment it gets tough (not even) for you.

Are the players feelings clear? How can they be when they said they care about something but then remove their support for it? As has been said multiple times, members of the LGBTQ+ community, not only in Qatar but around the world have to live every single days in societies which ostracize them. They didn't prevent them from protesting as Germany have proven. There are multiple ways of pushing messages.

The England and Dutch players/managers in their comments said ok, we will shut up and move on with football, Germany didn't.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
23,372
Location
London / Scotland
Supports
Everton
Impossible to say with certainty that all of them care tbh.
They are doing a good job of pretending!

In the midst of me talking about the pundits motivation to be there you brought the quite abstract possibility of hypothetical replacement pundits not saying anything.
Okay, so I didn't say it then. I even put in my post that I know they are hypocritical but it's better to have pundits who are there and will speak up than pundits who are there and do not.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
3,322
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
I don't personally think you should have to sacrifice. I just feel this is the latest bamdwagon pundits are on whilst being in Qatar for no other reason than enhancing their bank balance.



It's four weeks. How much do you think can be achieved?

Do you think Keane, Souness etc will say another word about LGBT issues once the world cup is over and they've had their pay?

I'd wager not.



A few pre rehearsed words and profiteering off the back of it is better than not going in the first place? No I don't think so.

This is the reasoning they use to justify beimg there. You're repeating Gary Neville's nonsense.

All the major pundits don't take part. Make a stand. Don't make money off it.

That wouldbe something of substance.



There are plenty of groups saying lots.

A football pundit spending five mins a week talking about it, in order to make the broadcaster look responsible, is useless. Just by being there and taking the money thry have validated the world cup.

They are there to make money. Nothing more. You won't hear a peep from these guys about LGBT issues once the world cup and their payday is over.
I'm not sure why you're so upset about pundits being paid, it feels like misplaced anger. They're doing a job, should they do it for free, if they're going to have any opinion outside of the football played on the pitch?

They are not being paid by Qatar or Fifa. The ones we should be angry with are Samuel L Jackson and Beckham and anyone else taking Qatari cash to try and give this world cup a better PR spin. Football is better with pundits, I'm glad they are there and I'm glad they're speaking up.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
2,472
I'm not sure why you're so upset about pundits being paid, it feels like misplaced anger. They're doing a job, should they do it for free, if they're going to have any opinion outside of the football played on the pitch?

They are not being paid by Qatar or Fifa. The ones we should be angry with are Samuel L Jackson and Beckham and anyone else taking Qatari cash to try and give this world cup a better PR spin. Football is better with pundits, I'm glad they are there and I'm glad they're speaking up.
I don't think you should be profiting from Qatar hosting the world cup and at the same time for example say it shouldn't be held there.

Especially when you're already very wealthy and have no fiscal need to be there.

It's about having some principles.

And please, drop the online one-upmanship thing of cracking on a poster is upset or worked up. It's just a bit of debate.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
3,322
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
I don't think you should be profiting from Qatar hosting the world cup and at the same time for example say it shouldn't be held there.

Especially when you're already very wealthy and have no fiscal need to be there.

It's about having some principles.

And please, drop the online one-upmanship thing of cracking on a poster is upset or worked up. It's just a bit of debate.
But they're not profiting from Qatar hosting the World Cup, they're doing their jobs they'd be at the World Cup whether it was in the UK, Qatar or the North Pole and if it wasn't the World Cup they'd be in studios talking about the Premiership etc.

They're speaking up while there which is a good thing surely. I can not fathom why you would blame them with no mention of Beckham, Morgan Freeman, BTS etc these are people profiting specifically from Qatar hosting the World Cup and as you say have no fiscal need to be there.

As for your last sentence, there was no attempt at one-upmanship going on at all, I didn't realise upset was offensive. For context, I am extremely upset about the arm band, about the LGBTQ laws in Qatar, about homophobia and I'm very glad that the BBC and ITV are still talking about it.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
2,472
Okay, so I didn't say it then. I even put in my post that I know they are hypocritical but it's better to have pundits who are there and will speak up than pundits who are there and do not.
Every pundit for the major broadcasters will say something. They have to. It would be a PR disaster not to. There will have been meeting after meeting on how to address this as broadcasters. How do they nod to the problem and justify being there etc etc. It's just a PR game.

This is always how it goes. A few words are said. A few small gestures made. Everyone then feels a bit better. For the pundits, broadcasters, viewers and everyone, the collective consciences can rest a little easier.

