The Evra-Suarez Judgement

VidaRed

Unimaginative FC
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
29,612
THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
and
LUIS SUAREZ

5. The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fecking black"

6. Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black-haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match.

87. Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "fecking hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment.

90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a nigger". He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black". We shall consider further below Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro".

91. Mr Suarez said that he replied to Mr Evra's question "Why did you kick me?" by saying "que habia sido una falta normal", meaning "it was just a normal foul". He said he shrugged his shoulders and put his arms out in a gesture to say that there was nothing serious about it. At this point on the video footage, Mr Suarez's face is obscured, but he does appear to shrug his shoulders.

92. Mr Evra said that he followed up Mr Suarez's reply "Because you are black" by saying "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez replied by saying "No hablo con los negros". Mr Evra said that, at the time, he understood this to mean "I don't speak to niggers", although he now says it means "I don't speak to blacks".

93. Mr Suarez's evidence was that Mr Evra replied to the comment "it was just a normal foul" by saying "Ok, you kicked me, I'm going to kick you". Mr Suarez said in his witness statement that his response was "Le dije que se callara e hice un gesto breve con mi mano izquierda parecido a la mocion de un "pato cuando hace cuac" para indicarle que hablaba mucho y deberia callarse", which was translated as "I told him to shut up and made a brief gesture with my left hand like a "quacking" motion as if to say he was talking too much and should be quiet".

94. Mr Evra said that after Mr Suarez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you". To this he says that Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time, Mr Evra understood this to mean "Okay, nigger, nigger, nigger". He now says it means "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, negro" can be understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie".

97. Mr Suarez said that at no point did he use the word "negro" during the exchange with Mr Evra in the goalmouth.

103. Mr Evra's evidence was that while he was walking towards the referee he said "ref, ref, he just called me a fecking black". He said that he did not know whether the referee heard his comment. The referee said something like "Calm down, Patrice, the game has been brilliant, stop the pushing between you and Suarez, the game is going well."

104. Mr Suarez's evidence was that simultaneously with the blowing of the whistle, Mr Evra said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez took this to be a reference to his touching Mr Evra's arm on the goal-line a few moments earlier. Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation.

167. According to the experts, the Spanish word "negro" cannot simply be translated as "nigger". Whereas "nigger" refers exclusively to a person with dark skin, "negro" can be used both as a noun ("a black") and as an adjective; as an adjective it might be used to refer to a person ("un hombre negro" [a black man]) but equally to an object ("una caja negra" [a black box]).

168. It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America.

170. The word "negro" can have pejorative connotations, as it may be associated with low class status, ugliness, vulgar behaviour, noisiness, violence, dishonesty, sexual promiscuity etc. In the River Plate region, for example, "los negros" is sometimes employed as a general term for the lower classes and especially for lower-class people whose behaviour is deemed vulgar and not "respectable".

171. Thus, the word can be employed with the intent to offend and to offend in racial terms; often the word would be appended with further insult, as in the example "negro de mierda" [shitty black].

172. The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such".

173. "Negro" can be used in the same way that other words referring to physical characteristics are used as descriptors for particular individuals, eg "el flaco" [the thin one/beanpole] or "el gordo" [the fat one/fatso]; these words can also be used without the article, eg "hola, gordo" [hi, fatso] or "chau, flaco" [bye, beanpole]; thus, a group of friends waiting for another friend might exclaim "mira, ahi viene el negro" [look, here comes the black one/blackie].

174. In Latin America, other terms may be used in ways that sound odd to a European ear. In Colombia, the word "mono" (literally, "monkey") is used to address light-skinned people or people whose hair is lighter than pure black. In Mexico, the word "güero" is used to address blond or light-haired people. In many areas, the word "moreno" [brown] may be used as a term of address in similar ways to "negro".

175. Though these terms are often used between friends or relatives, they are not used exclusively so; thus, an individual might call out to a passer-by "ay, negro, querés jugar con nosotros?" [hey, blackie, do you want to play with us?]; in all cases, however, when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry some of the negative connotations referred to above.

179. Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an insulting way: it is given as the rationale for an act of physical aggression (the foul), as if the person deserved such an attack since they are black. The term is not being used as in paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171.

