Mario Balotelli

[madgull]

So, just to clarify, Rio Ferdinand missed a drugs test (he passed the one he took the next day, the charge was 'missing a test') and is given an eight month ban and a fine of £50,000.

Mario Balotelli is charged with racially inflammatory behaviour and is given a one match ban and a fine of £25,000.

I would really appreciate it if somebody could explain this logic to me.

[AustrianAndyGull]

I can't really square this circle for you madgull but i can certainly confirm that Mario is a complete fanny and about as consistent as one of my 'morning after' toilet visits.

[Gullscorer]

Ferdinand is British. Balotelli is not. Double standards?

[PhilGull]

The full message posted by Balotelli can be seen here, the text is as follows.


Don't be racist!
Be like Mario.
He's an Italian plumber,
created by Japanese people,
who speaks English
and looks like a Mexican
...jumps like a black man
and grabs coins like a Jew.


I don't believe that Mario was trying to be racist or anti-Semitic, quite the opposite in fact, he was re-tweeting (or whatever the equivalent is on Instagram) a message that someone else had posted because he agreed with the sentiment of it. As a result I actually think he was harshly punished.

Regardless of the guilt I don't really see how the punishment can be compared with Ferdinand's, two entirely different 'crimes'. You could, with the same logic argue that as Ched only served a few months for raping someone that Mario has been very harshly dealt with.

[Gullscorer]

Balotelli: is he one of the Super Mario Bros..??

[madgull]

The full message posted by Balotelli can be seen here, the text is as follows.


Don't be racist!
Be like Mario.
He's an Italian plumber,
created by Japanese people,
who speaks English
and looks like a Mexican
...jumps like a black man
and grabs coins like a Jew.


I don't believe that Mario was trying to be racist or anti-Semitic, quite the opposite in fact, he was re-tweeting (or whatever the equivalent is on Instagram) a message that someone else had posted because he agreed with the sentiment of it. As a result I actually think he was harshly punished.

Regardless of the guilt I don't really see how the punishment can be compared with Ferdinand's, two entirely different 'crimes'. You could, with the same logic argue that as Ched only served a few months for raping someone that Mario has been very harshly dealt with.

1) 'Jumps like a black man and grabs coins like a Jew' is in no way analogous to 'Don't be racist'.

2) Nice straw man there, but no, it's nothing like it at all. That is comparing a criminal prosecution case with a disciplinary, about as far from a fair comparison as you can get. I am comparing two disciplinary panels. Also, he served two and a half years.

[Gullscorer]

And being offensive is a far cry from actually inciting racial or religious hatred or violence. And to be offensive is not necessarily to be hateful or violent. It should be perfectly alright to be offensive, except in cases where it's overdone to the extent that it constitutes undue harassment or behaviour provoking a 'breach of the peace'.

[PhilGull]

And being offensive is a far cry from actually inciting racial or religious hatred or violence. And to be offensive is not necessarily to be hateful or violent. It should be perfectly alright to be offensive, except in cases where it's overdone to the extent that it constitutes undue harassment or behaviour provoking a 'breach of the peace'.

It is never "perfectly alright" for a civilised human being to be offensive.

[Behind-the-Gulls]

And being offensive is a far cry from actually inciting racial or religious hatred or violence. And to be offensive is not necessarily to be hateful or violent. It should be perfectly alright to be offensive, except in cases where it's overdone to the extent that it constitutes undue harassment or behaviour provoking a 'breach of the peace'.

Sadly such an attitude(on the part of a so-called "satirical" magazine)has led to the atrocity that has taken place in Paris today.

[Gullscorer]

It is never "perfectly alright" for a civilised human being to be offensive.

I'm inclined to agree, though I can think of a few situations.. But I actually meant from a legal point of view, except for the examples mentioned. It should not normally be a crime to be offensive.

Sadly such an attitude(on the part of a so-called "satirical" magazine)has led to the atrocity that has taken place in Paris today.