It's worked a treat on posters here. Lots of people very happy Keane and Souness have spent 5 mins talking about LGBT issues. Now genuinely convinced it might make a difference.

Meanwhile the real business of making money is happening. Once the money is made they all move on and its never mentioned again.

It's how the money makers deal with all contentious cultural and political issues. Sadly it works very well.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
23,372
Location
London / Scotland
Supports
Everton
Every pundit for the major broadcasters will say something. They have to. It would be a PR disaster not to. There will have been meeting after meeting on how to address this as broadcasters. How do they nod to the problem and justify being there etc etc. It's just a PR game.

This is always how it goes. A few words are said. A few small gestures made. Everyone then feels a bit better. For the pundits, broadcasters, viewers and everyone, the collective consciences can rest a little easier.

It's worked a treat on posters here. Lots of people very happy Keane and Souness have spent 5 mins talking about LGBT issues. Now genuinely convinced it might make a difference.

Meanwhile the real business of making money is happening. Once the money is made they all move on and its never mentioned again.

It's how the money makers deal with all contentious cultural and political issues. Sadly it works very well.
Not every pundit has been. Some will stand/sit and say nothing while the convo occurs. Some like Souness will caveat their argument by saying that we shouldn't forget how the British are bad. Some like Keane will just say it how it is.

I personally think it's weird that you seem pretty against them saying something and seek cynicism on the topic. Of course it makes a difference when people who are icons of their sport are showing their support for things like this.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
2,472
But they're not profiting from Qatar hosting the World Cup, they're doing their jobs they'd be at the World Cup whether it was in the UK, Qatar or the North Pole and if it wasn't the World Cup they'd be in studios talking about the Premiership etc.

They're speaking up while there which is a good thing surely. I can not fathom why you would blame them with no mention of Beckham, Morgan Freeman, BTS etc these are people profiting specifically from Qatar hosting the World Cup and as you say have no fiscal need to be there.

As for your last sentence, there was no attempt at one-upmanship going on at all, I didn't realise upset was offensive. For context, I am extremely upset about the arm band, about the LGBTQ laws in Qatar, about homophobia and I'm very glad that the BBC and ITV are still talking about it.
You're talking about them as if they're a camerman or sound guy, employed by ITV. Obligated to be there.

Keane, Souness, they're self employed. I'd imagine they turn work and opportunities down all the time. I'm self employed, I turn work down all the time. As do all self employed people.

Even easier for them being very wealthy blokes.

I've criticised Beckham lots here. He's disgusting. As is Gary Neville. But I can't criticise every single person profiteering in every post can I.

But ultimately they can go if they like. Fill their pockets. Just be honest about it. Empty words and empty gestures are corrosive.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
24,757
Location
Florida
What perplexes me about the recent campaign for LGBT rights in world football is why it is being voiced more by straight male players and club executives. What Colin Kaepernick did with his kneeling campaign to voice injustice against black people felt more relevant because he had a moral basis for his views.
That is the reason why for people in non-Western countries, the issue of LGBT at the World Cup feels forced. Racism is still a problem in football but never seems to be a major issue at the World Cup, a stage where players from different nations come together. Indeed, human rights should not be a political issue, but it can become a political issue when several countries with certain geopolitical powers want to dictate which issue suits them best.
One can be straight & feel morally repulsed at anti-LGBTQ behavior.

I posit that the defense of cultures & customs of backward countries feel extremely forced, almost manufactured outrage.

Racism is still a scourge in world football & the world in general, why not elevate another human rights violation to the same exposure level to create conversations & agitate for change?

Human rights issue will always be political as it's the political arena where change is ultimately created.

It is a far wider concern than just 'several countries.'
 

kouroux

45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
89,243
Location
Djibouti (La terre des braves)
But they're not profiting from Qatar hosting the World Cup, they're doing their jobs they'd be at the World Cup whether it was in the UK, Qatar or the North Pole and if it wasn't the World Cup they'd be in studios talking about the Premiership etc.

They're speaking up while there which is a good thing surely. I can not fathom why you would blame them with no mention of Beckham, Morgan Freeman, BTS etc these are people profiting specifically from Qatar hosting the World Cup and as you say have no fiscal need to be there.