183. The sentence attributed to Mr Suarez, "No hablo con los negros", falls into the same category of racist usage. It assumes that the individual did not merit being talked to as he belongs to a whole category of people classed as black. Again, the term is not being used as in paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171.

184. The expression "dale, negro" can be understood as "bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie". (These all correspond to the French expression "vas-y", which Mr Evra said he understood by the phrase.) In the context of the previous usages of "negro" and "negros", this usage would retain its provocative and offensive connotations, even though, in a different context, the phrase "dale, negro" could easily be inoffensive.

195. We have set out the expert evidence at length because we consider that it provides helpful background to the issues which we have to resolve. In particular, it provides valuable insight into, amongst other things, the different ways in which the word "negro" might be used in Uruguay.

201. Secondly, use of the word "negro" can be seen as offensive or inoffensive in Uruguay and Latin America. It appears to depend, largely, on the context. It might be seen by some as inoffensive when used to address relatives, friends or passers-by. However, we note the experts' comment that in all cases when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry negative connotations. It is important to examine closely the context in which it is used, and the way in which it is used, in order to decide whether it is being used offensively and offensively in racial terms.

202. Thirdly, the experts' confine their conclusions on Mr Evra's and Mr Suarez's accounts to how the word would be understood in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally, They were right to do so, no doubt recognising that whilst it is legitimate and helpful for the experts to give their opinion on whether or not the word might be used to offend in Uruguay and Latin America, it is the Commission's task to decide whether the use of the word in England is abusive or insulting. The use of the word in a particular way might be seen as inoffensive by many in Uruguay. The same use of the same word in England might nevertheless be abusive or insulting.

262. What is more significant, in our judgment, is the substance of Mr Suarez's evidence that his use of the word "negro" with Mr Evra "was intended as an attempt at conciliation" and "was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way".

263. The whole episode in the match starting with Mr Suarez's foul on Mr Evra in the 58th minute, and continuing with their encounter in the penalty area in the 63rd to 65th minutes was confrontational and hostile. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra fired the first verbal assault and Mr Suarez responded in a hostile fashion judged by his demeanour as shown on the video footage and his pinching of Mr Evra's skin. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, it was less than 10 seconds after the pinching in the goalmouth. This is when Mr Suarez claimed to have used the word “negro” for the one and only time. The players' demeanour, as shown in the video footage, showed that the exchanges continued to be confrontational. This was followed, after the referee had spoken to the players, by Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head in a way which, in our judgment, was intended to aggravate Mr Evra.

264. The whole tenor of the players' exchanges during this episode was one of animosity. They behaved in a confrontational and argumentative way. This continued at all times during their exchanges in the penalty area. Whilst Mr Evra is partly to blame for starting the confrontation at that moment, Mr Suarez's attitude and actions were the very antithesis of the conciliation and friendliness that he would have us believe.

266. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's use of the term was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling on Mr Suarez’s part that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them or that the context was one of informal social relations. The video footage, when viewed in detail and when looked at as a whole, shows that the players continued their animosity throughout this incident. Their hostility is shown in their actions and demeanour before, at the moment of, and after Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word.

267. Once more, we were troubled by the fact that Mr Suarez advanced this case to us and relied on it to the extent that he did, when it was unsustainable. The suggestion that he behaved towards Mr Evra at this time in a conciliatory and friendly way, or intended to do so in using the word "negro", is, in our judgment, simply not credible. His evidence is again inconsistent with the video footage. Once again, there was no satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency.

268. In contrast, Mr Evra’s evidence was not shown to be inconsistent with the facts established by other evidence, such as the video footage, in any material respect.

304. Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American". Mr Comolli is not recorded as using the word "taunted", but said that Mr Evra said "you are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues negro" which translates "you are Black". There is no suggestion here that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me", yet this seems now to be an essential part of Mr Suarez's evidence. We were not given any explanation as to why the referee was not told that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me, South American", as opposed to "you are South American". Secondly, at least as expressly reported by Mr Dalglish, Mr Suarez's remark was a riposte to being taunted by Mr Evra. If that is correct, it would suggest that Mr Dalglish understood Mr Suarez's comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called "South American". But that would suggest that the riposte "You are black" was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Mr Suarez's case. In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt". (Dalgish the clown :lol:)

359. In our judgment, the occasion when Mr Suarez admitted using the word "negro" probably occurred in this way. After the referee had spoken to the players and told them to calm down, Mr Suarez put his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head as they walked away. This was designed to further aggravate Mr Evra. The referee spoke to them again. Mr Evra said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him. We bear in mind that Mr Suarez said that he understood Mr Evra when he said in English "Don't touch me". This is consistent with the fact that Mr Evra spoke to the referee in English. It is probable that Mr Suarez heard Mr Evra saying to the referee in English that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him. As they walked away from the referee for this second time, Mr Evra probably said to Mr Suarez again in English "Don't touch me" or words to that effect, and Mr Suarez said "por que, negro?", meaning "why, black".

392. In total, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in the penalty area. On each occasion, the words were insulting. On each occasion, Mr Suarez breached Rule E3(1). Accordingly, the Charge is proved.

https://www.thefa.com/~/media/files.../the-fa-v-luis-suarez---14-december-2011.ashx

I read the entire thing. Basically if suarez and evra were pals and if he meant it in a friendly way then he wouldn't have been punished, however the judges came to the conclusion that they never had any positive rapport let alone being friends, instead according to video and testimentary evidence there was animosity between them therefore suarez meant it as an insult. Anyone comparing the suarez incident with cavani and claiming both are similar is talking out of his arse. On the contrary the observations in this judgment help cavani (see para 172 to 175) and cavani never used the word "negro", he used "negrito" and that too with his friend who is white!.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,632
Location
Sydney
I'm guessing this will end up a proxy-thread for the other thing. Perhaps not the best idea as we'll all just start hating on each other again.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
33,379
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
Good idea to have it easily searched on here. I've also read the entire thing and Suarez was just blatantly lying to everyone, changing his story several times. Maybe if he had been honest in the first place he'd have been given a shorter ban as there wasn't a precedent. Personally I think racism, homophobia and similar comments should be met with a harsher punishment.
 

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,701
Location
C-137
But, but, but, but, I was told it was the word N****ito by my mates cats former owner down the pub.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
18,893
Good for many to read up on, so many have it so wrong which shows Liverpool actually did a decent PR job as much as we laugh at them about it.
Yeah, was slightly taken aback when I read the Guardian report on Cavani yesterday saying it was the "same term used by Suarez". Wonder if people still think he get elbowed in the teeth as well.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
According to SAF the Suarez issue was so badly handled by Dalglish he thinks it was one of the reasons why he left Liverpool.
 

Jeppers7

Pogfamily Mafia
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
7,403
THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
and
LUIS SUAREZ

5. The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fecking black"

6. Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black-haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match.

87. Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. Mr Evra said that he is not exactly fluent in Spanish but that he can easily converse in Spanish. For Mr Suarez, Spanish is his native language as a Uruguayan. Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say "fecking hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment.

90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a nigger". He now says that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black". We shall consider further below Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro".

91. Mr Suarez said that he replied to Mr Evra's question "Why did you kick me?" by saying "que habia sido una falta normal", meaning "it was just a normal foul". He said he shrugged his shoulders and put his arms out in a gesture to say that there was nothing serious about it. At this point on the video footage, Mr Suarez's face is obscured, but he does appear to shrug his shoulders.

92. Mr Evra said that he followed up Mr Suarez's reply "Because you are black" by saying "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez replied by saying "No hablo con los negros". Mr Evra said that, at the time, he understood this to mean "I don't speak to niggers", although he now says it means "I don't speak to blacks".

93. Mr Suarez's evidence was that Mr Evra replied to the comment "it was just a normal foul" by saying "Ok, you kicked me, I'm going to kick you". Mr Suarez said in his witness statement that his response was "Le dije que se callara e hice un gesto breve con mi mano izquierda parecido a la mocion de un "pato cuando hace cuac" para indicarle que hablaba mucho y deberia callarse", which was translated as "I told him to shut up and made a brief gesture with my left hand like a "quacking" motion as if to say he was talking too much and should be quiet".

