Interesting Ruling in British Courts Regarding "Racist" Remarks in Football Games

[Abe Sargent]

Here is an article from the ESPN Soccernet page which I think is highly interesting:

"Fan convicted over racist chant


In a landmark case on Monday the High Court convicted a football fan for taking part in racist chanting at a match.

In what is thought to be the first case of its kind to reach the High Court, two judges ruled that 21-year-old Sean Ratcliffe was guilty of chanting in 'a racialist nature' under the 1991 Football (Offences) Act.

The offence took place last October at second division match between Port Vale and Oldham Athletic.

Ratcliffe was among a crowd of Port Vale supporters who used a chant containing the word 'Paki' at Oldham supporters during the league match at the Vale Park ground in Stoke-on-Trent.

Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Goldring said it was clear the word 'Paki' - short for Pakistani - was 'a slang expression which is racially offensive' and dismissed the suggestion it could be used affectionately like 'Aussie' or 'Brit'.

Lord Justice Auld said: 'It is odd and a shame that this is so in this country, but the unpleasant context in which it is so often used has left it with a derogatory or insulting, racialist connotation.'

The judges ruled that Ratcliffe, from Cross Heath, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire should have been found guilty of a criminal offence when the case came before magistrates.

The High Court ruling overturned a decision made in January by Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates' Court district judge Graham Richards to acquit Ratcliffe on the basis that the chant was 'mere doggerel' and should not be classified as offensive.

In another unusual step the judges told the magistrates' court to pay the estimated £1,000 costs of the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions. "



-Anxiety

[John Galt]

I thought it was interesting. I'm surprised at the slow response on the board to a pretty radical decision. It reflects a very different understanding of free speech and interpretation than is used by American courts.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by John Galt
I thought it was interesting. I'm surprised at the slow response on the board to a pretty radical decision. It reflects a very different understanding of free speech and interpretation than is used by American courts.

Perhaps but there is so much more overt racism in soccer there than there is in sports here that its not surprising they need to do something like this.

[superbama]

For them to try to use the "It's an affectionate term" is pretty lame. I've never heard a Englishman use the term "Paki" without putting a Fucking in front of it. I've never heard an American use this term suprisingly enough.

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by John Galt
I thought it was interesting. I'm surprised at the slow response on the board to a pretty radical decision. It reflects a very different understanding of free speech and interpretation than is used by American courts.

Interesting read, but Brits don't have the right to freedom of speech as the Americans do, so this isn't suprising to me.

So whilst I may disagree with the ruling, I can see the reasoning behind it and agree that 'Paki' can be used in a racially offensive manner and hence such behaviour especially in a public enviroment needs to be curtailed.

I also have no right to protest this decision as it is now a legal precedent in the English courts - nor would I want to as I disagree with using the 'Freedom of Speech' arguement to cover offensive behaviour, but as I mentioned I was raised in a country where this arguement is considered pretty silly anyway - no offense intended to the Americans reading this.

:)

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally posted by ice4277
Perhaps but there is so much more overt racism in soccer there than there is in sports here that its not surprising they need to do something like this.

There is never, I repeat, never a need to do something like this.
Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

A court ruling condemning someone for using a freakin' word is utterly and completely ridiculous. And no, I'm not going to argue that racial slurs are not offensive in some cases. They can be.

I'm going to argue that the precedent for this case is downright terrifying. Where does it stop? That's one case down, now here comes the onslaught of similar events, each one growing more insane than the first. It needs to be stomped on, thoroughly, now. Not later, when it becomes commonplace, but now.

/rant

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Coffee Warlord
There is never, I repeat, never a need to do something like this.
Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

A court ruling condemning someone for using a freakin' word is utterly and completely ridiculous. And no, I'm not going to argue that racial slurs are not offensive in some cases. They can be.

I'm going to argue that the precedent for this case is downright terrifying. Where does it stop? That's one case down, now here comes the onslaught of similar events, each one growing more insane than the first. It needs to be stomped on, thoroughly, now. Not later, when it becomes commonplace, but now.

/rant

Coffee,

In most circumstances, I would tend to agree with you. However, given the level of hooliganism violence there has been in the past throughout England and Europe, and the number of controversial incidents that have occurred there in the past few months, I can see why they want to clamp down. Also, I don't think we'll see the 'slippery slope' put into effect here.