I am a black man but I find it utterly ridiculous that the Crown Prosecution Service intends to prosecute Chelsea captain John Terry for racist remarks he allegedly made against Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand.
I am not defending anyone's right to say racist remarks. As a black African man who has lived in the US for almost 20 years, I have had racial insults thrown at me. The damage some of the slurs caused was so great that I will not apologise for any racist. I have also seen extreme cases of racism lead to violence and even death.
But prosecuting people for merely uttering racist slurs does nothing to improve race relations. It's society's way of excusing itself from tackling the issue of race. Fifa, for example, might find it much easier to wave a banner stating "Say no to racism" than to invest in programmes educating footballers about how racism affects not only the victims, but also those accused of being racists.
By punishing nonviolent, spur-of-the-moment racist speech we fail to acknowledge a very important fact – that there is racial animus in every one of us. Human beings are discriminatory by nature. Even when we live in societies where all members belong to the same race, we still find reasons to alienate others. We divide ourselves into tribes and clans. (I should know this; I was born in Kenya.)
People do not decide to become racists in an instant, and therefore they should not be treated the way the law treats a driver who disobeys a red traffic light because he is in a hurry. The racist views we hold of others are learned from our childhoods, and are seldom based on factual information.
Those who come from a racially privileged group might believe in the supremacy of their race because all the information they have been exposed to suggests this is so. And the racist views of those like me who hail from a race that has been historically regarded as inferior are based on the history of how our race has been perceived and treated over time.
The longer we live without meeting positive role models from outside our own race, the more likely it is for us to use race to explain wrongs committed against us. A white man who has never been exposed to anything good about black people might think that a black man who steps on his toes does so because all black people hate whites, and vice versa.
Society ignores the fact that because racism was a mainstream culture for centuries, it is like an addiction. That's why we act shocked when allegations of racism surface. Are we really so naive that we, for instance, expect racism in the US to have ended at the stroke of President Lyndon B Johnson's pen in 1964, when he signed the Civil Rights Act?
Laws do not change hateful people. They suppress people's feelings and force them to retreat into the proverbial closet. A punitive remedy to nonviolent racist speech and the public shaming that accompanies it might also have the reverse effect of strengthening racist feelings.
A little investment in educating the perpetrator might be more valuable than punishment. For me, it was learning that white people played a critical role in ending slavery and colonialism in Africa that saved me from the hate I was developing for them, which was based on how some of them had mistreated me. But it was also learning that there are people in my own race who have done me as much harm as any white person.
To tackle racism effectively, we'll need to acknowledge that it is a widespread problem that will take a long time to address. Then we can begin by educating children about racism from an early age – leave it too late, and changing racist beliefs might prove an impossible task.
;
Comments
22 December 2011 03:36PM
Probably one of the most well thought out and written pieces I've read in CIF.
22 December 2011 03:38PM
Brilliant article. The most rational and lucid analysis I've read on the subject.
22 December 2011 03:39PM
Mebabby - snap!
22 December 2011 03:41PM
So one minute you are saying that we are all racist (cheers,) and the nest you are saying that actually its not that we are instictively racist, its just that we are always looking for category, and in absence of e.g. race, we pick other reasons to discriminate. Presumably gender, age, political affiliation and so on.
It can't be both so if its not one its the other and if it is the other, the sub-headline is wrong.
22 December 2011 03:42PM
and then next!
God I'm tired.
22 December 2011 03:44PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
22 December 2011 03:44PM
No indeed, but the consistent application of those laws - and the prosecution of those who transgress them - do slowly change hateful societies.
No-one is suggesting John Terry should face the death penalty, but he should be criticised and the Court system is society's best way of delivering that criticism.
22 December 2011 03:45PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
22 December 2011 03:46PM
Racism starts when the child makes a distinction between "me" and "not me" - and favours "me". Or at least, people like "me".
How that is defined ranges from the crude, skin colour, to the more acceptable eg personality, intellect, looks... (which of course brings us back to racism). We all have our preferences when it comes to other people. Some we like, and some we don't. Most we just don't give a thought about.
22 December 2011 03:46PM
great article. It won't change anything but warms my heart at Christmas time.
22 December 2011 03:47PM
No they don't, but they provide a guide on what is an acceptable standard of behaviour to society at large. And make it easier to challenge racism by making it more socially unacceptable.
22 December 2011 03:47PM
And charging the Wests didn't end murder.... but it seems like a worthwhile venture.
22 December 2011 03:47PM
Not the most coherently written article, but I definitely agree with the sentiment.
Well done for saying that.
22 December 2011 03:49PM
The problem I see with your argument is even "nonviolent, spur-of-the-moment racist speech" can be very inflammatory and lead to far more serious offences. With good reason the perpetrators shouldn't be seen to be getting away with it or people are more inclined to take things into their own hands.
22 December 2011 03:51PM
I am a white man, and I initially thought it was a good idea for the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute Chelsea captain John Terry for racist remarks he allegedly made against Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand.