94. Mr Evra said that after Mr Suarez said "I don't speak to blacks", he (Mr Evra) said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", which means "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you". To this he says that Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro...negro...negro". At the time, Mr Evra understood this to mean "Okay, nigger, nigger, nigger". He now says it means "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". The expert witnesses stated that the phrase "Dale, negro" can be understood as "Bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie".

97. Mr Suarez said that at no point did he use the word "negro" during the exchange with Mr Evra in the goalmouth.

103. Mr Evra's evidence was that while he was walking towards the referee he said "ref, ref, he just called me a fecking black". He said that he did not know whether the referee heard his comment. The referee said something like "Calm down, Patrice, the game has been brilliant, stop the pushing between you and Suarez, the game is going well."

104. Mr Suarez's evidence was that simultaneously with the blowing of the whistle, Mr Evra said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez took this to be a reference to his touching Mr Evra's arm on the goal-line a few moments earlier. Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation.

167. According to the experts, the Spanish word "negro" cannot simply be translated as "nigger". Whereas "nigger" refers exclusively to a person with dark skin, "negro" can be used both as a noun ("a black") and as an adjective; as an adjective it might be used to refer to a person ("un hombre negro" [a black man]) but equally to an object ("una caja negra" [a black box]).

168. It is important to grasp that the word "negro" is ambiguous in all countries and regions of Latin America.

170. The word "negro" can have pejorative connotations, as it may be associated with low class status, ugliness, vulgar behaviour, noisiness, violence, dishonesty, sexual promiscuity etc. In the River Plate region, for example, "los negros" is sometimes employed as a general term for the lower classes and especially for lower-class people whose behaviour is deemed vulgar and not "respectable".

171. Thus, the word can be employed with the intent to offend and to offend in racial terms; often the word would be appended with further insult, as in the example "negro de mierda" [shitty black].

172. The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such".

173. "Negro" can be used in the same way that other words referring to physical characteristics are used as descriptors for particular individuals, eg "el flaco" [the thin one/beanpole] or "el gordo" [the fat one/fatso]; these words can also be used without the article, eg "hola, gordo" [hi, fatso] or "chau, flaco" [bye, beanpole]; thus, a group of friends waiting for another friend might exclaim "mira, ahi viene el negro" [look, here comes the black one/blackie].

174. In Latin America, other terms may be used in ways that sound odd to a European ear. In Colombia, the word "mono" (literally, "monkey") is used to address light-skinned people or people whose hair is lighter than pure black. In Mexico, the word "güero" is used to address blond or light-haired people. In many areas, the word "moreno" [brown] may be used as a term of address in similar ways to "negro".

175. Though these terms are often used between friends or relatives, they are not used exclusively so; thus, an individual might call out to a passer-by "ay, negro, querés jugar con nosotros?" [hey, blackie, do you want to play with us?]; in all cases, however, when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry some of the negative connotations referred to above.

179. Assuming Mr Suarez responded with "Porque tu eres negro", this would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially offensive. When the noun is used in the way described by Mr Evra, it is not a friendly form of address, but is used in an insulting way: it is given as the rationale for an act of physical aggression (the foul), as if the person deserved such an attack since they are black. The term is not being used as in paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171.

183. The sentence attributed to Mr Suarez, "No hablo con los negros", falls into the same category of racist usage. It assumes that the individual did not merit being talked to as he belongs to a whole category of people classed as black. Again, the term is not being used as in paragraphs 172 and 173 above, but in the sense of paragraph 171.

184. The expression "dale, negro" can be understood as "bring it on, blackie" or "do it, blackie" or "go ahead, blackie". (These all correspond to the French expression "vas-y", which Mr Evra said he understood by the phrase.) In the context of the previous usages of "negro" and "negros", this usage would retain its provocative and offensive connotations, even though, in a different context, the phrase "dale, negro" could easily be inoffensive.

195. We have set out the expert evidence at length because we consider that it provides helpful background to the issues which we have to resolve. In particular, it provides valuable insight into, amongst other things, the different ways in which the word "negro" might be used in Uruguay.