As for your last sentence, there was no attempt at one-upmanship going on at all, I didn't realise upset was offensive. For context, I am extremely upset about the arm band, about the LGBTQ laws in Qatar, about homophobia and I'm very glad that the BBC and ITV are still talking about it.
They're obviously profiting from it one way or the other and it is okay as far as I'm concerned
 

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
8,899
Location
Thucydides nuts
If only Mandela had spent a little longer on the heavy bag he could have made a name for himself.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
14,533
This thread deserves serious consideration I think. El-Baghdadi is someone worth listening to on such matters:

 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
1,118
This thread deserves serious consideration I think. El-Baghdadi is someone worth listening to on such matters:

What is he trying to say here? I read it as saying that drawing attention to the bigoted behaviour against certain groups is disliked by said bigots?
 

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
8,899
Location
Thucydides nuts
This thread deserves serious consideration I think. El-Baghdadi is someone worth listening to on such matters:

I don't know if this guy is just extremely poor at making the argument or if the argument isn't a particularly strong one.

Activism creating targets is an issue raised in many fights for civil justice. The battle for American Civil Rights and the suffragettes both had the charge leveled against them.

Western cultural imperial should be recognised. Condescension exists and should be addressed. Activism that puts vulnerable individuals, or groups at risks should be carefully considered.

However I haven't seen a good argument yet. For example:
Case in point - Hamed Sinno, possibly the most famous openly gay Arab who lives in the Arab world, and his enormously popular band "Mashrou' Leila" have... disbanded the band.
it is not a case in point and has nothing to do with the point about Western activism he is scrambling for. It is a misrepresentation of the story he linked to.
 

BD

technologically challenged
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
20,355
This thread deserves serious consideration I think. El-Baghdadi is someone worth listening to on such matters:

I did hear about that a bit before the WC too, that some LGBT people in the region were fearing the backlash that might come from 'western' nations pointing out the issues.

But for a fan like me/us, what's the suggested alternative? Do we just watch the WC as if nothing is wrong?
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
6,222
The thing is who's to blame for the backlash? Homophobes that are protested against and perpetrate violence, or the ones protesting homophobia?
 

RacingClub

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
1,406
Supports
Racing Club
They weren't stopped. They could have still done something but chose not to.
They were threatened by the governing body with vague sanctions that (according to reports) could range anywhere from a yellow card suspensions/ points deductions (if you can tell me exactly what punishment the players cowered away from then I'm all ears).

Obviously every participating FA decided against using the armband after these threats while the Germans supported their players and organized a (IMO) better protest than the Armband is/was to begin with.

Why would they be commended? They'd be commended if they followed through with their words. It's not commendable to say you're for and support a cause and then drop that cause the moment it gets tough (not even) for you.

Are the players feelings clear? How can they be when they said they care about something but then remove their support for it?
Well their words and actions up to this point (wearing the armband and vocally supporting the LGBT community) would suggest to me that they have made their feelings clear?

https://www.thisisanfield.com/wp-content/uploads/P181202-045-Liverpool_Everton-e1543769189272.jpg

https://static.independent.co.uk/2021/06/29/18/SEI85237890.jpg?width=1200

They want to do it (which is better than people who choose to do nothing) but they are being forced (just like the Germans ) to abandon it and the only difference so far has been that they haven't been creative enough yet to stage a different protest (which I think will happen personally).


As has been said multiple times, members of the LGBTQ+ community, not only in Qatar but around the world have to live every single days in societies which ostracize them.
Well absolutely nobody is denying that, in fact I think it's absolutely disgraceful that FIFA, the FA and Players from countries allegedly support the LGBT+ community chose to have the tournament/ participate in Qatar.

I can't be sure but I would say that most from the LGBT+ community would view the Armband as a token gesture from the participating FAs as a way to appease their fans (who probably are more supportive of LGBT+ issues than countries who didn't participate) and are more upset by their Nations attendence than them folding under the threat of sanctions from the governing body of the competition.

The England and Dutch players/managers in their comments said ok, we will shut up and move on with football, Germany didn't.
Yes that's what's happened so far but the German FA had more time to formulate their response than the English and Dutch and once again (IMO at least) the hierarchy of the German FA led with/supported their players while the English and Dutch have not (as far as I can tell).

So IMO players who at least tried to do something (English , Dutch , Danish etc) are better than those who didn't (pretty much every other FA) try to do anything at all (even if they are worse than the Germans) and it's better to have those guys trying and failing (so far) and generating conversation and controversy than just having a bunch of countries who try and tow the party line.