Then I just discovered that the maximum fine for this is £2,500, or as John terry probably calls it, 'A Night Out.'
Never mind the CPS, the FA should fine him a month's wages. That would make the silly tw*t sort his head out.
22 December 2011 03:52PM
I agree that tackling ignorance is the most positive way forward when dealing with any form of oppression including racism, sexism, and homophobia and so on.
But I also think this can work in tandem with legislation to show that such words/actions are not part of any acceptable and inclusive society.
Hate speech is the forerunner of hate crime, including physical attack and worse and therefore needs some sort of clear response which rejects it-along side much needed education.
22 December 2011 03:52PM
Don't agree, I'm afraid. I don't believe everybody holds derogatory views on the basis of ethnic difference. Some, certainly. Maybe many - but not all. I do agree that overcoming and tackling racism requires education, not just punitive measures; but I don't see how a fairly airey sentiment helps. It overlooks the true causes - not least of all the media, and its depiction of ethnicity.
Taylor46:
Because the four girls were among c. 22,000 people given suspended sentences during the year.
22 December 2011 03:53PM
You've articulated your point very well indeed. And you are probably right too. The question I have to ask though is, if the allegation of a racial slur proves fact, then how do you propose it is dealt with in this instance?
Education on it's own is not enough. The law must have its place in helping to change behaviour in addition to education in order to change social attitudes.
President Lyndon B Johnson's pen may not have changed attitudes on its own in 1964, but it was certainly pivotal.
22 December 2011 03:54PM
Brilliant article my friend which actually has it's basis in reality unlike some other articles on here supposedly by people 'representing the black community' which come across as nothing more than baseless paranoia and in some cases racist against white people (the recent one on Mark Duggan and police community relations comes to mind).
But as you say, we're all tribal and like to pigeon hole people. An example I would use is the Sunnis and Shi'ites who are (often) the same race, nationality and religion but are 'racist' against one another based on nothing more than having a differect sect of the religion.
However, I don't get the idea (which is very common at the moment) that people who say racist things should be 'educated'. Simply because I can't see how that education is imparted, are we talking about making them go back to a school-like environment and studying for a test, or just giving them a pamphlet?
Secondly it's impossible to educate people about a notion they no longer have control over as racism (it seems now) isn't about what you said, meant or intended, it's about how it's received. It now seems (with the Evra case anyway) that you can say whatever you like but if the person you are saying it to decides it's racist then it is.
22 December 2011 03:55PM
The FA will have no choice but to charge him too if the CPS win their case. The minimum you'd expect would be the same eight-game suspension with 40,000 fine doled out to Suarez.
22 December 2011 03:56PM
you think it well written? How about this?
22 December 2011 03:58PM
The law, morality and social acceptence are mutally exclusive concepts.
22 December 2011 03:59PM
How exactly do you propose to educate John Terry? And can the case be made for certain that John Terry has never encountered any positive role model outside of his race? I agree that indeed education is essential and probably effective in the young. However, in an adult, I think people should be charged with making these statements. I personally don't care if they bottle it up inside and continue to feel the same. How do you measure the effectiveness of education in such an adult....all you might get get is a more savvy rasict and rather than a completely stupid one!
22 December 2011 04:00PM
Actually, I would defend anyone's right to say racist remarks.
In general I defend freedom of speech and that includes freedom to speak offensively, but stops at direct incitement to violence.
22 December 2011 04:03PM
If the two options are to punish or not to punish those guilty of being outwardly racist, then punishment is the only feasible option.
The argument that this doesn't solve the underlying problem might be true, but the problem will only be aggravated by allowing people free rein to be racially offensive whenever they feel.
22 December 2011 04:07PM
No it wouldn't.
If he's been earning £100,000 per week for the past decade, he has more money than he knows what to do with.
They should ban him from entering a football stadium in the same way they'd ban a fan.
22 December 2011 04:08PM
Excellent article.
22 December 2011 04:10PM
Great article.
Unless we recognise that it is a natural human instinct to be tribal and to discriminate, we will never properly be able to rise above it.
Over my lifetime, we have made great progress towards a fairer and less discriminatory society. I cannot imagine how anyone would wish to put the clock back.
But the perfect world not one in which a racist remark is never uttered. It is one in which a racist slur has no traction, because it occurs in the context of a fair society, in which all races have equal treatment.
In this situation, a remark about race is no more damaging than any other personal remark. Then we can overlook comments made in the heat of the moment, which convey no real malice, whilst retaining zero tolerance to attitudes that cause or incite real harm.
22 December 2011 04:11PM
my point, which you have clearly missed, was about the quality of the writing, which had been praised by the first person to comment. One cannot 'say' remarks of any kind. One can, though, 'make' them. English innit.
22 December 2011 04:12PM
Educating John Terry may take some time i suspect....
