Posted: 17th November 2011
Zero Tolerance toward on-field jibes and insults reveals the new pop anti-racism as glib and misanthropic.
So – lets look at the action replay. On Wednesday 16th November Sepp Blatter makes his views about on-field racist language known to CNN. Within a few blinks of the media eye a shrill referees whistle sounds out. Poor old Sepp has committed his worst foul so far. By the end of the day its all over the news and dark clouds are looming. Sepp tries to fan away the clouds by suggesting he’d been misunderstood. But its too late. The following day Sepp’s “gaff” is front page news. Rio Ferdinand and a swathe of footballers go on record to condemn Sepp’s remarks. In fact, everyone joins in – culminating in Prime Minister David Cameron and even David Beckham himself chiming in with their condemnations.
The rush to condemn the hapless Sepp Blatter is all too predictable because this time it’s a race issue. Coming on the very same day that Luis Suarez joins John Terry in awaiting FA investigations for alleged racism, this was quite an own-goal from the Fifa president. Why? Because Fifa, like the FA, have been at the forefront of demanding a zero tolerance approach to all manifestations of racism on and off the pitch.
And of course the ‘zero tolerance’ approach regards anyone who fails to keep the faith as a heretic. Those who dare point out that Blatter’s comments were, in fact, pretty reasonable had better watch out. Blackburn Rovers striker Jason Roberts came dangerously close when he said to the BBC “for [Blatter] to say this in public is either very honest or very foolish”.
So what did Blatter actually say? ....
The BBC reports it thus: "There is no racism [on the field], but maybe there is a word or gesture that is not correct," Blatter told CNN. "The one affected by this should say this is a game and shake hands". As yesterdays storm clouds gathered and realising the need for a bit of context Blatter quickly issued a statement: “as football players, during a match, you have 'battles' with your opponents, and sometimes things are done which are wrong. [ ] But, normally, at the end of the match, you apologise to your opponent if you had a confrontation during the match, you shake hands, and when the game is over, it is over”.
“No racism on the field” sounds a little naïve, but Blatter is old-school. He thinks you have to be a real racist to commit a racist incident rather than merely someone firing off the worst insult they can think of. Perhaps Blatter is unaware that in Britain today the word “racism” typically describes a speech-offence - a failure to observe the modern rules of racial etiquette.
Viewed alongside his other gaffs you’d have to say Blatter was right for once. With the Terry and Suarez incidents in-mind Blatter was standing up for the old adage what’s said on the pitch stay’s on the pitch. In the warlike, testosterone-fuelled game of modern professional football is that so outlandish a viewpoint? As Duleep Allirajah argued recently in Spiked, “If you want to distract or provoke an opponent, then you need to strike a raw nerve. This isn’t genteel Radio 4 repartee; it’s war minus the shooting”.
A pernicious feature of today’s Zero-Tolerant anti-racism is its constant vigil for the signs of racism presumed to be lurking in the nooks and crannies of public, and increasingly private life. And so when its John Terry appearing (according to assorted lip-readers) to call Anton Ferdinand a ‘black cunt’ then, in the anti-racist mindset, it’s a no-brainer. Terry - white, working class, bit of a rogue – yes, definitely a racist don’t you think? And even if he isn’t a real racist it doesn’t matter because the words are racist all by themselves – they’re deeply injurious to the victim and, for that matter, to the whole world. As yet, no-one has accused Blatter of racism but they may as well have done because he wavered fatally from the absolutes of Zero Tolerance. His crime was, precisely, to ponder the nature of the game and to presume resilience on the part of those who play it. In short, his crime was to display tolerance.
On the surface, the Zero Tolerance stance toward on-field hate speech seems to say that passion, fury and unwritten codes are completely irrelevant – intent is irrelevant. It says ‘he may not be a racist, but the behaviour is racist and needs to be dealt with’. But examine the credo of schools educational charities like Show Racism the Red Card (SRTRC) and you quickly realise that driving the Zero Tolerance ethos is a degraded view of humanity where we’re all deemed 'at risk' of becoming racists or victims. “…if we allow people to use racist language on the pitch then what is to stop it from spilling over into other aspects of their lives, affecting their opinions and interactions with others?”, says SRTRC who’s press release on the Blatter affair goes on to warn us of the consequences of not applying zero tolerance, “If we don't challenge racist language and insults, we are paving the way for some people to go on to commit more serious incidents of hate-crime”. SRTRC’s use of ‘we’ on the one hand and those gullible folks known as ‘people’ on the other is telling. It would seem that you and me are so stupid and vulnerable that the slightest exposure to certain words and phrases will cause us to instantly go-racist - especially if the authorities fail to set an example and allow the culprits to go unpunished. Thank god we have the new tolerance-free anti racists to protect us from ourselves.
In the standard mea culpa set piece Blatter has now recanted his sins. He now ‘deeply regrets’ his ‘unfortunate words” (hmm, no kidding!). “Zero tolerance”, he said to the BBC, “this was a good lesson for me as well”.
Speech regulation is insidious. Whether it’s the criminalizing of ‘offensive behaviour’ of football fans or scrutinizing player disputes yet another sphere of human interaction that used to be negotiated informally ends up institutionalised. The concept of ‘injury time’ is about to become more complicated.
