Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: ‘Anti-racist’ fanatic resigns from FA after N word slur outrage

By Alexander Baron     Feb 25, 2013 in Sports
A black self-styled ‘anti-racist’ campaigner has resigned from the Football Association after using the dreaded N word. He is unlikely to suffer the same pillorying as John Terry.
If it were not so tragic, it would make you laugh, but don't be ashamed to weep tears of joy. For those who are not au fait with the John Terry affair, here is a recap - follow the links for more background. John Terry is the man who stood trial for an insult he never uttered to a man who never heard it because some half-wit politically correct plod saw his lips move through a pair of binoculars. Or maybe it was a high powered intrusive surveillance device.
There is a consensus at Chelsea Football Club that Terry is not a nice person, at least that's what the bloke who supplied the images in the above article said.
After Terry's acquittal of - doing what exactly? - the furore continued, and no one whined louder than Paul Elliott who according to the Mirror said:
“My worry is that the verdict will deter people from taking action in the future.
My concern is how will ­referees now react when they hear that sort of language on Sunday mornings? Will black players be protected?"
Protected from what, precisely?
He went on "The vociferous abuse, particularly via social networking, is a 21st century version of the ugliness I used to experience."
Yes, he did say social networking, so guess what? On Friday, Elliott stepped down from his post with the Football Association after it was revealed that he had used the dreaded N word no less in an abusive text to a black soccer player. Richard Rufus had played for the same club as Elliott, Charlton Athletic, but had been forced out of the game at the age of 29 due to a persistent knee injury - an occupational hazard in football and many other sports.
Like Elliott, Rufus has done a bit of work broadcasting; he also appears to have gone into business with Elliott, and for some not totally specified reason, Elliott was angry with him, and sent him the offending text. Which born again Christian Rufus placed in the public domain. Praise the Lord!
Things wouldn't be quite so bad if Elliott were not so heavily involved with Kick It Out, one of these lunatic "anti-racist" organisations whose barely hidden agenda is to brainwash the population of these islands. Here is an example of Kick It Out's flim-flam:
Hundreds of thousands of young Asians are playing and watching the game around the country every weekend.
Yet, despite this interest, there are currently only seven Asian players in the professional game.
If the second figure is accurate, the first is almost certainly not, because by and large Asians don't give a monkey's about any kind of football; if there is one game many of them are fanatical about, it is cricket. This is that old nonsense statistical racism again, another case of figures don't lie but liars can figure.
According to the aforementioned Mirror article, Elliott wants (wanted?) a "zero-tolerance policy [to] be introduced to root out all forms of racism and discrimination".
Except his own, of course, but according to fellow traveller Piara Powar, Elliott's clear racial abuse doesn't count. Maybe this anti-discrimination business is only for us crackers?
What is lacking here of course is common sense. There is in fact no such entity as racism, or to put it another way, the word is an epithet that is used and misused to capture a large number of behaviours - innocuous and not so - under the same umbrella. The simple fact is that when we are angry we all use strong language. Well, perhaps not the Pope or the Queen, but us mortals. Here is Chris Rock explaining how he uses the word faggot. Am I supposed to be mad and politically correct at the same time, he asks? Of course not!
The idea of zero-tolerance sounds fine in theory, but where does it lead? Zero-tolerance is actually a form of intolerance, because it throws proportionality out of the window. Are we really expected to treat a racial epithet directed by an angry drunk at a fellow drinker as the moral equivalent of hacking someone to death with a machete during the Rwandan genocide?
This sort of nonsense leads also to the ludicrous snitch culture we have seen emerge of late, and can lead to a police state mentality with people spying on their neighbours and rivals. Imagine if John Terry had been convicted in that ludicrous race trial. Would that have made him less or more anti-black, or like Ferdinand more? As the out homosexual Quentin Crisp said, it is fallacious to think you can legislate tolerance. Some people will always be offensive, so they should be left to get on with it. And blacks in especially our inner cities have far more important problems to get to grips with than people using occasional or even regular bad language. For one thing, it would help if they would stop murdering each other.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about John terry, paul elliott, Racism, chelsea football club
More news from
Sports Video
Latest News
Top News