22 December 2011 04:14PM
If you 'educate' people that racially-based remarks are offensive and upset people then you'll only make incidents like Terry's and Suarez worse not better because in their cases the remark came from anger and need to hurt or wind up the opposition in which case people are more likely to use racial slurs in the heat of the moment.
Whereas someone who uses racist terms casually and doesn't realise they offence they are causing may well change their behaviour with that type of education.
You can't treat all racially motovated incidents as the same with the same cause and solution.
22 December 2011 04:16PM
Spoken like a true over priviledged white and possible middle class bloke
22 December 2011 04:17PM
Great article.
No problem with the FA disciplining Terry or Suarez for what they allegedly say on the pitch, but this is no scenario for criminal law.
What worries me most is that Terry could well be acquitted of the criminal charge, thereby apparently exonerating his behaviour and making him into a martyr to those who defend their right to use racist language.
22 December 2011 04:17PM
Thin ice being trodden on here.
Elsewhere in the paper it's pointed out that Patrice Evra has been villified despite his essentially being the 'victim' in this case.
Start suggesting racist abuse is no big deal and you can see where we'd be rapidly heading back towards.
And the notion that charging Terry won't end racism seems a bit silly.
Charging people for any number of offences doesn't bring an end to them but that doesn't seem like a good reason for not charging in the first place.
Having said that, with some cases eg speeding there are options for education programmes instead of points on licences etc and that kind of approach to non-violent racist abuse would be a good idea.
22 December 2011 04:17PM
prosecuting people for merely uttering racist slurs does nothing to improve race relations. It's society's way of excusing itself from tackling the issue of race.
I agree. There are plenty of racists who are at least smart enough not to use slurs, as well as the occasional instance of ignorant* people who employ them with no malicious intent.
Education is the answer.
*Including Germaine Greer, who once wrote on the Shilpa Shetty/Big Brother case in these pages, seemingly in the belief that the word 'Paki' was simply an abbreviation similar to 'Aussie'.
22 December 2011 04:17PM
OK - you get a "Recommend" for the grammar flame!
22 December 2011 04:19PM
Yes, only white middle class men defend freedom of speech.
I assume that's what you mean?
22 December 2011 04:19PM
He might get acquitted of the criminal charge, who knows, but it's hard to see him avoiding the clutches of the FA's disciplinary system after Suarez.
22 December 2011 04:21PM
So you believe people have a right to use racist language?
22 December 2011 04:24PM
'The notion of "freedom of speech" is being used to protect the speech of the oppressor, not the one of the oppressed'. Maggie Hays
predictable mate
22 December 2011 04:26PM
Anyone's already free to make racist remarks in the comfort of their own home or in an environment in which it would be considered not an incitement to violence as per our criminal law.
Hence Griffin walking a few years back from crown court.
22 December 2011 04:27PM
I suspect the point is that John Terry is merely accused of being Racist whereas those 4 girls were found guilty.
Found guilty and then essentially let off with a suspended sentence as they were 'not used to alcohol'. That is no excuse or mitigation - no-one made them drink, no-one made them assault another girls and no-one made them utter the racist remarks that they did. I still do not recollect anything about that in the Guardian.
Back to the article. Agreed, charging John Terry will not stop Racism (if he is guilty of racism that is). The difference is that if there is reasonable evidence that someone has committed a crime (and what he is alleged to have said was against the law) then that person should be prosecuted. Charging Cheryl Cole (Tweedy as was then) did not stop it in general but seems to have stopped it in her.
How do you suggest that we decide who to prosecute? Only on the grounds that it would stop all future instances of the alleged crime?
22 December 2011 04:27PM
What's your point?
The 'tram woman' didn't attack anybody and is spending Christmas in prison.
22 December 2011 04:27PM
Word up
22 December 2011 04:28PM
He should be locked up.
It's a sad day to see the spectre of racism cast it's shadow over the noble sport of English Football.
Never thought I'd live to see it.
22 December 2011 04:28PM
Strangely, those who believe in freedom of speech should want it just as much for the oppressor as the oppressed.
22 December 2011 04:28PM
The CPS is under the illusion that publicly trying John Terry will make a blind bit of difference, it will only harbour more resentment among those that may foster ideas of racial segregation.
Edwin, your article is excellent and obviously spoken from regrettable experience.
Racism is taught, but it can be undone.
22 December 2011 04:29PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
22 December 2011 04:30PM
I prefer the US interpretation and definition of freedom of speech - it seems like they actually believe in it.
22 December 2011 04:36PM
I'm glad this has been said.
Feeling animosity towards people who are so blatantly different to you is perfectly natural.
Wanting to be better than people are are different, or claiming that people who are different aren't as good as you is perfectly healthy.
When I get annoyed with somebody in my office, I would normally call them (depending on who they are) either a fat w*nker, a bald w*nker, a ginger w*nker, or a smelley w*nker; all are perfectly good descriptions of those people. If there was a black person working in the office and they annoyed me, they would be called a black w*nker. You simply pick on one thing that makes it quite clear that that person is different to you.