I can understand what you’re getting at in that there’s prejudice going on here. Sam apparently insulted the copper & brought in skin colour. She’s acted like a brat. Probably is one. It’s hardly racism, though.
This is what I am getting at exactly but I’d argue it is still racism by definition which is what the law is based upon.
The fact that she didn’t tell her club or country set up about the court appearances is either stupid or incredibly arrogant.
I remember when I used to play tenpin bowling that an Indigenous woman yelled “BLOODY WHITE PIN!” when a single pin was left standing.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that a comment like that is racist? Come on, mate.
I’m very surprised people here are defending racism. Racism is racism in any form. If that’s what she said, it’s blatant racism. The mental gymnastics it’s taking to defend it are pretty shocking to me.
Dude, are you for real saying you can’t comprehend the difference between calling someone in the UK (or its former settler colonies) white and calling them any other skin colour? When we’ve had a history of white privilege and never one of any other kind of racial privilege?
I can’t, no. Trying to insult anyone based on their skin colour is racist. I think it’s a very reasonable stance.
And she didn’t call him white, she called him a stupid white bastard. Clearly a race based insult.
I’m completely bemused by the easy dismissal of this racist as fuck bullshit.
If it had been a white NRL player calling a cop a ‘stupid black bastard’ the condemnation would have, undoubtely, been universal. I don’t think that’s a debate.
Instead normally sane people, not just here but across all social media, are dismissing it as a nothingburger because
a) People of Colour apparently can’t be racist.
b) It’s apparently impossible to villify white people racially.
c) She’s really good at sports so gets a pass.
While I would never, ever, try to compare my personal experience with the systemic racism that people of colour face in most western countries, living in Japan gave me the tiniest taste of what it must be like. As a foreigner I was not allowed to rent most apartments and was refused access to a significant number of bars and clubs during the 1990’s on the basis of my race.
I can assure you, it is possible to racially discriminate against white people, and all the other obvious privilege that comes from my ethnicity, skin colour and native tongue, don’t make it not racist or somehow acceptable. if I had called a Japanese person in Japan a ‘stupid Nip bastard’, would that somehow not be racist because in Japan they have all the equivalent priviliges that I have in western countries?
I’ll point again to the paradox of the tolerant society.
Finally someone talking sense, thought I was going insane reading comments here and elsewhere defending or dismissing blatant racism.
Are we actually discussing what racism is? Racism is LITERALLY vilifying someone based on their race. It doesn’t matter if you’re white, black, brown or anything else. If you bring race into it, it’s on you for being an arsehole. Just because a race has particular injustices brought on them in history doesn’t give that same race justification to then bring race into their own arguments. The point is equality, not allowing someone to get away with saying racist things purely because they’re a different race. Seriously… You’re pretty much saying most of South Eastern Europe has free reign to throw shit at the Muslims purely because they were also invaded and inslaved by Muslims… Or is it because someone is white, it’s fine to put them down?
Wow a lot of asking “What if the circumstances were totally different?” here.
Ok, I’ll have a turn. What if I, whiter than the driven snow, had called the cop a white bastard? Would that still be racist? What if Kerr didn’t have an Indian grandparent? What if it had been a great grandparent?
I get where all the upset white people are coming from, but trying to pretend racism is just referring to race is clearly reductive.
Yes.
I should probably clarify my point of view.
Challenging whether Kerr said a racist thing or not was not correct of me. I guess from my point of view, if I were to be called the same thing, I’d probably brush it off, and I think the majority of white people would. I’m more in bazm’s corner in respect of the following:
It doesn’t excuse what Kerr said, though. She should’ve avoided using that term, even in anger. She should know better and its really disappointing that a rolemodel has behaved in such a manner, inviting the potential for legal trouble.
But it’s not ‘just referring’ it’s making perjorative statements based on race or using racial slurs.
