Showing posts with label racist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racist. Show all posts

Monday, 23 April 2012

COMMENT: St. George's Day - a national disgrace

Today, 23rd April, is St. George's Day - the feast day of the patron saint of England and the day when the English celebrate their nationalism.


It should just be a silly nonsense - an heroic myth, taken up by a religion and attached to a country he never visited, but, instead, it has become an absolute disgrace that is now more a celebration of nasty right-wing jingoism and an opportunity fir Neanderthals to flaunt their xenophobia and racism.

Today, the cross of St. George is rightly regarded as a symbol of extremism and, specifically, of racists, belonging to the likes of the BNP, UKIP and EDL. In a recent survey a quarter of English people think it is a symbol of extremism, and yet some supposedly well meaning campaigners argue that it is harmless and want an English anthem, an English parliament... they seem to think that England (a country that hasn't existed in any meaningful form for over 200 years) needs to divide itself off from others at a time when political union, co-operation and integration are clearly the way forward.

George, if he was a real person at all, never visited England and, of course, never fought a dragon. He was fom Turkey or Lebanon (nobody's too sure) and used violence to support and impose his religious faith on others, but, despite this , the Catholic church don't recognise his feast day any more.

So why do we bother with such nonsense? St. George's Day is, at best, a pointless frippery but, at worst, and more often, is an outright affront to civilised society. It is about belief in a supernatural big buddy. It is about dividing the UK. It is about nasty jingoism and evil. St. George's Day is, today, a celebration for stupid people to display their lack of education.

St. George's Day has no place in the modern world, and its message is bad for society. We don't need a patron saint and we don't need a day that enables racists and xenophobes to highlight and celebrate their beliefs.

Sunday, 5 February 2012

OPINION: John Terry's punishment

The fact the maximum penalty John Terry can receive for his race hate is a fine of £2,500 highlights a couple of issues which parliament need to address.


1) Race hate crimes need to have more serious punishments. A fine of £2,500 is simply not sufficient.

2) Fines need to be as a percentage of income/worth NOT a flat tariff for everyone. £2,500 is a month's salary for many. For John Terry it is less than a morning's work. This is wrong.

3) Court cases cost a lot and, currently, this is paid by the tax payer. Court costs SHOULD be recouped from the guilty.

4) Any crime which has an anti-social element, as the race hate charges Terry has been accused of, must have a custodial sentence. Anti-social behaviour means you should give up your place in society for a fixes period of time.

5) This isn't Terry's first scrape with the legal system. Clearly his previous punishments were insufficient. Two strikes and you're out, now matter what the crime is.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

COMMENT: John Terry's racism charge

Today John Terry found that the trial for his alleged use of racist insults against Antonio Ferdinand won't take place until 9th July - just over a week after the Euro 2012 Championships have finished.


Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".

Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.

Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.

But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?

Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:

1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?

2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?

3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?

4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?

5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?

I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.

I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!

Tuesday, 3 January 2012

Stephen Lawrence, a poem


Letters of outrage but

Words cannot bring him back and

Sentences can never be long enough.



Books will be written,

Television programmes made,

Documentaries and analysis on rolling news,

For a young life so needlessly lost.



Shed no tears for his loss

Nor mourn with his family,

It is done. He is gone.



Cry, instead, for a broken society, OUR broken society,

Producing bigots, nurturing their hate, fuelling their ignorance,

And harbouring them from justice for years.


Books will be written,

Television programmes made,

Documentaries and analysis on rolling news,

For a young life so needlessly lost.



Sentences can never be long enough,

Words cannot bring him back.



Robert Steadman
3rd January 2012
The day the murderers of Stephen Lawrence were eventually found guilty

Saturday, 24 December 2011

OPNION: Racism in the UK

Along with many of the population, I was glad to hear that Luis Suarez, the Liverpool footballer, was to be banned for 8 matches by the F.A. for racially abusing Patrice Evra. The F.A. has long campaigned to "Kick Racism Out If Football" and this sent a strong message to the remaining Neanderthals associated with football, as well as the wider society. It also thumbed its nose at Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA, who, early this year, made the rash and, quite frankly, ridiculous claim that there is no racism in football. He said any "bad words" should be forgotten in a handshake.

