8 Games

[fighting irish]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Put it this way, if he was insulting me he wouldn't include Polynesian - that makes it a reference to Savelio's skin colour. 

Its not even that the word is derogatory in the southern hemisphere or anywhere in many contexts, it's that it has been used (unnecessarily) in the context of being part of an insult to another player here. 

No he might have called you a Fat English ****. Is that a reference to your skin colour. 

 

[EagleEyePie]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

My issue with that is that I'm sure Clubb could provide about 1,000 references of the type that go, "Well, I've never heard him say anything like that before, really, and he is a really good bloke."

They really shouldn't carry too much weight when determining the length of the suspension.

I agree completely. I think I mentioned it in an earlier post. Pretty much every player can get a good character reference from their club and what weight should that really carry. If he was being racist all the time he surely wouldn't be employed at any club. Most players will have some form of community and charity involvement through the club so that's not particularly relevant and also racists can also be involved with charity. If he's a good club man and is never late for training that's also largely irrelevant to the charge.

Clubb is allowed to seek character references as part of his defence if he sees fit but I'm not sure what relevance they could really have in this case and I don't see how they could hold enough weight to automatically gain him the minimum punishment.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Why not? Also, doesn't the level of intent count, when judging the severity of the punishment?

I will restate it, because you make no mention of it, I'm not insulted by being called Irish. 

Yes, I believe that the level of intent is a factor.  Although very difficult to judge or measure and I think the action is probably more important to judge than the intent.

Either way, judging the intent by the measure of how it was received is entirely the wrong way to look at it.  Not least because everyone will have an completely different level of tolerance to what 'hurts' them.  You can state as often as you like that you are not insulted by being called Irish (or in this instance having 'Irish' swapped in for the 'Polynesian' in the language that Clubb used) but others may be.

We shouldn't really judge the severity of a racial slur based on the hurt perceived by the actual recipient, never mind other random people who state that it wouldn't bother them.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Its a good job he didn't say it to me while we were playing against each other, because I'm really upset about it.

I would have complained to the ref and had him lose a quarter of his annual pay.

Let's remember Harry, the only thing that's important here, is how much I'm upset by it. 

I wonder how many times in his long and illustrious career Mr Clubb has been referred to as a "cockney tw@" or other similar phrases, and if so how hurt he was by the remarks?

[Damien]

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

I agree completely. I think I mentioned it in an earlier post. Pretty much every player can get a good character reference from their club and what weight should that really carry. If he was being racist all the time he surely wouldn't be employed at any club. Most players will have some form of community and charity involvement through the club so that's not particularly relevant and also racists can also be involved with charity. If he's a good club man and is never late for training that's also largely irrelevant to the charge.

Clubb is allowed to seek character references as part of his defence if he sees fit but I'm not sure what relevance they could really have in this case and I don't see how they could hold enough weight to automatically gain him the minimum punishment.

No one has said they carry enough weight to automatically get him minimum punishment. In isolation they are pretty meaningless. However, much like a court case, they are used as part of a wider defence as to someone's character.

[Tonka]

Just now, EagleEyePie said:

I agree completely. I think I mentioned it in an earlier post. Pretty much every player can get a good character reference from their club and what weight should that really carry. If he was being racist all the time he surely wouldn't be employed at any club. Most players will have some form of community and charity involvement through the club so that's not particularly relevant and also racists can also be involved with charity. If he's a good club man and is never late for training that's also largely irrelevant to the charge.

Clubb is allowed to seek character references as part of his defence if he sees fit but I'm not sure what relevance they could really have in this case and I don't see how they could hold enough weight to automatically gain him the minimum punishment.

It won't just be the character reference that led to the punishment.  I wasn't there, but I expect that not having any previous and showing contrition may have gone a long way, as well as being convincing in saying he doesn't actually harbour racist views, which can be quite plausible even when someone's made a one-off (heat-of-the-moment?) racist comment.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

No he might have called you a Fat English ****. Is that a reference to your skin colour. 