201. Secondly, use of the word "negro" can be seen as offensive or inoffensive in Uruguay and Latin America. It appears to depend, largely, on the context. It might be seen by some as inoffensive when used to address relatives, friends or passers-by. However, we note the experts' comment that in all cases when the word is used in this way it implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport; naturally, if the term were used with a sneer, then it might carry negative connotations. It is important to examine closely the context in which it is used, and the way in which it is used, in order to decide whether it is being used offensively and offensively in racial terms.

202. Thirdly, the experts' confine their conclusions on Mr Evra's and Mr Suarez's accounts to how the word would be understood in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally, They were right to do so, no doubt recognising that whilst it is legitimate and helpful for the experts to give their opinion on whether or not the word might be used to offend in Uruguay and Latin America, it is the Commission's task to decide whether the use of the word in England is abusive or insulting. The use of the word in a particular way might be seen as inoffensive by many in Uruguay. The same use of the same word in England might nevertheless be abusive or insulting.

262. What is more significant, in our judgment, is the substance of Mr Suarez's evidence that his use of the word "negro" with Mr Evra "was intended as an attempt at conciliation" and "was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way".

263. The whole episode in the match starting with Mr Suarez's foul on Mr Evra in the 58th minute, and continuing with their encounter in the penalty area in the 63rd to 65th minutes was confrontational and hostile. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra fired the first verbal assault and Mr Suarez responded in a hostile fashion judged by his demeanour as shown on the video footage and his pinching of Mr Evra's skin. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, it was less than 10 seconds after the pinching in the goalmouth. This is when Mr Suarez claimed to have used the word “negro” for the one and only time. The players' demeanour, as shown in the video footage, showed that the exchanges continued to be confrontational. This was followed, after the referee had spoken to the players, by Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head in a way which, in our judgment, was intended to aggravate Mr Evra.

264. The whole tenor of the players' exchanges during this episode was one of animosity. They behaved in a confrontational and argumentative way. This continued at all times during their exchanges in the penalty area. Whilst Mr Evra is partly to blame for starting the confrontation at that moment, Mr Suarez's attitude and actions were the very antithesis of the conciliation and friendliness that he would have us believe.

266. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's use of the term was not intended as an attempt at conciliation or to establish rapport; neither was it meant in a conciliatory and friendly way. It was not explained by any feeling on Mr Suarez’s part that a linguistic or cultural relationship had been established between them or that the context was one of informal social relations. The video footage, when viewed in detail and when looked at as a whole, shows that the players continued their animosity throughout this incident. Their hostility is shown in their actions and demeanour before, at the moment of, and after Mr Suarez's admitted use of the word.

267. Once more, we were troubled by the fact that Mr Suarez advanced this case to us and relied on it to the extent that he did, when it was unsustainable. The suggestion that he behaved towards Mr Evra at this time in a conciliatory and friendly way, or intended to do so in using the word "negro", is, in our judgment, simply not credible. His evidence is again inconsistent with the video footage. Once again, there was no satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency.

268. In contrast, Mr Evra’s evidence was not shown to be inconsistent with the facts established by other evidence, such as the video footage, in any material respect.

304. Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American". Mr Comolli is not recorded as using the word "taunted", but said that Mr Evra said "you are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues negro" which translates "you are Black". There is no suggestion here that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me", yet this seems now to be an essential part of Mr Suarez's evidence. We were not given any explanation as to why the referee was not told that Mr Evra had said "Don't touch me, South American", as opposed to "you are South American". Secondly, at least as expressly reported by Mr Dalglish, Mr Suarez's remark was a riposte to being taunted by Mr Evra. If that is correct, it would suggest that Mr Dalglish understood Mr Suarez's comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called "South American". But that would suggest that the riposte "You are black" was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Mr Suarez's case. In fact, Mr Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a "taunt". (Dalgish the clown :lol:)

359. In our judgment, the occasion when Mr Suarez admitted using the word "negro" probably occurred in this way. After the referee had spoken to the players and told them to calm down, Mr Suarez put his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head as they walked away. This was designed to further aggravate Mr Evra. The referee spoke to them again. Mr Evra said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him. We bear in mind that Mr Suarez said that he understood Mr Evra when he said in English "Don't touch me". This is consistent with the fact that Mr Evra spoke to the referee in English. It is probable that Mr Suarez heard Mr Evra saying to the referee in English that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him. As they walked away from the referee for this second time, Mr Evra probably said to Mr Suarez again in English "Don't touch me" or words to that effect, and Mr Suarez said "por que, negro?", meaning "why, black".

