Premiership Rugby 20/21 - Semi-Finals

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'm no lawyer but a bit of googling reveals this:

(1)An offence is [F2racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—

(a)at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a [F3racial or religious group]; or

(b)the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [F3racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group.

I do not think either of these apply to chiefs fans and so are not racially aggravated offenses.

I'm no lawyer either!

I wasn't trying to suggest the Chiefs fans had committed any offences.

Was talking more generally on your intent point. I thought that victim / other perception was a consideration, regardless of intent, and it seems to be borne out by the CPS prosecution guidance, at least at the Flagging stage.

Racist and Religious Hate Crime - Prosecution Guidance | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

But like I say, I'm very definitely not placed to comment on finer points of law.

 

[Reiser99]

Some people are arguing that racism is prejudice with power. Everyone has prejudices and biases that are in appropriate, but racism comes when you have power over others to enforce that prejudice. Obviously this is different to the law, but I find it an interesting discussion, because essentially a black person in this country can only be racially prejudicial, not racist as they don't have power to enforce their prejudices.


For me what the chiefs are doing isn't racist, it's more inconsiderate and disrespectful as well as appropriating someone else's culture. Surely there is enough culture is this country to adopt, without going to America for someone else's.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

The thing is you probably couldn't even to that without offending somebody. You could call them the Exeter Dumnonii but the bloody Durotriges would probably kick off about it being exclusionary.

Isn't "Saracens" also super iffy in terms of connotation? I mean Exeter make the argument that they believe their use of cultural icons is respectful (I'm ambivalent) but "Saracen" has certainly been used pejoratively in the past. Shouldn't they be re-branding too?

 

[FLOBALOB]

Some people are arguing that racism is prejudice with power. Everyone has prejudices and biases that are in appropriate, but racism comes when you have power over others to enforce that prejudice. Obviously this is different to the law, but I find it an interesting discussion, because essentially a black person in this country can only be racially prejudicial, not racist as they don't have power to enforce their prejudices.


For me what the chiefs are doing isn't racist, it's more inconsiderate and disrespectful as well as appropriating someone else's culture. Surely there is enough culture is this country to adopt, without going to America for someone else's.

And when was the last time anybody has seen a tiger or bear in this country roaming the countryside ?

 

[Reiser99]

And when was the last time anybody has seen a tiger or bear in this country roaming the countryside ?

Lol, got to love the ridiculous attempt at whataboutism.

I'll start simply as this is often what I have to teach primary school children. Just because someone else might be doing something wrong, doesn't mean you can do it too. If Exeter chiefs jumped off a cliff would you do it too? Right, now we've finished basic reception level right and wrong, let's move onto year 1 right and wrong. If you say or do something that upsets someone else, should you do it?

Honestly I can't be bothered to explain the differences between your example and the chiefs, it should be blatantly obvious. If you do need it explained then I'm extremely worried for you.

 

[Stus7]

Lol, got to love the ridiculous attempt at whataboutism.

I'll start simply as this is often what I have to teach primary school children. Just because someone else might be doing something wrong, doesn't mean you can do it too. If Exeter chiefs jumped off a cliff would you do it too? Right, now we've finished basic reception level right and wrong, let's move onto year 1 right and wrong. If you say or do something that upsets someone else, should you do it?

Honestly I can't be bothered to explain the differences between your example and the chiefs, it should be blatantly obvious. If you do need it explained then I'm extremely worried for you.

Tbh animals seems like the best route to go down branding wise. Even Saxon stuff has shown to create divisions.

Exeter Eagles?

 

[FLOBALOB]

Lol, got to love the ridiculous attempt at whataboutism.

I'll start simply as this is often what I have to teach primary school children. Just because someone else might be doing something wrong, doesn't mean you can do it too. If Exeter chiefs jumped off a cliff would you do it too? Right, now we've finished basic reception level right and wrong, let's move onto year 1 right and wrong. If you say or do something that upsets someone else, should you do it?

Honestly I can't be bothered to explain the differences between your example and the chiefs, it should be blatantly obvious. If you do need it explained then I'm extremely worried for you.

It was a crap joke

 

[Welsh Exile]

I never knew about the push back from the Native American community but I would feel very uncomfortable going against their wishes to be honest.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Honestly I can't be bothered to explain the differences between your example and the chiefs, it should be blatantly obvious. If you do need it explained then I'm extremely worried for you.

Avoid social media! You'll be amazed how much playground rhetoric and reasoning gets used by adults. The "they're just jealous" thing is also astoundingly popular.