No, because English people are of a vast array of different skin tones - and describing me perjoratively as "Anglo Saxon" would be objectively wrong given my appearance.

None of that makes Clubb referencing Savelio's ethnicity acceptable.

[OriginalMrC]

I think a lot of people are looking at this issue the wrong way. Making it a witch hunt about one player is not going to solve the issue of racism in the sport. The panel was independent and made their findings. Whether I agree or not with the punishment is irrelevant and that for me that should be the end of it. I'm not sure what value there is in making more of it particularly where the mental health of both players could be affected by it. 

From reading this thread and seeing comments on social media it's clear education is needed. Not just because of this one incident but because its clear there is a real lack of understanding out there about racism and also the impact of racism. If the RFL wants to be seen to be tough on racism they need to back up their statements by having education programmes, setting clear ground rules, and liaising regularly with clubs about the issue. 

[EagleEyePie]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

No one has said they carry enough weight to automatically get him minimum punishment. In isolation they are pretty meaningless. However, much like a court case, they are used as part of a wider defence as to someone's character.

True, but it was mentioned in the press release as a mitigating factor. His prior disciplinary record was also mentioned which is just as meaningless in this case. Nothing so far mentioned in the statement really come across as significant mitigation, other than 'hes not a racist' but that's not what the hearing was trying to determine.

[Tonka]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

No, because English people are of a vast array of different skin tones - and describing me perjoratively as "Anglo Saxon" would be objectively wrong given my appearance.

None of that makes Clubb referencing Savelio's ethnicity acceptable.

From the Equality Act (2010):

9Race

(1)Race includes—

(a)colour;

(b)nationality;

(c)ethnic or national origins.

 

So by law, a reference to nationality is as bad as ethnic origin, assuming you take Polynesian to be an ethnicity and not just a geographical descriptor.  But either's as bad for legal purposes.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

True, but it was mentioned in the press release as a mitigating factor. His prior disciplinary record was also mentioned which is just as meaningless in this case. Nothing so far mentioned in the statement really come across as significant mitigation, other than 'hes not a racist' but that's not what the hearing was trying to determine.

His disciplinary record is certainly not meaningless, its a factor in any punishment that is given. Just because you think it is meaningless doesn't make it so. If say Zac Hardaker had done the same with his ban history I would have expected a sterner punishment than what Clubb got and certainly not the minimum.

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Maybe it is an age related thing RP, but I well remember when referring to someone as 'Coloured' was deemed far more acceptable than saying 'black' or 'packi' Mr Hansen at 65 is not to much different in age to myself, so no I did not see anything wrong with his comment at the time.

I am not saying hansens is the same i am saying it is different.. you were saying it was "Very much like" I am saying they are nothing like each other.

His comment was wrong. However, i have sympathy as i well remember myself that point in time and the changing terminology. I think that sympathy was also seen by the likes of the BBC when it was just an apology he had to give rather than being sacked (which was happening to those making racist comments at the time). 

That is not, however, the case here with Clubb. He used the term as an insult by using his ethnic origin within an insult (we all know you cant do that surely!) 

That is why I am amazed you cannot see the difference between the two things.

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

No, because English people are of a vast array of different skin tones - and describing me perjoratively as "Anglo Saxon" would be objectively wrong given my appearance.

None of that makes Clubb referencing Savelio's ethnicity acceptable.

Stop wriggling Tommy.

Are you saying that all the Polynesians are the same colour then?

How certain are you that Clubb's use of the word was a reference to his skin colour?

Isn't that just an assumption on your part? Aren't you just over egging your interpretation and just a tad guilty of not sticking to the facts?

Do you find the term ''Anglo Saxon'' pejorative?

The way some of the posters in here, would have it, is that its entirely up to you to decide.

What that means is, if you're insulted by it (as Savelio was), he's (Clubb's) a racist.