That is utter nonsense. It is extreme religious or political fanaticism which causes such atrocities, not offensiveness. Are you suggesting we all meekly concur with the ideological bullies and whatever they deem to be offensive? You think that will stop them? Get real. (Sorry if that offends you..)

[Behind-the-Gulls]

No, I believe entirely in free speech but there's a thin-line between satirical images that cause offence ie use of cartoon figures to depict certain messages(a classic Fascist tactic as well, which the far-right such as BNP use on their websites etc,and inciting racial hatred through the written word)
The law can come down very heavily on those using social media to make offensive or threatening comments,and rightly so in most cases;but why not so when a so-called satirical image is used that is just as offensive or threatening.It wasn't just Islamic fanatics that found the images offensive but many law-abiding Muslims as well.

[Gullscorer]

We should be guided by common-sense principles at a humanitarian level, not by the religious beliefs or political ideologies of others. What about those aspects of other religions and cultures which you or I might find offensive? We are all offended by something or other all through our lives. It's part of life, and we should learn to handle it and live with it. And so should they. Provided no actual harm is done, it's called live and let live, because we all have to live together in the same world. It's something the fundamentalists and fanatics cannot accept. But our rights do not end where their beliefs begin..

[ferrarilover]

It is never "perfectly alright" for a civilised human being to be offensive.

Stephen Fry said it best...

"I'm offended by that"

"Well, so **** what?"

It is, almost always, perfectly acceptable to be offensive. Predominantly because everything "offends" someone. Over the recent past, I've been collating the best examples I can find of things which people have described as "offensive". Yet to be bettered is, and I'm not making this up, the design of a £2 coin featuring nothing more sinister than a portrait of I.K. Brunel.

To head back to the Good Ship Fry...

"people say, 'I'm offended by that' as if it somehow confers upon them some special rights". Well, like Stephen, I'm very much of the opinion that taking offence to things is a choice, not a right and, as such, carries about as much weight (if you'll excuse the forthcoming pun) as someone being naffed off because they're fat when they choose to eat four portions of cake for dinner instead of a salad.

If one sees or hears or somehow otherwise observes something, with the sentiment of which they so vehemently disagree as to be "offended", then that's a choice which they have made. To blame a stranger at a pen's length for someone's personal choice is as bizarre as it sounds.

Matt.

[madgull]

Obviously it's no longer racist to say that Jews are money grabbers. My mistake. You guys go back to your lives of white denial and enjoy your sense of maturity and aloofness for 'not giving in to the PC brigade'.

Some of the best examples in this thread of why racism is still alive and well. Oh wait, actually, I can anticipate the reply - racism is not a problem.

I didn't think people were actually still so downright ignorant and stupid.

[madgull]

Obviously it's no longer racist to say that Jews are money grabbers. My mistake. You guys go back to your lives of white denial and enjoy your sense of maturity and aloofness for 'not giving in to the PC brigade'.

Some of the best examples in this thread of why racism is still alive and well. Oh wait, actually, I can anticipate the reply - racism is not a problem.

I didn't think people were actually still so downright ignorant.

ANGRY EDIT:

I mean, it's CERTAINLY not the case that the proliferation of racial stereotypes of black men as thieves and criminals via the 'harmless' medium of posts JUST like this above has IN ANY WAY led to them being oppressed, marginalised and even killed. No. You guys will go to any length possible to forget just how royally white people shafted the world.

90% of indigenous populations wiped out by white settlers? Bah, just propaganda by wet white-guilt lefties.

Slavery? The ancient past, the fact that most black families in America are still living in horrendous poverty due its after effects? Irrelevant.

General white racism proliferating the idea that it's ok to invade less civilised countries, such as those in the middle east, for oil. Well, that CERTAINLY didn't contribute AT ALL to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, 9/11 etc. Nope. It's just 'evil' (yeah cos absolute good and evil exist) nasty darkies who can't stand our wonderful western civilisation.

Jesus Christ guys, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID?!?!?!