Anelka
- Thread starter Sheik Yerbouti
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
For Suarez, they ignored the meaning of the word in Spanish and in Uruguay, and banned him because negro is a bad word in English.
For Anelka, they brought in experts to discuss the meaning of the gesture in France, and banned him because the Quenelle is bad gesture in foreign countries.
So it sets a very interesting precedent now. There is nothing special about France. So the next time a footballer spits.... you can find a country in which spitting is a racist insult, charge the player, and ban him for five games. Oh, we seem to have a problem.
They need to rewrite the rules to remove this logical contradiction to something like "you will get banned by the FA if they don't like you and you do something they don't like".
For Anelka, they brought in experts to discuss the meaning of the gesture in France, and banned him because the Quenelle is bad gesture in foreign countries.
So it sets a very interesting precedent now. There is nothing special about France. So the next time a footballer spits.... you can find a country in which spitting is a racist insult, charge the player, and ban him for five games. Oh, we seem to have a problem.
They need to rewrite the rules to remove this logical contradiction to something like "you will get banned by the FA if they don't like you and you do something they don't like".
Does anyone else think that they need to take the opposite stance to whatever Dantes argues?
Im not sure i am. the clue is in the name. equiy....equitable title. when you register your car you hand equitable title over to dvla.
the exchange of equitable title is consideration in a contract being made....ie contract law...maritime admiralty law origins.
the fuckwits in charge are unaware of logic. they probably think an axiom is a peruvian leftback
That isn't what equity refers to in the law. It is a third branch of law effectively.
1. You have legislation, which is the written laws
2. You have common law, which is the binding precedents set by previous judgements, and sometimes these get written down and become legislation, i.e. codyfied
3. In the old days people might think 1 and 2 gave an immoral unfair result. So there was a third law which was effectively the will of the king. If you got your ass whooped in court, you could go crying to the king saying wah wah wahhh the court is unfair, and the king would convene his own sovereign court and decide what he feels is right/wrong in your case.
In reality the king dies, a new king might be a total cunt, or a total fairy, so their personal opinion of what is right/wrong is arbitrary and inconsistent. Equity has since disappeared. It's modern equivalent would be Strasbourg. These freeman of the land douchebags seem to want to go back to the old days.
Luis Suarez's abuse of Patrice Evra 'more serious' than Nicolas Anelka's 'quenelle' gesture, panel rules
An independent regulatory panel has revealed that Nicolas Anelka escaped with a five-match ban for his “anti-Semitic” ‘quenelle’ gesture because it was found to be less serious than Luis Suárez’s racist abuse of Patrice Evra
Waiting: Nicolas Anelka's future with West Bromwich Albion is in doubt over his 'quenelle' gesture Photo: REUTERS
By Ben Rumsby
10:07PM GMT 06 Mar 2014
Follow
Nicolas Anelka escaped with a five-match ban for his “anti-Semitic” ‘quenelle’ gesture because it was found to be less serious than Luis Suárez’s racist abuse of Patrice Evra, it emerged on Thursday.
The independent regulatory panel which convicted Anelka over his ‘inverted Nazi salute’ goal celebration ruled that, despite the Football Association increasing its anti-discrimination sanctions in the wake of the Suárez and John Terry cases, the West Bromwich Albion striker’s offence warranted the minimum possible punishment.
The 35-page written reasons for last week’s judgment, released on Thursday, confirmed that the main reason Anelka was not sanctioned more heavily was because the three-man panel found he was not an anti-Semite and did not intend his quenelle to be anti-Semitic.
It also ruled that Suárez’s multiple use of the word “negro” in a 2011 altercation with Evra was “more serious” than Anelka’s single use of the quenelle in West Brom’s Premier League game at West Ham on Dec 28.
It said of the Suárez case, which resulted in an eight-match ban: “In our view that was clearly a more serious example of an ‘aggravated breach’ than the instant case.”
Ironically, it emerged on Thursday that Anelka claimed in his witness statement to have repeated the quenelle upon scoring his second goal against West Ham. Having scoured video footage, the FA could find no evidence to support this.
The written reasons revealed that much of the commission’s two-day hearing focused on establishing whether the quenelle, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, could be regarded as anti-Semitic at all.