If your not, he gets off Scot free. (oops better not say Scot!).

But it gives you enormous power in the aftermath of that event. 

[RP London]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I wonder how many times in his long and illustrious career Mr Clubb has been referred to as a "cockney tw@" or other similar phrases, and if so how hurt he was by the remarks?

but that doesnt mean that you get to call someone a Polynesian tw@... 

Surely the one thing we can all agree on is that people really should just call each other a tw@ and not a "insult random accident of nature" tw@ and the world would be a much easier place to live in.. if we all just stopped doing it it wouldnt be a problem (and its not ###### necessary to use to make the point either!).

 

[EagleEyePie]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

His disciplinary record is certainly not meaningless, its a factor in any punishment that is given. Just because you think it is meaningless doesn't make it so. If say Zac Hardaker had done the same with his ban history I would have expected a sterner punishment than what Clubb got and certainly not the minimum.

Hardaker is, as far as I'm aware, the only current SL player with disciplinary charge for this kind of offence. His disciplinary record is relevant in that he has previous which would be seen as a serious aggravating factor. In terms of mitigation though - being banned for a high tackle or dangerous contact is completely irrelevant to this offence. It should have no bearing on the severity of the punishment because having made a high tackle last year doesn't make racist abuse more serious.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

From the Equality Act (2010):

9Race

(1)Race includes—

(a)colour;

(b)nationality;

(c)ethnic or national origins.

 

So by law, a reference to nationality is as bad as ethnic origin, assuming you take Polynesian to be an ethnicity and not just a geographical descriptor.  But either's as bad for legal purposes.

Mostly that will be used if at that point the insult used the nationality in question in lieu of a racial grouping, often mistakenly - Pakistani for example being hurled insultingly at people who are Bangladeshi, Indian etc. Equally its to protect against the "no blacks no irish etc" style job recruitment posters, as Irish is clearly used in the same context as Black there but doesn't hold the same strength of racial connotation. A general rule is if you feel attacked because of a protected characteristic, then you are being - most English people wouldn't take it as an insult, but they are entitled to if they really want to. Most won't however and there is a valid debate on that - would Marcus Rashford be called an English so and so reflect in a similar way to Harry Kane being called so? That reflects how English racial diversity changes the use of it somewhat.

Polynesia is an ethnic grouping of a subset of pacific peoples, Maori, Cook Island Maori, Samoan plus others. Along with Melanesian (including PNG and Fiji I believe) and Micronesian they are the commonly accepted ethno-linguistic groupings of the islanders.

[fighting irish]

11 minutes ago, Tonka said:

From the Equality Act (2010):

9Race

(1)Race includes—

(a)colour;

(b)nationality;

(c)ethnic or national origins.

 

So by law, a reference to nationality is as bad as ethnic origin, assuming you take Polynesian to be an ethnicity and not just a geographical descriptor.  But either's as bad for legal purposes.

All this is is a definition of the word Race. 

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Stop wriggling Tommy.

Are you saying that all the Polynesians are the same colour then?

How certain are you that Clubb's use of the word was a reference to his skin colour?

Isn't that just an assumption on your part? Aren't you just over egging your interpretation and just a tad guilty of not sticking to the facts?

Do you find the term ''Anglo Saxon'' pejorative?

The way some of the posters in here, would have it, is that its entirely up to you to decide.

What that means is, if you're insulted by it (as Savelio was), he's (Clubb's) a racist.

If your not, he gets off Scot free. (oops better not say Scot!).

But it gives you enormous power in the aftermath of that event. 

I completely see your point I really do.. and that is why its a case of "dont use those terms"... If someone, anyone, may find it insulting then just dont use it no matter what your personal intent is because as much as you may not mean it as insulting if the other person finds it insulting then you have caused offence.. it really is that simple, agree or dont that someone shouldnt find something insulting if it is meant without intent we are dealing with emotions and they do. 

seriously, and its very very simple, never ever use someone's nationality, religion, race, colour, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, gender etc to base an opinion or in an insult.. If you avoid doing that you wont get into trouble.. it really is very ###### simple. 