Isn't that the exact argument made for the pundits who are there right now? Better to have people who are getting paid to be there shining a light on the issues than people like John Fashanu saying "Respect their Customs" and generating no controversy?

The threat of wearing the armband and it being denied has generated (due to FIFAs threat of sanctions) more exposure than the armband alone ever could IMO.
 

HisNameIsEarl

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
44
If I understood things right, those seven nations also felt they shouldn't let FIFA divide them, it was either all of them wearing the armband, or none. So it was not an individual decision, and we should take that into account when judging the situation.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
30,507
That's an incredibly stupid thing to say by Eden, even if he was directly asked about it. Should have said it's none of my business and left it. Now he's made a very loud political statement. Fool.
For balance:

 

Pintu

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
2,102
Location
Sweden
What is he trying to say here? I read it as saying that drawing attention to the bigoted behaviour against certain groups is disliked by said bigots?
You don't need to agree. But he is making an observation.

 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
2,470
You don't need to agree. But he is making an observation.

An account with 95 followers, who has been tweeting non stop for months about everything and anything that he can possibly use. A 15 year old boy murdered in Austrialia? That means it's hypocritical to talk about human rights in Qatar.
 

Rhyme Animal

Modmins said "freeze" and I got numb
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
8,132
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
Caring about gay people / women / being oppressed and / or hurt for being themselves is ‘Western racism’…

That is a dangerous take, that seems itself, racist and leaning toward extremism.

All of these arguments are simply pointing to one thing - ‘shut up and ignore inhumane treatment’.

Or alternatively there’s the popular angle in here, ‘shut up about what qatar does and talk about another injustice somewhere else please’.

It’s pathetic.
 

Pintu

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
2,102
Location
Sweden
Caring about gay people / women / being oppressed and / or hurt for being themselves is ‘Western racism’…

That is a dangerous take, that seems itself, racist and leaning toward extremism.
Except that's not what he is saying... The flag is starting to get dissociated from the LGBT community and linked to Western racism.. They don't believe that football association in the West care about gay people.
 

Eriku

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
15,476
Location
Oslo, Norway
Good lord the twittersphere is painful on these topics. Someone raising Poland and Hungary not having great LGBT records, as if they’re leading the rainbow charge against Qatar.
 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
1,118
You don't need to agree. But he is making an observation.

“ A big part of this is a reaction to really insular, short-sighted, hamfisted, extremely white Western activism on the issue.”

This sounds like an opinion, rather than an observation. What does “extremely white” mean in this context? Why is wearing a rainbow armband short-sighted and hamfisted? It’s inoffensive surely?

Hasn’t the real negative coverage been caused by the hamfisted and extremely poorly judged actions of FIFA/Qatar in preventing the captains from making a small gesture towards equality and refusing entry to people wearing rainbow items in the stadiums?
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
18,397
Ah, yes. A symbol of support for LGBT+ rights (and in a broader sense universal human rights) is actually a symbol of racism.

We can now see the real reason why that guy in the rainbow t-shirt was detained by stadium security: he was a flaming racist.

How very convenient.
 

Thom Merrilin

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
168
This thread deserves serious consideration I think. El-Baghdadi is someone worth listening to on such matters:

I read the thread and as far as I can tell he provides no evidence for what he's claiming and no real point to his argument. Maybe I'm not understanding the argument correctly?
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,770
But I assume you recognize the lgbt community in qatar is treated poorly, right?

In that sense, if you opt for "well, if this... and if that..." and don't take a strong stance in favor of protecting this community, then you are indirectly creating the conditions for that situation to prolong itself.

Most people aren't really angry with rainbow shirts being allowed in stadiums, that's just a detail that shows the ridiculousness of the whole thing. The real issue is how ordinary gay qataris are treated, not to mention women and migrants.
I've not defended Qatar but the truth is I don't know what day to day life is like there. I don't know how the LGBT community is treated daily. Yes I've seen discussions like this and recently the Twitter etc stories of individuals.

Prior to the WC Qatar was pretty much a non entity for most. Including myself.

Let me explain this. Let's say we all accept Qatar and the LGBT situation is exactly as described by some. So Qatar is evil. What is obvious to me is that no one cared and for me still don't. It's just a case of bandwagons, virtue signalling and ultimately clinging to a stick to beat them with over what is essentially a list of things people went through. Corruption being the first then workers them women and finally LGBTQ.
 
X