• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Society of Black Lawyers...

SUIYHA

Scott Parker
Are telling us that they'll get the police involved if we don't stop using the word yid on the terraces. As a Jewish fan, I want to write to them to tell them to fudge off and do a bit of research before getting involved, but their website is down. Good to see the club putting out a statement echoing my own thoughts:

The group behind the push for a black players' union have put forward a 10-point plan they think will help combat racism in football.
The group want to give referees the power to call off games if there is racial abuse from the terraces and they want any player who is guilty of racism to be sacked.
The organisation have also claimed they will report any fans heard singing anti-Semitic songs at the home of Tottenham to the police.
Although widely recognised as an insult, some Spurs fans proudly call themselves "Yids" or "Yiddos" and chant "Yid army" at games as an act of defiance to those who discriminate against the club's large Jewish following.
Peter Herbert, who chairs the Society of Black Lawyers says this is not acceptable. He said: "It does not make a difference if it is Tottenham fans doing the chants or away fans - if they continue to do it we will report it to the police.
"There has to be zero tolerance and if that catches out Spurs then so be it."
Asked about Jewish fans themselves singing the chant, he said: "That's not acceptable either."
He added: "If neither Tottenham FC nor the FA are willing to take a stand then SBL will report the matter to the Metropolitan Police Service for investigation and, if necessary, prosecution.
"The report will be made if this behaviour does not cease by 20 November. We will have monitors in attendance to observe what occurs."
Spurs responded to Herbert's claims by defending their supporters and pointing out that their fans have in the past been subjected to taunts about the Holocaust.
"Our position on this topic is very clear," a Tottenham statement read.
"The club does not tolerate any form of racist or abusive chanting.
"Our guiding principle in respect of the 'Y-word' is based on the point of law itself - the distinguishing factor is the intent with which it is used i.e. if it is used with the deliberate intention to cause offence. This has been the basis of prosecutions of fans of other teams to date.
"Our fans adopted the chant as a defence mechanism in order to own the term and thereby deflect anti-Semitic abuse. They do not use the term to others to cause any offence, they use it a chant amongst themselves.
"The club believes that real anti-Semitic abuse such as hissing to simulate the noise of gas chambers is the real evil and the real offence. We believe this is the area that requires a determined and concerted effort from all parties and where we seek greater support to eradicate."
Racism has been a burning issue within the game over the last few weeks.
Chelsea captain John Terry was banned for four matches for racially abusing Anton Ferdinand - although he was cleared of criminal charges - and two weeks ago the Blues became embroiled in another race row when they accused referee Mark Clattenburg of using "inappropriate language" towards their midfielder John Obi Mikel.
The language Clattenburg is alleged to have used is understood to have been interpreted as being racist.
The referee, who denies the claim, should be suspended while the FA and the police are conducting an investigation in to the matter, the SBL say.
A statement from the organisation read: "The SBL expresses serious concern that the FA has not suspended (Clattenburg) in light of the allegations of racial abuse he faces.
"Suspension is commonly used in employment situations where allegations of misconduct are made where a person's integrity and responsibility is open to question.
"This is partly to preserve the position of the person under investigation and would be in the interests of a referee in these circumstances to ensure he is not subject to false allegations in what is clearly a highly charged environment.
"Suspension does not signal any guilt at all."
Clattenburg did not referee a game last weekend and will not do so again this week so he can concentrate on helping the FA and the police with their enquiries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...emitic-abuse-by-Society-of-Black-Lawyers.html

I hate to bring up another "use of the word yid" thread, but this really irritated me when I read about it earlier, especially coming from a group that by definition highlights racial differences.
 
I'm curious if they deem it racist if a black person refers to another black person using the N word...
 
Ridiculous. Just trying to make a name for themselves.

Do they allow white lawyers to join their society or do the discriminate against them on the basis of their colour?
 
Walob, hope we sing it even louder at our next game.

Is there a "Society of White Lawyers" by the way? I'm guessing not ..
 
It seems these clowns are out to try and make a name for themselves and no doubt some cash...

SUIYHA, if you do email them, you should post what you write and their response on here
 
I'm curious if they deem it racist if a black person refers to another black person using the N word...

With the legal definition of intent, then probably not in an appropriate context.

However, the same should apply to a white person saying it in context. It would be racist to say that only black people can use it.

Following the logic of the Society of Racist Lawyers, merely mentioning the holocaust would be anti-semitic.
 
Is it racist if a non-Jewish Spurs fan joins in with the Yid Army chants at the Lane? I'm not Jewish so I don't.


I'm not sure it can be racist to call yourself anything. If you are Jewish or not.


Part of the issue of course will be semantics. You could claim the word has evolved beyond it's original meaning.
 
I'm not sure it can be racist to call yourself anything. If you are Jewish or not.


Part of the issue of course will be semantics. You could claim the word has evolved beyond it's original meaning.

This is it in a nutshell. In this context it is just a moniker for the spurs support and has no racial connotations at all really. I'm glad to see some common sense coming out of the Spurs hierarchy on this, but to be honest it is a contradictory stance to one previous regarding the 'drum' and the reasons for banning it.
 
I'm somewhat at a loss to comprehend why the Society of Black Lawyers thinks it should involve itself in a subject of which it has absolutely no remit and is beyond its scope, experience and knowledge.
 
=D> to the club for defending us here. Not what I expected, but welcome anyway.

As for SBL, I've done a little digging. David Neita, their representative who keeps puking gallons of bullsh1t at every media outlet that will listen, in the hope that some of them form some kind of sensible point (failing miserably so far), keeps referring to himself as a barrister. Turns out he isn't. Whilst it's apparently not illegal to call oneself a barrister without having done a pupillage, it's not really the done thing as a layman wouldn't know the difference.

Peter Herbert (from the article above) regularly writes for the Grauniad, immediately rendering any opinion of his null and void. A quick Google search will also tell you that he's the most shameless self publicist you'll ever find, usually making outrageous and inflammatory statements at every given opportunity in order to raise his own profile (and, no doubt, fill his own pockets). He even has a photo gallery of himself on his professional website and he may or may not watch himself in the mirror whilst asphyxitossing depending on his personal preference ;)

So this leads me to two possible conclusions here:

  1. On the basis that Spurs and Clattenburg have inexplicably become targets for the "No whiteys allowed" club, there are probably one or two Chelsea fans amongst their ranks and they're just being pr1cks.
  2. They are self-important, self-publicising, obnoxious money-grabbing lawyer c0cks who are shamelessly raping a serious issue in both society and football for all the publicity/cash they can.

I'm leaning towards 2, but 1 is still a distinct possibility.
 
Surely the fact that we constantly make a point about minorities etc defeats the purpose of trying to elimninate minority 'discrimination' etc.

If we dont have minority groups etc then surely there will be no minorities - no? Its all so counter productive
 
This is it in a nutshell. In this context it is just a moniker for the spurs support and has no racial connotations at all really. I'm glad to see some common sense coming out of the Spurs hierarchy on this, but to be honest it is a contradictory stance to one previous regarding the 'drum' and the reasons for banning it.

Which were?
 
Which were?

The reasons given by the club were twofold.

The rhythm the drummer used encouraged the systematic chanting of the word YIDS and the club do not want to be seen as endorsing this as to avoid being slapped on the wrist by the football authorities and anti-racism campaigners.

The other reason was it was too noisy or something equally stupid.
 
Attention seekers. Diluting real race issues by drawing attention to trivial issues they don't fully understand.
 
shakes head at this shower of ****s and simply just walks away.

Wasted enough energy on these wannabe MLKs already.
 
Back