Anyone breaking that is leaving themselves open to accusations of bias or being an "xxxxist" or a "xxxphobic"... 

And frankly whether we agree with it or not we all know that is the case and, I would guess, we are all pretty much keeping to that mantra anyway as we know it is right.

[Just Browny]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I honestly wouldn't believe anyone even all those calling for Clubb to be locked up and the key thrown away if they told me that in moments of anger, stress, under the influence or whatever that they had said something/commented to someone that they later wished they had kept their gobs shut.

Has it says in the good book, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" hands up all those who are pure.

Call me a virtue signaller, but I have never directed a racist slur at anyone, even at my very angriest. 

[Barley Mow]

In Savelio's tweet from after the match, he writes "I was going to deal with it myself the next time we came into contact" and that he wasn't able to because Clubb was taken off.

It seems Savelio (at least initially) thought that something along the line of a boot in the guts during a tackle was the relevant punishment. I'm not sure how we should rank that in comparison to an eight week ban and fine.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

Hardaker is, as far as I'm aware, the only current SL player with disciplinary charge for this kind of offence. His disciplinary record is relevant in that he has previous which would be seen as a serious aggravating factor. In terms of mitigation though - being banned for a high tackle or dangerous contact is completely irrelevant to this offence. It should have no bearing on the severity of the punishment because having made a high tackle last year doesn't make racist abuse more serious.

Hardaker has never been accused of racist abuse. Courts take into account past offences and much of the disciplinary process as been modelled the way it is after legal advice. It seems bizarre that the RFL wouldn't take into account past disciplinary history. You seem to want the entire process changing for one particular charge.

[gingerjon]

Probably should have said that black is just a description, he sent the message in the heat of the moment, and don't they know about his work with Unicef.

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, fighting irish said:

All this is is a definition of the word Race. 

Yes, under the Equality Act, "Race" is a "Protected Characteristic" i.e. you can't discriminate on grounds of "Race" and this is your definition of "Race", which covers the things at 9(1)(a) to (c).

So "English ****" and "Polynesian ****" are as bad in law.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

In Savelio's tweet from after the match, he writes "I was going to deal with it myself the next time we came into contact" and that he wasn't able to because Clubb was taken off.

It seems Savelio (at least initially) thought that something along the line of a boot in the guts during a tackle was the relevant punishment. I'm not sure how we should rank that in comparison to an eight week ban.

maybe they've asked savelio exactly what he would have done and worked out Clubb would have been injured for 8 weeks.. 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Stop wriggling Tommy.

Are you saying that all the Polynesians are the same colour then?

How certain are you that Clubb's use of the word was a reference to his skin colour?

Isn't that just an assumption on your part? Aren't you just over egging your interpretation and just a tad guilty of not sticking to the facts?

Do you find the term ''Anglo Saxon'' pejorative?

The way some of the posters in here, would have it, is that its entirely up to you to decide.

What that means is, if you're insulted by it (as Savelio was), he's (Clubb's) a racist.

If your not, he gets off Scot free. (oops better not say Scot!).

But it gives you enormous power in the aftermath of that event. 

Saying I'm wriggling is ridiculous given your stance on this thread.

I'm saying Polynesian is a widely accepted Ethno-linguistic group - there are many others - that is to say Andre Savelio is of Polynesian ethnicity and this was raised as part of Clubb's comments to him. As part of that description the most initially obvious aspects are associated physical features, including skin colour, which would make him calling someone not Polynesian (or ethnically similar), unlikely at best. That is generally how racially targeted abuse works.

I don't find anglo-saxon perjorative, polynesian isn't perjorative either. It can be used in a perjorative sense, however, and in the case of the latter was clearly used that way here.