- Jul 28, 2004
- 27,719
- 54,929
There are clearly instances of racist abuse, and other bigotry, in our ground, as there are in every other. Whether it’s as obvious as an aggressive act like that which Rudiger claims (or the million times I’ve heard some tell Son he’d have trapped it if it was a dog) or something less malicious but equally insulting like ‘is Ndombele/ Aurier/ Sissoko injured? No, just being a bit French’ which I’ve also heard, it’s out of order and while intent is a valid factor in determining whether or not a comment constitutes abuse, none of it has any place. For the first time, in fact, I find myself questioning whether we should still chant ‘yid’ as clearly it causes distress to a significant portion of people.
In addition to the above, I’d suggest that Rudiger is in no way being deceitful (unlike the act which saw Son sent off). He genuinely feels he heard racist abuse. This doesn’t mean he’s correct though, and at the same time as fully recognising his right to both raise the issue, report it to the police and see it investigated, one should also recognise that in a volatile, emotional cacophony of sound he might well have been mistaken. The issue that arises is that if the perpetrator is identified then brilliant, a racist idiot receives punitive measures, but if nobody is identified the rhetoric will never be ‘Rudiger got it wrong’ or even ‘Rudiger might have got it wrong’, it’ll be ‘racist gets away with it’ even if that is not correct. The truth is that if nobody is identified as having committed the offence, then the only reasonable action is to heighten security measures, increase awareness and education, but also to not jump to any conclusion, positive or negative, as its just as wrong to assume someone has done something without evidence as it is to brush something under the carpet because it’s too difficult/ impossible to prove. Innocent until proven guilty should always be the standard.
In addition to the above, I’d suggest that Rudiger is in no way being deceitful (unlike the act which saw Son sent off). He genuinely feels he heard racist abuse. This doesn’t mean he’s correct though, and at the same time as fully recognising his right to both raise the issue, report it to the police and see it investigated, one should also recognise that in a volatile, emotional cacophony of sound he might well have been mistaken. The issue that arises is that if the perpetrator is identified then brilliant, a racist idiot receives punitive measures, but if nobody is identified the rhetoric will never be ‘Rudiger got it wrong’ or even ‘Rudiger might have got it wrong’, it’ll be ‘racist gets away with it’ even if that is not correct. The truth is that if nobody is identified as having committed the offence, then the only reasonable action is to heighten security measures, increase awareness and education, but also to not jump to any conclusion, positive or negative, as its just as wrong to assume someone has done something without evidence as it is to brush something under the carpet because it’s too difficult/ impossible to prove. Innocent until proven guilty should always be the standard.