The panel acknowledged the gesture had been popularised by French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who has been convicted several times for incitement to racial hatred and who Anelka admitted his goal celebration had been in support of.
Accepting that it was originally intended as an obscene gesture, meaning “go f--- yourself”, the commission added: “Its purpose was as a physical demonstration of how far up the human rectum a dolphin’s fin had been or would be inserted.”
However, after watching several performances by Dieudonné, the panel concluded the quenelle had taken on anti-Semitic connotations. It described one show, attended by Anelka himself and in which there is a reference to the persecution of Jews by Adolf Hitler, as “grotesquely anti-Semitic”.
The commission also declared that gesture was “deliberately ambiguous” so its users could avoid prosecution under French law.
Anelka denied any knowledge of the quenelle’s anti-Semitic connotations or of difficulties Dieudonné was facing in France, where there were attempts to ban him from performing just 24 hours before West Brom’s game at West Ham.
The player claimed the timing of his celebration was coincidental and that he had been waiting all season to mark his first goal for the Midlands club with a tribute to Dieudonné.
He said: “The reason I made the quenelle gesture after scoring a goal during the match was simply as a ‘high five’ or ‘hello’ to the comedian Dieudonné.
“I wanted to dedicate the goal to Dieudonné as a friendly gesture. I know that the quenelle sign is closely associated with Dieudonné (who I believe invented it in the first place) and that he would therefore know (if he was watching, or subsequently saw the footage) by me making the quenelle gesture that I was saying hello to him and dedicating that goal to him.”
Anelka refused to accept Dieudonné was an anti-Semite and said that although he was educated in France, where the Holocaust was part of the curriculum, he knew nothing of “Jewish stories”.
The written reasons also confirmed that the FA pushed for a ban longer than five matches, presenting aggravating factors which included Anelka’s worldwide profile, his gesture’s potential to undermine the fight against racism and the reputational damage it caused to English football.
But the commission found these to be cancelled out by the mitigating factors provided in Anelka’s defence, including his clean disciplinary record, the fact the gesture was not made to any person in particular, and the panel’s satisfaction that Anelka was not “an anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle”.
The panel chastised the FA for not making it clear in its own regulations that Anelka’s refusal to admit any wrongdoing should itself be an aggravating factor, saying: “It would have been simple for the FA to state that in the rules if that is what it intended.”
The FA was last night thought to consider the comment an unhelpful misrepresentation of its case.
Having studied the commission’s written reasons, it refused to confirm whether it planned to appeal the leniency of the sentence, having been given seven days to do so.
Having been relieved simply to secure a guilty verdict, it is unlikely to risk Anelka overturning that decision, while the player himself is understood not to be planning to appeal provided the FA also stands down.
He remains suspended by West Brom pending their own internal investigation, which could see them try to sack him before his contract expires this summer.
Anti-discrimination watchdog Kick It Out refused to comment on the written reasons on Thursday night pending any appeal but Labour MP John Cryer had no qualms speaking out even before they were published, telling the House of Commons: “Could we have a debate on racism and in particular anti-Semitism?
“I am thinking of the repellent behaviour of Nicolas Anelka and the pathetically spineless response of the Football Association, which reminds us that racism is always there and will always require vigilance.”
An independent regulatory panel has revealed that Nicolas Anelka escaped with a five-match ban for his “anti-Semitic” ‘quenelle’ gesture because it was found to be less serious than Luis Suárez’s racist abuse of Patrice Evra
Waiting: Nicolas Anelka's future with West Bromwich Albion is in doubt over his 'quenelle' gesture Photo: REUTERS
By Ben Rumsby
10:07PM GMT 06 Mar 2014
Follow
Nicolas Anelka escaped with a five-match ban for his “anti-Semitic” ‘quenelle’ gesture because it was found to be less serious than Luis Suárez’s racist abuse of Patrice Evra, it emerged on Thursday.
The independent regulatory panel which convicted Anelka over his ‘inverted Nazi salute’ goal celebration ruled that, despite the Football Association increasing its anti-discrimination sanctions in the wake of the Suárez and John Terry cases, the West Bromwich Albion striker’s offence warranted the minimum possible punishment.
The 35-page written reasons for last week’s judgment, released on Thursday, confirmed that the main reason Anelka was not sanctioned more heavily was because the three-man panel found he was not an anti-Semite and did not intend his quenelle to be anti-Semitic.