392. In total, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in the penalty area. On each occasion, the words were insulting. On each occasion, Mr Suarez breached Rule E3(1). Accordingly, the Charge is proved.

https://www.thefa.com/~/media/files.../the-fa-v-luis-suarez---14-december-2011.ashx

I read the entire thing. Basically if suarez and evra were pals and if he meant it in a friendly way then he wouldn't have been punished, however the judges came to the conclusion that they never had any positive rapport let alone being friends, instead according to video and testimentary evidence there was animosity between them therefore suarez meant it as an insult. Anyone comparing the suarez incident with cavani and claiming both are similar is talking out of his arse. On the contrary the observations in this judgment help cavani (see para 172 to 175) and cavani never used the word "negro", he used "negrito" and that too with his friend who is white!.
Thanks...I read the initial report. Nice to have it outlined again though especially as it’s being compared with Cavani.

Not sure what mods problem is with the thread
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
28,246
Don't know why so many people in the other thread felt the need to say this isn't comparable to the Cavani faux pas. It's obviously not comparable.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
23,307
Good for many to read up on, so many have it so wrong which shows Liverpool actually did a decent PR job as much as we laugh at them about it.
It seemed bizarre at the time. However, in the last 24 hours its clear Liverpool won the PR war. Over the past day I've been stunned by how many people have spent the last decade believing Suarez's story. Even though the full judgement blowing it to bits has been publicly available for 9 years.

I guess it just goes to show what you can achieve if you pump enough crap into the papers and pull enough stunts. They did so much daft s-t that people started hearing only their claims and began ignoring the evidence.
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,311
Location
Ireland
It’s really strange how people only remember the Liverpool fans spin on what happened and not what actually happened.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Thanks...I read the initial report. Nice to have it outlined again though especially as it’s being compared with Cavani.

Not sure what mods problem is with the thread
They probably thought some people were talking out of their Hasenhuttl. :lol:
 

Schmeichel's Cartwheel

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
11,420
Location
Manchester
It’s really strange how people only remember the Liverpool fans spin on what happened and not what actually happened.
Literally United fans were using the scouse spin on the Suarez incident to justify a ban on Cavani. Absolute disgrace.
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,672
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
If people have been comparing the two incidents I think you really need to read this FA document. Seriously, they are absolutely not the same incident and people should stop comparing them.

Cavani did what he did, it doesn't matter what it means where he is from, if it's offensive to some then he will be banned and rightly so, hopefully he learns something from the whole situation and we move on from there.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
7,655
Honestly legal documents are just ridiculous. There are about 100 paragraphs pretty much repeating the same thing over and over again with different wording.
 

McTerminator

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
944
Heed the banner at the bottom of the page or else this will be locked.
perhaps you can confirm that you mean the banner to “keep it constructive” to avoid ambiguity.

Can you also confirm that this post is directed at future posters in the thread and not the op?

personally I think it is very useful and informative (dare I say constructive) posting the op and giving a detailed insight into how the FA perceives the use of the word in question with the recent Cavani incident. The op will perhaps end some of the pointless bickering around it and educate fans on how the FA have historically viewed the term which may indicate how they are likely to view it now. All very interesting stuff in the circumstances.

would be great if you could confirm as your post, in its vagueness, comes across as somewhat hostile and as a fairly new poster it is slightly concerning and disheartening to see from a member of staff.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,183
Location
Hollywood CA
perhaps you can confirm that you mean the banner to “keep it constructive” to avoid ambiguity.