Similarly, I was very glad to hear that John Terry, somehow still the England football captain, was to be charged with racially abusing Anton Ferdinand.


See that Mr. Blatter, racism is alive and well and not just on the terraces, on the pitch.

Now I realise that racism is the wrong term for bad-mouthing based on skin colour. We are all humans. We are all part of one race, the human race, but it has come to be used as the terminology for ethnic hate derision, so I'll use it too!

So where are we with racism in the second decade of the twenty-first century? Is it still a problem?

Well, along with various premiership footballers, and any number of offensive chants at football grounds up and down the country, I believe racism is, sadly, alive and well throughout huge swathes of society.

A couple of years back a couple of Tory MPs got into hot water for telling racist jokes at dinner parties. I know a number of people who felt that, because they were at private events, they should be allowed to say what they want. It was all very 1984 and "Big Brother" and the Political Correctness brigade "picking" on "ordinary people".

Yes, really, supposedly educated people, some who are teachers, who, basically, defended the right to be racist as long as it was done in public.

To me that's appalling, and I told them so.

But, I guess, the problem is that we live in a society where the blatant racism of the monarchy's husband is laughed off as "eccentricity" and he's lauded as a "British institution" and a "National Treasure". Well, he's an ill-informed, ignorant racist and he should be pitied and/or prosecuted for his disgraceful comments.


It's only 30 years ago that sitcoms like Mind Your Language were broadcast in prime time. A sitcom whose only "humour" was racial stereotypes. Today, I'd like to think, such a programme wouldn't be made, though racial stereotypes can still be found on British television.

The brilliant sitcom character Alf Garnett should have put an end to racism. He showed how idiotic his views were and how mid-placed his fears were but, sadly, the far right saw him as a hero and not simply a buffoon.


One thing, however, niggles in the back of my mind. As a kid, I was taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" - should it really be an offence to call someone a name? Any name?

Nobody would end up in court for calling someone "four eyes" or "porky", both physical attributes, but use a racial term and there's the full weight of the law to punish. Is this right? Does it make sense?

Surely, the use of such name calling shouldn't affect the person being called but merely demonstrate that the caller is a bit stupid?

Surely, showing everyone that you're a pathetic, ignorant idiot is sufficient? Should verbal racism really be punishable? It is, after all, just name-calling.

Perhaps people from ethnic minorities need to get a thicker skin? After all, many black people happily use the term "nigger" to describe themselves but feel pain if a white person uses it. That surely can't be right. Words are words and they should belong to everybody. Would it be right is homosexuals were the only people allowed to use the term "gay"? I think not.

I think it's right that racists aren't allowed to hold positions of power and responsibility because their use of racially divisive language might suggest they will show preference to certain racial groups, but, if it never goes beyond words, should the law really be bothered?

I certainly don't want my country, or any country, represented by someone who uses racist language and, as such, I hope that, if found guilty, John Terry should never be selected to play for the national team again but I don't see any reason why he should go to jail. We can all mock his stupidity, his ignorance, how pathetic he is and, as such, hope his employer will educate him to understand that his racism is unacceptable and that is, probably, as far as things should go.

Maybe, now that it's over 50 years since the mass immigrations of the 1950s from former empire countries, it's time that all ethnicities learnt to live with each other and, as long as it is just words, maybe they should be laughed off?

Is it time for ethnic minorities to man up? Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

I'm undecided.

Monday, 21 November 2011

COMMENT: Nigel Farage.... why?

It is embarasing to think that Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP (a deeply xenophobic and racist political party at the extremes of British politics who have been weedling their way into the mainstream by trying to represent themselves as moderate and the "voice of the people") represents any part of the UK but, sadly, he does.

Here is his latest tirade in the European Parliament where, despite being anti-European, he's happy to claim every Euro possible to fill his pockets.



Ignorant, xenophobic and, let's be honest, rather thick - is this the image Britons want their country to be potrayed as?