The saddest line in the decision regarding former-Crawley Town manager John Yems’ 18-month suspension for repeatedly using racist language relates to “Player 4”. A 22-year-old half-Indian, half-Irish footballer, “Player 4” became so upset by the words Yems used towards him that he feigned illness in order not to return to the club.
More than anything else, that is the impact of this case: a young man who has worked tirelessly to become a professional footballer feeling like he would rather be anywhere else.
63-year old Yems admitted to one charge and was found guilty of 11 others by a three-man independent FA commission, relating to comments that referenced ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion, belief or gender between 2019 and 2022.
A crucial, perhaps even the crucial line in the sanction decision against Yems is: “We have accepted that Mr Yems is not a conscious racist. If he were, an extremely lengthy, even permanent, suspension would be appropriate.”
This seems to draw a line. “Conscious racism” causes a lengthy or permanent ban. “Subconscious racism”, if we are to assume that is the alternative, gets you an average of a six-week ban per offence (in this case).
“Conscious racism”, then, becomes the crux of this case. In the hearing, Yems described how he had enjoyed a career with “a great variety of people from differing ethnic backgrounds and cultures”, but we can presume he didn’t learn enough from those meetings to avoid calling Muslim players “terrorists” or telling black players playing darts that they would normally use a blowpipe. By any measure, these are horrendously racist terms.
More from Football
Sir Jim Ratcliffe enters race for Man Utd but Glazers' valuation still a major issue18 January, 2023
How to watch PSG vs Saudi All-Star XI, kick-off time and stream for Ronaldo vs Messi match18 January, 2023
Antonio Conte is right, Premier League club bosses like Daniel Levy should be more accountable18 January, 2023So where does the consciousness line come in? Given Yems claimed the complainants at Crawley Town were merely annoyed about being left out of the first-team squad, is there deep contrition? Given Yems described at least one of the claims as “bullshit” suggests that there has been no awakening, no acceptance of his role. A man who the panel said considers himself to be “open minded and welcoming to all from whatever background” appears to be nothing of the sort.
Instead, Yems was handed the banter clause: “Mr Yems simply paid no regard to the distress which his misplaced jocularity was causing.” Misplaced jocularity? Ask “Player 4” and the others at Crawley who suffered from these taunts whether that is what this was. Misplaced jocularity is hiding someone’s sock as a joke, not saying that a young Iraqi footballer was carrying a bomb in his bag. It is also not hiding that sock again if the joke makes its subject feel uncomfortable.
The commission said as much. “Mr Yems [did not] ever intend to make racist remarks. Nevertheless, it is how what he said from time to time would be perceived by those to whom it was addressed which is what matters rather than his subjective intent.”
Rough translation: Banter is not in the eye of the beholder. If what you said is perceived by others to be racist, it is racist.
And yet in the previous line, the same commission say “We are confident that Mr Yems as a person is not a racist”. Ask members of ethnic minority communities in this country what they think about that. Ask them if they believe that repeated use of stereotypical or racially offensive language should be mitigated because of the supposed (and, on some level, assumed) intentions of the person using that language.
The difference made here, between “conscious” and “subconscious”, appears to be the line between “being racist” and “being a racist”. It probably comes down to hatred. If you use racist terms but any dislike of other races or religions cannot be proven, you have been racist but you are not a racist.
If it can be proven (and that is incredibly difficult when dealing with a single person), the opposite is true, according to the commission’s reasoning.
Well I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough. It is certainly true that racially-aggravated offences, those done through rabid hatred, are more serious, but the banter clause doesn’t wash here and nor does the ignorance defence. If Yems presented himself as someone who was open-minded towards other cultures, why was his language not inclusive? If Yems was an experienced man of the world, why does he have no appreciation of the out-of-date language?
If a manager is able to be in football coaching for 30 years without realising that language has no place in society, they have no place in the game. If a person is unable to control his emotions without using racist language, they should be barred from using any language at all towards young players, particularly when there has been no public mea culpa.
If, as was found here, they do not give “any thought at all to the likely reaction of others”, a lack of “consciousness” should be rendered meaningless. Who we are is not just defined by what, on some granular level, we are. It is defined by how we act and what we say.
Racist attitudes and racist behaviours equal racism. Caveating that statement in any way risks diluting it and dilution is not an option. Otherwise you risk a generation of people in communities, who for too long wondered whether football was a welcoming environment for them, doubting whether they want to be another “Player 4”, made to feel smaller than themselves by someone in a position of responsibility just because they can.
from Football - inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/kqiQVbo
Post a Comment