Can you also confirm that this post is directed at future posters in the thread and not the op?

personally I think it is very useful and informative (dare I say constructive) posting the op and giving a detailed insight into how the FA perceives the use of the word in question with the recent Cavani incident. The op will perhaps end some of the pointless bickering around it and educate fans on how the FA have historically viewed the term which may indicate how they are likely to view it now. All very interesting stuff in the circumstances.

would be great if you could confirm as your post, in its vagueness, comes across as somewhat hostile and as a fairly new poster it is slightly concerning and disheartening to see from a member of staff.
We have banners at the bottom of various threads as friendly reminders to keep threads on topic and debate sensibly. ;)
 

McTerminator

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
944
We have banners at the bottom of various threads as friendly reminders to keep threads on topic and debate sensibly. ;)
so the banner at the bottom is thread specific?

If so good to know and your post makes more sense in that case.

so as not to derail the thread or disregard the banner... Based on the judgements in the Suarez case posted in the op and particularly the expert evidence from the linguists I am pretty optimistic Cavani will not be too heavily punished if at all.

the expert evidence is pretty emphatic that the word used by Cavani and the n word are not always direct translations of one another.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,183
Location
Hollywood CA
so the banner at the bottom is thread specific?

If so good to know and your post makes more sense in that case.

so as not to derail the thread or disregard the banner... Based on the judgements in the Suarez case posted in the op and particularly the expert evidence from the linguists I am pretty optimistic Cavani will not be too heavily punished if at all.

the expert evidence is pretty emphatic that the word used by Cavani and the n word are not always direct translations of one another.
Yes.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
2,596
Location
Whalley Range
Thanks...I read the initial report. Nice to have it outlined again though especially as it’s being compared with Cavani.

Not sure what mods problem is with the thread
The thread was an embarrassment and showed the base level a worrying amount of posters are on.

The thread was rightly closed as it had long since departed from anything close to a rational discussion.
 

reelworld

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
8,763
Location
Mexico City, Mexico
Good stuff.

Reading that it seems that FA rule and decision is more reasonable than most people suggest.
They acknowledge that the term could be used as a friendly remark, but they didn't think so given the hostile nature of the encounter.
Basically they think context and situations surrounding the remarks is what decide whether it's punishable or not.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,567
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Good stuff.

Reading that it seems that FA rule and decision is more reasonable than most people suggest.
They acknowledge that the term could be used as a friendly remark, but they didn't think so given the hostile nature of the encounter.
Basically they think context and situations surrounding the remarks is what decide whether it's punishable or not.
I just hope they haven't changed their tune in that respect.
 

Giggsy13

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
4,341
Location
Toronto
Great post for our supporters to help differentiate between both situations. Sadly, it will have zero effect on the bin dipping pricks who are mostly illiterate.
 

Man of Leisure

Threatened by women who like sex.
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
13,931
Location
One Big Holiday
How do Liverpool fans even begin to justify this? Was Glen Johnson the only black teammate Suarez had then? Wonder what Sturridge and Sterling must have thought. Also my view of Kuyt went up a little.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,677
Location
india
It seemed bizarre at the time. However, in the last 24 hours its clear Liverpool won the PR war. Over the past day I've been stunned by how many people have spent the last decade believing Suarez's story. Even though the full judgement blowing it to bits has been publicly available for 9 years.

I guess it just goes to show what you can achieve if you pump enough crap into the papers and pull enough stunts. They did so much daft s-t that people started hearing only their claims and began ignoring the evidence.
There was no win for Liverpool in this case. People love bigging them up at every opportunity. As we've seen over the last 5 years, it's easy to spin a narrative of misinformation and there's no real achievement in spreading lies and convincing the most gullable souls of your twisted version of the truth. At the end of the day, they stood on the wrong side of that piece of history and there's enough sensible people who understand that, and the stain it left on them. The judgment went against them and that's where their PR masterclass in itself fall flat on its backside.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,632
Location
Sydney
the T-shirt thing is surely one of the biggest PR gaffs in PL history, if not THE biggest
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,338
I think a lot of the problem in the Cavani thread was that people cannot or will not distinguish between two different problems. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the Cavani post was completely different in virtually every way to the Suarez incident, which was essentially straight up racial abuse.

What that doesn't mean, however, is that cultural references to race are a desired part of open discourse. I'll quote this bit of a post linked in the last thread which highlights the problems which exist with words like 'negrito' in their essence, even if they are used entirely with good intent.