‘Stupid bastard’ is not racist
‘Stupid black bastard’ is racist
‘Stupid white bastard’ is racist
When you bring race into an insult, it’s racism.
Even when I refer to, for example, Dutton’s behaviour as arising from his racial background?
What do you mean? Because you’re white, calling someone a white bastard isn’t racism because people of the same race can’t be racist to each other? Interesting logic question but commonsense says that you can’t differentiate based on the insulter’s race because it’s impossible to draw a line about ‘enough of the same race’ so you have to rely on implied or explicit intent. Using race as part of a perjorative statement is racist.
Dutton would be a cunt if he was a martian.
Over the years, reading between the lines, especially around the time of the infamous survey, I got a mild impression that someone might have a few issues. Allegedly.
So black people who’ve reclaimed the n-word must be racist then?
Or, do context, intent, history and social norms matter?
Which part of ‘fall back on intent’ did you misunderstand, you literally ignored what I posted.
What constitues racism in terms of words or phrases NOT related to ethnicity/origin/skin colour of course need context and history to determine if they’re racist but using skin colour as part of a perjorative statement is racist.
Surely it is racist, as she (allegedly) has used his race in addressing him in frustration. But the context matters too. ASSUMING the reports are true, which is obviously a big if.
Is a guy growing up in privilege really going to be offended by this? Surely cops get worse all the time. Is this really causing him trauma? If she want further than just commenting on appearances and actually invoked connotations like slave owner or something then that would be more significant. But it’s just a knee jerk comment from someone drunk and angry, to someone who really shouldn’t take too much offence to it. I can understand it may be a touch hurtful, but it’s surely a level where you can suck it up and move on given your privilege. It’s still a racist comment but at the lower end of the spectrum.
It’s also more understandable from her given her likely lived experience and probably the amount of times she has unfairly copped racist comments because of her skin colour. I can completely understand she might look at white people more generally with frustration/disdain/judgement/anger, and can empathise. But it’s still racist.
Is this the best use of the UK justice systems time? Almost certainly not. But is this behaviour what you’d want from a national captain and hero? Certainly not.
She’s allegedly made a drunken mistake, hopefully regrets it and learns from it. IMO how she responds should dictate the action she faces from FA, and how the public perceives her. Appearing to cover it up isnt a great start. But 2 years of legal woes over this seems a joke.
I didn’t ignore it. I did fail to include the word ‘all’ before ‘matter’ though so that’s on me.
Let me try a different angle. Why is calling someone a racist name a different offence from calling them another offensive term?
Laws are social constructs. In fact let’s get away from law here because it’s not really the point people are making. I’d concede she’s probably broken the letter of the law. The question is, structurally, what are we trying to do with that law? Who are we trying to protect? What genuine harms are we trying to prevent? And what genuine harm has Kerr allegedly caused here?
Because it’s people’s answers to those questions that are causing them to react differently from how you’re reacting. Anti-racism laws are fundamentally trying to protect the socially weak from the socially powerful. What people are seeing here is someone with multiple layers of social advantage (cop, white, male) using legal structures to punish someone with multiple layers of social disadvantage (POC, female, gay). That’s why people don’t care as much as if she’d abused a black guy. Reducing the law to an algorithmic if X then Y isn’t the same conversation.
So where will you draw the line, what if it was a female cop, or a gay female cop, or Kerr was a straight black guy? At what point does it become racism and how do you codify that?
Either you have a universal standard based on intent or you have an inherently racist standard, exceptions run the very real risk of normalising unacceptable behaviours, and you and I both know lawyers will quickly exploit any potential loophole and push boundaries farther than anyone intended.
When a black or gay or disabled person is vilified, we’re all taught that the vilifier doesn’t get to define what is offensive, why is it different now?
And to be absolutely clear, I 100% see the difference in impact between someone in the UK being called a ‘stupid white bastard’ v ‘stupid black bastard’ , what I am saying is that saying one is OK, implicitly opens the door for the second to be normalised.