The Ref Stop

Quenelle

The Ref Stop
No, most definitely not. Suarez got 10 games for biting! Spurs fans being arrested for chanting the word 'Yid' (which offends no Jews) but Anelka makes a gesture that is a clear & obvious anti-Semitic gesture, which offends a large number of Jews. How the FA can justify this is beyond me!

No further comment from me before I end up banning myself!
 
I understand where you're coming from Dan but was it meant in an offensive manor or has it been taken the wrong way? Suarez had 8 games for using racist language on the F.O.P so maybe the FA need to ban him for 8 games like Suarez was. FA proving they have no common sense yet again.
 
Dan, your reply above should make it absolutely clear to anyone who referees that any repeat of the quenelle should be a red card offence

I would argue and would like to think that any repeat on a premier league football pitch would receive a bigger package of fines and education than Anelka has received. Should Anelka do it again it would obviously be bigger

Suarez was a repeat offender. Seven game ban for biting in 2010, eight match ban for racial abuse in 2011. His ten match ban was partly a consequence of that.

Spurs fans being arrested is a public order offence. Police have issued several warnings previously which these fans chose to ignore

Whilst many people involved in British football now know that the Quenelle is an anti-Semitic gesture, because of the Anelka case, I would argue that very, very few people involved in British football probably knew that it was an anti -Semitic gesture before it was pointed out to the majority of us in December

For anyone interested, F.A. statement on the outcome at link below

http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/2014/feb/nicolas-anelka-west-brom-five-match-suspension

Let's just hope that he doesn't appeal.....
 
Last edited:
Aled said:
I understand where you're coming from Dan but was it meant in an offensive manor or has it been taken the wrong way?
Click to expand...
Anelka did it in support of his friend. A man who is openly anti-Semitic and has been charged as such in his own country (the same country from which Anelka comes). In an interview he gave, he said that this gesture 'the quenelle', is his way of showing his anti-Semitic views.

So yes Aled, it was meant in an offensive manner and not been taken the wrong way.

How Anelka has escaped with such a small ban, I don't know. Irony at its finest btw - Anelka's first game back will be against.......Spurs!
 
DanCohen17 said:
So yes Aled, it was meant in an offensive manner and not been taken the wrong way....How Anelka has escaped with such a small ban, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Messrs Christopher Quinlan QC, Thura KT Win and Peter Powell, the members of the Independent Regulatory Committee would beg to differ

'we did not find that Nicolas Anelka is an Anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote Anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle'

As would Simon Johnson, interim chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council

'The conviction of Nicolas Anelka is a welcome outcome. It demonstrates that the FA’s processes are robust enough to deal with the most pernicious of racism cases.
All those of us dedicated to defeating racism and discrimination throughout sport can take great confidence that, when put to the test, football’s anti-racism procedures stood up to the challenge'


and Vivian Wineman, chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who

'believes the punishment handed down by the Football Association on Thursday will help to put across a strong anti-racist message.

And Wineman congratulated the FA's decision, believing it sends out a strong message about the salute's connotations.
"It's a sign of success for all decent people," he told Perform.
"This isn't an issue for the Jewish community particularly, it's an issue for everybody who's against anti-Semitism - which should be all decent people.
It's an anti-Semitic gesture and it's got to be stamped on and this verdict by this tribunal does exactly that and it's good.
He's said he's not anti-Semitic. That's fine, we hear that.
It sends out a pretty powerful message. It's a five-match ban an £80,000 fine and he's having to go on an anti-Semitism awareness course so it's a pretty strong message that's been sent out.
We obviously welcome it."

His comments were echoed by representatives from the Community Security Trust and Maccabi UK.
 
Maccabi GB, not UK, but don't worry.

Firstly, Haywain, religion aside, I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that this is not a strong enough punishment (for the reasons stated in the previous post and earlier in the thread).

Whether it not Vivian Wineman, or the IRC, believe Anelka is an anti-Semite is irrelevant. He did this gesture in support of a friend of his charged with public anti-Semitism. That's why, when Aled asked, I said that I felt it was meant in an offensive manner. At no point do I recall having said Anelka IS an anti-Semite, merely a friend/supporter of one.
 
Couldn't agree more about being entitled to your opinion, Dan, as was Aled when he suggested that Anelka's gesture might not have been made meant in an offensive way, which I merely pointed out was the opinion of some pretty learned people

Not that you're not learned, Dan

As for Maccabi UK, I'll have to put the blame for that one squarely on the shoulders of the European Jewish Congress, I'm afraid

http://www.eurojewcong.org/united-kingdom/10817-british-jews-welcome-anelka-ban.html
 
Where they've got Maccabi UK from, I've no idea. It's Maccabi GB, 100% (www.maccabigb.org)

I don't think any of them have said it wasn't meant in an offensive way, merely that they don't disbelieve NA saying he's not an anti-Semite. I've not read anyone saying he didn't mean to be offensive and was a mistake?
 
'we did not find that Nicolas Anelka ... intended to express or promote Anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle'

Sorry, Dan, we seem to be labouring the point here, the limitations of the written word, but doesn't the above, taken from the IRC statement, mean that 'it wasn't meant in an offensive way'

To me it does, to you, apparently not

If so, we must agree to differ

Let's just be grateful that he didn't offend the Russians this evening.....:(
 
I think we can all agree that Anelka is an idiot. There is no defence for the man.

For those of us struggling with ideas of intent or anything else, you only have to look at the strength of feeling this has caused one of our colleagues. It may have meant nothing to most of us when it happened (I was not even aware of what it was until this happened) but now we know what it means it's abhorrent and has no place on society let alone on a football pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top