It also ruled that Suárez’s multiple use of the word “negro” in a 2011 altercation with Evra was “more serious” than Anelka’s single use of the quenelle in West Brom’s Premier League game at West Ham on Dec 28.
It said of the Suárez case, which resulted in an eight-match ban: “In our view that was clearly a more serious example of an ‘aggravated breach’ than the instant case.”
Ironically, it emerged on Thursday that Anelka claimed in his witness statement to have repeated the quenelle upon scoring his second goal against West Ham. Having scoured video footage, the FA could find no evidence to support this.
The written reasons revealed that much of the commission’s two-day hearing focused on establishing whether the quenelle, which is a relatively recent phenomenon, could be regarded as anti-Semitic at all.
The panel acknowledged the gesture had been popularised by French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who has been convicted several times for incitement to racial hatred and who Anelka admitted his goal celebration had been in support of.
Accepting that it was originally intended as an obscene gesture, meaning “go f--- yourself”, the commission added: “Its purpose was as a physical demonstration of how far up the human rectum a dolphin’s fin had been or would be inserted.”
However, after watching several performances by Dieudonné, the panel concluded the quenelle had taken on anti-Semitic connotations. It described one show, attended by Anelka himself and in which there is a reference to the persecution of Jews by Adolf Hitler, as “grotesquely anti-Semitic”.
The commission also declared that gesture was “deliberately ambiguous” so its users could avoid prosecution under French law.
Anelka denied any knowledge of the quenelle’s anti-Semitic connotations or of difficulties Dieudonné was facing in France, where there were attempts to ban him from performing just 24 hours before West Brom’s game at West Ham.
The player claimed the timing of his celebration was coincidental and that he had been waiting all season to mark his first goal for the Midlands club with a tribute to Dieudonné.
He said: “The reason I made the quenelle gesture after scoring a goal during the match was simply as a ‘high five’ or ‘hello’ to the comedian Dieudonné.
“I wanted to dedicate the goal to Dieudonné as a friendly gesture. I know that the quenelle sign is closely associated with Dieudonné (who I believe invented it in the first place) and that he would therefore know (if he was watching, or subsequently saw the footage) by me making the quenelle gesture that I was saying hello to him and dedicating that goal to him.”
Anelka refused to accept Dieudonné was an anti-Semite and said that although he was educated in France, where the Holocaust was part of the curriculum, he knew nothing of “Jewish stories”.
The written reasons also confirmed that the FA pushed for a ban longer than five matches, presenting aggravating factors which included Anelka’s worldwide profile, his gesture’s potential to undermine the fight against racism and the reputational damage it caused to English football.
But the commission found these to be cancelled out by the mitigating factors provided in Anelka’s defence, including his clean disciplinary record, the fact the gesture was not made to any person in particular, and the panel’s satisfaction that Anelka was not “an anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle”.
The panel chastised the FA for not making it clear in its own regulations that Anelka’s refusal to admit any wrongdoing should itself be an aggravating factor, saying: “It would have been simple for the FA to state that in the rules if that is what it intended.”
The FA was last night thought to consider the comment an unhelpful misrepresentation of its case.
Having studied the commission’s written reasons, it refused to confirm whether it planned to appeal the leniency of the sentence, having been given seven days to do so.
Having been relieved simply to secure a guilty verdict, it is unlikely to risk Anelka overturning that decision, while the player himself is understood not to be planning to appeal provided the FA also stands down.
He remains suspended by West Brom pending their own internal investigation, which could see them try to sack him before his contract expires this summer.
Anti-discrimination watchdog Kick It Out refused to comment on the written reasons on Thursday night pending any appeal but Labour MP John Cryer had no qualms speaking out even before they were published, telling the House of Commons: “Could we have a debate on racism and in particular anti-Semitism?
“I am thinking of the repellent behaviour of Nicolas Anelka and the pathetically spineless response of the Football Association, which reminds us that racism is always there and will always require vigilance.”
From David Conn:
It is important to give the FA due and profound credit for its pursuit of this case, as did the Community Security Trust, a Jewish organisation established to combat antisemitism. As the FA establishes these semi-independent commissions, chaired by QCs, to hear cases, the organisation itself becomes conflated in the public mind with their decisions, so the five-match ban could be criticised last week as too weak "by the FA".
In fact the ruling makes it clear that the FA acts as the prosecutor. The governing body of English football decided to bring the case, took expert evidence about the vile associations of the quenelle and M'Bala M'Bala's act and argued for Anelka to be found guilty and for a stronger sanction than the minimum. Partly the FA argued this offence was "aggravated" on the grounds that Anelka is high profile, and the FA "is heavily involved in combating racism in football and society". The commission, however, decided Anelka should receive the minimum sanction of five games because he had a clean disciplinary record, the gesture "was not made to any person in particular" and their unexplained finding that Anelka was not being antisemitic while making an antisemitic gesture.
In pursuing this case the FA walked the walk on combating racism and antisemitism, following all the agonised talk and high-level criticism after the John Terry and Luis Suárez incidents. It was heartening to read how the FA determinedly argued this case and established, importantly, that the coded quenelle is antisemitic. However, the governing body may need to look at tightening its rules, in the detail on what is an "aggravated" offence requiring tougher sanctions – or to look at setting up a wholly independent body to hear such cases rather than setting up occasional commissions whose rulings can be maddeningly erratic.
It is important to give the FA due and profound credit for its pursuit of this case, as did the Community Security Trust, a Jewish organisation established to combat antisemitism. As the FA establishes these semi-independent commissions, chaired by QCs, to hear cases, the organisation itself becomes conflated in the public mind with their decisions, so the five-match ban could be criticised last week as too weak "by the FA".
In fact the ruling makes it clear that the FA acts as the prosecutor. The governing body of English football decided to bring the case, took expert evidence about the vile associations of the quenelle and M'Bala M'Bala's act and argued for Anelka to be found guilty and for a stronger sanction than the minimum. Partly the FA argued this offence was "aggravated" on the grounds that Anelka is high profile, and the FA "is heavily involved in combating racism in football and society". The commission, however, decided Anelka should receive the minimum sanction of five games because he had a clean disciplinary record, the gesture "was not made to any person in particular" and their unexplained finding that Anelka was not being antisemitic while making an antisemitic gesture.
In pursuing this case the FA walked the walk on combating racism and antisemitism, following all the agonised talk and high-level criticism after the John Terry and Luis Suárez incidents. It was heartening to read how the FA determinedly argued this case and established, importantly, that the coded quenelle is antisemitic. However, the governing body may need to look at tightening its rules, in the detail on what is an "aggravated" offence requiring tougher sanctions – or to look at setting up a wholly independent body to hear such cases rather than setting up occasional commissions whose rulings can be maddeningly erratic.
But they also found that Suarez was not a racist and did not intend his words to be racist. So the logical conclusion is that it is more serious to be "not racist" than it is to be "not anti-semetic". Makes perfect sense because, fuck Jews right.
Well obviously, because anyone who claims not to hate Jews is obviously a liar and/or an unreliable witness.
"Following discussions between the club and myself, certain conditions have been set which I can't accept"
Cheeky free ?
Handy option to have on the bench...
Handy option to have on the bench...
He knew nothing of "Jewish stories" when referred to the Holocaust.
Most outrageous thing in that whole report.
Most outrageous thing in that whole report.
"certain conditions have been set which I can't accept"
That is the same as being sacked.
Not in this case, the conditions were that he apologised to the club, its sponsors, the fans and just anyone in the world in general who might have been offended. I guess he told them that he wasn't their bitch and gave them another quenelle.
What a bunch of bollocks.
Far from it. They did not find Anelka to be anti-semitic, but they did not care. They banned him and cost him his job simply because they misinterpreted his gesture and were offended by it.
That's what this looks like to me as well. Other top level players have pulled similar stunts before now, Cashley's synthetic "disgust" at Arsenal's wage offer for example.
Indeed. Reminds me of the far-off days of the disarmament debate, when I once went to a local film showing and associated discussion at which there was a sizeable contingent from CND. At one point the soundtrack carried an interview with an American serviceman based in this country about the need for a nuclear deterrent, so of course cue much murmuring and growling from the assembled peaceniks. Then the camera panned around to the guy himself as he was speaking, and lo and behold - he was black. The room went silent instantly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