Lloréns: It is true that the use of “negrita/negrito” to refer lovingly or kindly to one another is widespread among Latinxs, regardless of race or physical appearance. It is often claimed that the tone of voice of the person speaking it reveals the intention of usage, but just because something is widespread doesn’t make it acceptable.

The term “negrita” or “negrito” is the diminutive form of “Negra/Negro” (Black). And so, the roughest equivalent translation to the U.S. context would be when a Black man is called “boy,” or when a Black woman is called “girl.” Negrita/negrito is a linguistic move that infantilizes, that aims to make a person small as a way to render them less threatening, less powerful, thereby, allowing the speaker to produce a friendly and child-like individual. In the context of Latin America and the Spanish speaking-Caribbean, “negrita” and “negrito” were historically used to take the sting out of addressing someone, particularly a well-liked individual, as “Negro” or “Negra.” Even today, “Negro/Negra” is understood by some as a negative or derogatory term. This is, in part, because “Negro” was, and still is, closely associated with enslavement. In many places throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, it is believed that to be called “Negro/Negra” is to be called a slave. This meaning still circulates, even when free Black populations were accounted for a larger segment of the population than the enslaved did. Though there is still much work to be done to end anti-Black racism in Latin America and among Latinxs in the U.S., since at least the 1960s the identity category “Negro/Negra” has been undergoing a reclamation process, and today it is used by many Black-Latinxs and Afro-Latinx individuals throughout the hemisphere with pride.
I'm only posting this because my brother in law is a Ugandan currently living and working in Montevideo and made a post on his facebook page yesterday about why he disagrees with Cavani's use of the word and why he finds the constant need to refer to him by the colour of his skin from his work colleagues and friends as degrading. He doesn't want to be constantly reminded that he looks different, it's dehumanising and it's an acknowledgement that he's black first and a human second. If he'd grown up in that environment he would likely be desensitised to it, but that still wouldn't make it right.

So even in an intimate environment it can cause problems, now consider Cavani is an international superstar with a global following, posting on his public Instagram stories. He's got a responsibility to think of the bigger picture, which is what he evidently has done by removing it and releasing a statement. I think that's an adequate response and speaks extremely well of him as a person, but I'm not sure the "he did nothing wrong" argument is a particularly strong one given the context.

Edit: this is also pretty good

A term of endearment?
Dr Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, explained why “n***ito” is an “offensive” word despite its common usage in Latin America.

“It is a term of endearment in Latin America,” Dr Sabatini tells i. “They also have other terms of endearment that are equally offensive. They’ll refer to a girl who is skinny as ‘the skinny one’ or even, la gordita, ‘little fat one’. That doesn’t make it any less offensive.

The irony is there are very few African Americans or Afro-descendants in Uruguay, or Argentina, where a large number were killed in the Conquest of the Desert. It’s not even that it has come out of societies that are deeply integrated, it comes out of it in a sense that they are a small minority.

“For example, in Argentina they refer to indigenous people as ‘blackheads’, cabezas negras, and they will argue that is just how they refer to them. Well, no, it’s really disgusting.

“The bottom line is, yes it’s a term of endearment, but that doesn’t make it any less offensive. It’s disparaging. Just because people say it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be aware of its connotations and its legacy in terms of a term of denoting condescension.”

Dr Sabatini added that celebrities with a large online reach must become more aware of certain phrases and their connotations.

“I’m not one to police language, but I do think international stars who have the megaphone need to be much more self-conscious of the implications of the words they use,” Dr Sabatini said. “Simply saying ‘that’s a phrase we use’ doesn’t work.

“There is reason for legitimate concern, and even punishment. There are plenty of other words too. We can go back millennia, we shouldn’t refer to women as ‘wenches’, this is the way languages and tolerance and inclusion evolve, and it does require – especially people with a public persona – being much more conscious of the language they use – regardless of context – and its implications.

He added: “Some Latin Americans will argue that it isn’t offensive. ‘No this is just the way we are’. It speaks to the legacy of the inequality with race and ethnicity.

“If you look at census data, Uruguay is one of the most homogenous of European countries in all of Latin America. When those numbers are smaller you become a lot less conscious of those concerns.”
 
Last edited: