Foreign secretary advice to LGBT fans.... Be respectful

[Chesterlestreet]

Roy Keane is saying it shouldn't be in Qatar, whilst in Qatar making serious cash off the back of it.

Do you think ITV shouldn't be covering the World Cup at all?

Maybe they shouldn't - that would be one way to go about it.

But given that they are covering it, and given that they do need pundits, isn't it better that Keane and Wright are being explicitly critical about certain aspects of the tournament - rather than, say, just ignoring those aspects and "focusing on the football"?

Isn't it more impactful that Roy Keane and Ian Wright make statements about this in Qatar, in real time, as pundits for a major network, rather than...them not doing it?

 

[Redlambs]

I think you've got a very naive take on all this.

It's actually you with the naive take.

You are right, we all know why the WC is there and we all know people will put money first. That is, and sadly always will be, the reality of the situation.

But whilst there, surely it matters that some speak out and highlight it? In your way, nobody says anything...I'd take a voice, even one being paid a lot of money, over someone being paid a load of money and happily doing so whilst not giving a shit.

And it's the same for the players, I see some posts about a ranking of who's worse and it's not their fault, but the likes of Kane and Southgate have mouthed of about the armband and used that as their excuse for going, and yet when it comes down to it they shit themselves and decide just playing is more important. Just the same as those who never made a stance in the first place.

So again, whilst you are right about this tourney and the money, you should see that at least people using their voices on that stage is better than those that wouldn't. Keane and Wright spoke out and said things their replacements wouldn't, on live TV. Surely by any metric that's got to be a positive no?

 

[Roane]

OK, do you think homosexuality is immoral?

Do you think a non elected government should discriminate against people based on sexual orientation?

Now this isn't the easy question you all some of you claim it or think it to be. Basically because of the notion of immortality and what it means to people. As someone earlier seem to think saying yes automatically means you hate an individual and wish them harm. The word in Islam is faluqh(so) and it's meaning differs.

Islamically Islam sees anal sex and sex outside the union of marriage as immoral. I follow Islam so as a concept, to me the individual Muslim yes it is immoral. But it's also immoral for me the individual to hate a gay person or oppress or harm.

Even outside of that, before I became practising Muslim, the thought of me engaging in homosexuality was a no no. I would say I find the thought of it horrible. Disgusting even. Similarly a gay person, and I've heard this from a gay person, the thought of sex with a woman made them physically sick. They didn't hate heterosexuals as it was simply something they didn't engage in.

Hope that answers your question to your satisfaction

 

[Roane]

If you think that being gay is sinful or immoral then you don't accept them. You don't view their existence as valid.

And this is exactly why I am reluctant to answer with a simple yes or no. It's like a trick question. People jump to conclusions or there is faux outrage.

 

[maniak]

And this is exactly why I am reluctant to answer with a simple yes or no. It's like a trick question. People jump to conclusions or there is faux outrage.

Nothing faux about it. It's simple really. Is being gay immoral? No, it's not. See, easy.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I follow Islam so as a concept, to me the individual Muslim yes it is immoral. But it's also immoral for me the individual to hate a gay person or oppress or harm.

Roane, I think the issue is simply that you find this to be an acceptable compromise that resolves the tension. I think a lot of people disagree.

 

[moses]

And this is exactly why I am reluctant to answer with a simple yes or no. It's like a trick question. People jump to conclusions or there is faux outrage.

The movement for gay rights is, 100 years old and hugely successful and widely supported, why is the outrage faux to you?

Don't you have empathy for those who suffer.?

Above you said the idea of homosexual sex is horrible to you and that heterosexual sex was equally unpleasant to a gay person you knew. Equal but opposite, but equal. Why should one be oppressed? And if oppressed why doubt the anger?

 

[Roane]

The movement for gay rights is, 100 years old and hugely successful and widely supported, why is the outrage faux to you?

Don't you have empathy for those who suffer.?

Above you said the idea of homosexual sex is horrible to you and that heterosexual sex was equally unpleasant to a gay person you knew. Equal but opposite, but equal. Why should one be oppressed? And if oppressed why doubt the anger?

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed. If oppressed I don't doubt the anger.

I would never oppress a person because I disagree with them. This in a nutshell is no different for me. It's simply not the big deal it's being made into for me.

A guy is hetrosexual? So

A guy is homosexual? So

A guy is atheist? So

A guy is Christian? So

A guy is Muslim? So

That's how I see it

 

[moses]

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed. If oppressed I don't doubt the anger.

I would never oppress a person because I disagree with them. This in a nutshell is no different for me. It's simply not the big deal it's being made into for me.

A guy is hetrosexual? So

A guy is homosexual? So

A guy is atheist? So

A guy is Christian? So

A guy is Muslim? So

That's how I see it

You're doubting the oppression? OK, so that's why you don't get the outrage.

 

[Rhyme Animal]

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed. If oppressed I don't doubt the anger.

I would never oppress a person because I disagree with them.

If that’s all true, you must surely side with the LGBT community rather than the qatar government then…

As one is simply living how God designed them - and you say you view them equally - and the other IS oppressing them and harming them, which you say you view as immoral.

Is this all correct?

 

[Roane]

Roane, I think the issue is simply that you find this to be an acceptable compromise that resolves the tension. I think a lot of people disagree.

And that's fine. I am not asking for agreement. I was asked a question and I tried to answer it honestly.

There is no compromise as far as I am concerned. Reason being that the very authority I follow to say something is immoral makes it immoral for me to oppress.

I can dislike you but I won't be unjust to you.

It may sound like a contradiction to some. But I have literally stood toe to toe with a gayan who was being abused against the abuser. We are friends as a result but he knows my views. And it's taken him 15 years to accept I am serious, and in his view weird

 

[Roane]

You're doubting the oppression? OK, so that's why you don't get the outrage.

Not sure I understand.

 

[2cents]

But that's my point they shouldn't be oppressed

I think most posters on here would find the legal status of homosexuality in an ideal Islamic state as you described here to be oppressive. Assuming you are in favor of such a state, it becomes hard to understand the above statement.

 

[Roane]

If that’s all true, you must surely side with the LGBT community rather than the qatar government then…

As one is simply living how God designed them - and you say you view them equally - and the other IS oppressing them and harming them, which you say you view as immoral.

Is this all correct?

For me this is where I feel it gets complicated for people what I'm trying to say. Or some are not listening because they want a yes or no say they can go on a rant or whatever.

It's not Qatar or anyone elses business what people do behind closed doors. As a Muslim and even before I have no issue with certain rulings around no PDA. Nothing worse than seeing people eating each others faces in public regardless of gender/sexuality.

If and I mean IF Qatar have said two males can't room share, that's wrong. Because it's not an issue as far as I am aware. I've not been to Qatar but I've been to the middle East and we've had up to 5 lads room sharing. No issue.

The whole hand holding and hugging is a non issue for me too. Again because I see this as normal in these places amongst males and females. Moreso than in UK for example. And Islamically it's Sunnah to hold your wife's hand.

If in Qatar they are asking the question randomly. It's wrong. It's no one's business to ask are you holding hands because you're mates or are you gay? I don't believe this happens but if it does then I blame Qatar.

If a couple are literally having sex in public then whip them for all I care, again regardless if they are gay or straight. And that is not a faith thing. It's just wrong for me. Get a room. Nobody needs to be seeing that.

 

[Roane]

I think most posters on here would find the legal status of homosexuality in an ideal Islamic state as you described here to be oppressive. Assuming you are in favor of such a state, it becomes hard to understand the above statement.

That isn't specific to homosexuality and what I was trying to explain. It's sexuality as a whole.

Look I know you to be more learned than some on Islam based on previous conversations.

You know about the 4 witnesses. Islamically a person claiming something to do with adultery and/or homosexuality needs to provide 4 witnesses. And actual penetration has to have been witnessed. If this is not forthcoming the person making the allegation is to be punished.

Now that doesn't mean that person was wrong. Maybe adultery and/or homosexuality tool place. But it was behind closed doors so no bodies business. The people involved cannot be judged by anyone but if you believe in God then as a Muslim you "know" this will be a sin on the day of judgement in front of God.

The basic rule is, in that state if it existed, about protecting society. Everything done behind closed doors is just that behind closed doors. It doesn't matter if you are same sex, different sex, or even different species (no not comparing just making a point). Married, single, polygamous or monogamous only God can judge you unless you make it public. So don't make it public.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

Plenty of my atheist friends probably secretly wish I wasn't a Muslim (jihad, terrorist, backwards brown fella). Do they not accept me fully? Do they not view my existence as valid?

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your hounding? Each person exists, however they are. They don't need another person to validate their existence.

Yeah, I don't think I could be friends with someone if they secretly wished I wasn't Jewish. Just like I wouldn't expect Muslims to be friends with people who think they shouldn't be Muslim, or gay people to be friends with those who wished they weren't gay.

Even if those people say they only think that cos their religion tells them too. That's the point where bigotry starts.

Didn't think this was a controversial opinion at all, to be honest.

 

[Redlambs]

That isn't specific to homosexuality and what I was trying to explain. It's sexuality as a whole.

Look I know you to be more learned than some on Islam based on previous conversations.

You know about the 4 witnesses. Islamically a person claiming something to do with adultery and/or homosexuality needs to provide 4 witnesses. And actual penetration has to have been witnessed. If this is not forthcoming the person making the allegation is to be punished.

Now that doesn't mean that person was wrong. Maybe adultery and/or homosexuality tool place. But it was behind closed doors so no bodies business. The people involved cannot be judged by anyone but if you believe in God then as a Muslim you "know" this will be a sin on the day of judgement in front of God.

The basic rule is, in that state if it existed, about protecting society. Everything done behind closed doors is just that behind closed doors. It doesn't matter if you are same sex, different sex, or even different species (no not comparing just making a point). Married, single, polygamous or monogamous only God can judge you unless you make it public. So don't make it public.

Honest question, no follow up "gotcha" or judgment from me whatsoever in this, it's pure curiosity about something I don't understand about faith in what religious texts tell us and perhaps more importantly don't:

How do you think God will judge what they do behind closed doors? If we pick a specific example, say sex before marriage, do you think that's really a big no no in his/hers/its/pastas mind?

Just seems a bit odd to me that God can judge and only them, but yet we still have rules which...we use to judge.

 

[Moby]

Oh boy. We're gonna be here for a while.

 

[calodo2003]

Oh boy. We're gonna be here for a while.

Yep. There’s a specific thread to discuss the minutiae of religion.

 

[Dumbstar]

Yeah, I don't think I could be friends with someone if they secretly wished I wasn't Jewish. Just like I wouldn't expect Muslims to be friends with people who think they shouldn't be Muslim, or gay people to be friends with those who wished they weren't gay.

Even if those people say they only think that cos their religion tells them too. That's the point where bigotry starts.

Didn't think this was a controversial opinion at all, to be honest.

That's called utopia. But where we live there are prejudices and 'beliefs'. And they tend to collide, albeit gently for the large part. I cast no first stone as I'm sure I have mine, so I get along with as many friends as I can who I'm sure have theirs.

It seems everyone is aware of the Islamic stance on homosexually, i e. it is not by birth, it is a choice. I apologise if spelling the Islamic stance out in black and white is hurtful to some but I needed to clear the air on this as there many reading. As a Muslim I don't pick and choose which parts of my religion to follow. But I respect everyone and certainly can't stand the hypocritical behaviour of Qatar (not an Islamic country) and specially FIFA/FA on it. However I wouldn't wear a rainbow armband myself for reasons already mentioned above.

I have, and have had, gay friends whom have either asked me directly about this or I have explained my position. Some have been unhappy but the large part have understood that we will never fully agree.

 

[Roane]

Honest question, no follow up "gotcha" or judgment from me whatsoever in this, it's pure curiosity about something I don't understand about faith in what religious texts tell us and perhaps more importantly don't:

How do you think God will judge what they do behind closed doors? If we pick a specific example, say sex before marriage, do you think that's really a big no no in his/hers/its/pastas mind?

Just seems a bit odd to me that God can judge and only them, but yet we still have rules which...we use to judge.

I don't want to write an essay and Ive read the other comments so maybe take this elsewhere?

 

[Redlambs]

I don't want to write an essay and Ive read the other comments so maybe take this elsewhere?

Yeah my bad mate, it's all too easy to go beyond the scope of a thread!

 

[Roane]

Yeah, I don't think I could be friends with someone if they secretly wished I wasn't Jewish. Just like I wouldn't expect Muslims to be friends with people who think they shouldn't be Muslim, or gay people to be friends with those who wished they weren't gay.

Even if those people say they only think that cos their religion tells them too. That's the point where bigotry starts.

Didn't think this was a controversial opinion at all, to be honest.

Genuinely find this interesting.

Can I ask, and obviously you don't have to answer if you don't want, as a Jewish person if I was your friend as a Muslim. As in a really close friend. And as a practising Jew your scripture said me and you would not be in the same place in the hereafter in eternity you'd not secretly wish I was Jewish?

Because if I loved you as a friend and I believed that we wouldn't be together as friends for eternity I would try my utmost to convert you . But it would be out of love not bigotry.

 

[maniak]

And that's fine. I am not asking for agreement. I was asked a question and I tried to answer it honestly.

There is no compromise as far as I am concerned. Reason being that the very authority I follow to say something is immoral makes it immoral for me to oppress.

I can dislike you but I won't be unjust to you.

It may sound like a contradiction to some. But I have literally stood toe to toe with a gayan who was being abused against the abuser. We are friends as a result but he knows my views. And it's taken him 15 years to accept I am serious, and in his view weird

I suppose the issue is that in some cases you can't be neutral, you can't react with "so?". In some situations, if you don't speak up for the oppressed, you are indirectly helping the oppressor.

And this qatar thing is a good example. If you don't actively side with the qatari lgbt community, then you're simply playing into the hands of the oppressor.

 

[2cents]

That isn't specific to homosexuality and what I was trying to explain. It's sexuality as a whole…It doesn't matter if you are same sex, different sex, or even different species (no not comparing just making a point). Married, single, polygamous or monogamous only God can judge you unless you make it public. So don't make it public.

Yet for some reason Islamic law does acknowledge the existence of specifically homosexual acts in order to specifically proscribe them. Were that not the case - if the law simply issued a blanket proscription on all acts of a sexual nature without any such distinction - then perhaps this thread would be several pages shorter.

You know about the 4 witnesses. Islamically a person claiming something to do with adultery and/or homosexuality needs to provide 4 witnesses. And actual penetration has to have been witnessed. If this is not forthcoming the person making the allegation is to be punished.

Yes I understand how it has worked historically and I have a certain level of respect for how the Islamic approach to such matters and other issues concerning social tolerance has played out in practice when considered in the general pre-modern context.

In terms of the modern liberal tradition embraced by the majority of posters in this discussion, both the Islamic ideal as described by you and the pre-modern practice of the Islamic tradition would be considered oppressive, regardless of how they might manifest in practice (and in any case it would be assumed that any attempt to implement the ideal is bound to result in oppression due to basic human nature).

You simply won’t find many posters in here who will ever agree that the law should ideally mandate punishments up to and including death for consensual sex between two adults of the same gender under any circumstances or hypothetical scenarios.

I’m just trying, probably unsuccessfully, to cut through some of the excess in this thread by getting to the heart of the divide in the discussion.

 

[Roane]

I suppose the issue is that in some cases you can't be neutral, you can't react with "so?". In some situations, if you don't speak up for the oppressed, you are indirectly helping the oppressor.

And this qatar thing is a good example. If you don't actively side with the qatari lgbt community, then you're simply playing into the hands of the oppressor.

I don't think I'm trying to be neutral. My views on Qatar are not neutral. I've just been honest I'm saying I don't know if certain things are as presented. Eg the men can't room together.

I also don't see it as a defence of Qatar to have a different/opposing view. Again not saying anyone has to agree with me.

I've just been reading on the boycott thread about the man with the rainbow t-shirt. I'm literally sitting here in a pink slazenger t-shirt. But when I read the uproar about him being not allowed and I kind of shake my head. Like what did folk expect now we are where we are.

Had the issue not gotten so blown up I don't think he would have worn the t-shirt and had he done so I don't think he would have been stopped. But we are where we are and it's no surprise to me he got stopped.

Then again if it didn't happen, as in he made it up, that wouldn't surprise me either as we are where we are.

Not saying he has made it up but hopefully you get the point.

 

[maniak]

I don't think I'm trying to be neutral. My views on Qatar are not neutral. I've just been honest I'm saying I don't know if certain things are as presented. Eg the men can't room together.

I also don't see it as a defence of Qatar to have a different/opposing view. Again not saying anyone has to agree with me.

I've just been reading on the boycott thread about the man with the rainbow t-shirt. I'm literally sitting here in a pink slazenger t-shirt. But when I read the uproar about him being not allowed and I kind of shake my head. Like what did folk expect now we are where we are.

Had the issue not gotten so blown up I don't think he would have worn the t-shirt and had he done so I don't think he would have been stopped. But we are where we are and it's no surprise to me he got stopped.

Then again if it didn't happen, as in he made it up, that wouldn't surprise me either as we are where we are.

Not saying he has made it up but hopefully you get the point.

But I assume you recognize the lgbt community in qatar is treated poorly, right?

In that sense, if you opt for "well, if this... and if that..." and don't take a strong stance in favor of protecting this community, then you are indirectly creating the conditions for that situation to prolong itself.

Most people aren't really angry with rainbow shirts being allowed in stadiums, that's just a detail that shows the ridiculousness of the whole thing. The real issue is how ordinary gay qataris are treated, not to mention women and migrants.

 

[Marwood]

I have protested all my life, mostly without sacrifice. I have been detained by the police, other days others were. I was frequently prepared for that but if it didn't happen it didn't negate my protest.

Its the intent and belief that's important and the willingness to sacrifice. I think the reactions of the others showed Roy was out on a limb a little. Roy has shown us he's not afraid to speak his mind.


And he's not Che Guevara but I'm glad it's him there speaking up and not someone else saying feck all. In the moment he spoke up and while Id prefer he spent some of his football money creating a movement and organising a huge boycott, I'm still glad he spoke up. He said they should take a yellow card and Id say he probably might have.

His dissent is not huge but he spoke up.

I don't personally think you should have to sacrifice. I just feel this is the latest bamdwagon pundits are on whilst being in Qatar for no other reason than enhancing their bank balance.

The damage might be done, but what Keane, Wright or other pundits discuss during the world cup helps shape public opinion back home. It might not make a difference for Qatar, but it can make a difference in other ways. They're not journalists, but for better or worse for the duration of the world cup you could argue they're the public face of the media, so it's still an important job to talk about these topics even if they themselves don't sacrifice anything by being there or putting pressure on the FA and FIFA.

It's four weeks. How much do you think can be achieved?

Do you think Keane, Souness etc will say another word about LGBT issues once the world cup is over and they've had their pay?

I'd wager not.

Do you think ITV shouldn't be covering the World Cup at all?

Maybe they shouldn't - that would be one way to go about it.

But given that they are covering it, and given that they do need pundits, isn't it better that Keane and Wright are being explicitly critical about certain aspects of the tournament - rather than, say, just ignoring those aspects and "focusing on the football"?

Isn't it more impactful that Roy Keane and Ian Wright make statements about this in Qatar, in real time, as pundits for a major network, rather than...them not doing it?

A few pre rehearsed words and profiteering off the back of it is better than not going in the first place? No I don't think so.

This is the reasoning they use to justify beimg there. You're repeating Gary Neville's nonsense.

All the major pundits don't take part. Make a stand. Don't make money off it.

That wouldbe something of substance.

It's actually you with the naive take.

You are right, we all know why the WC is there and we all know people will put money first. That is, and sadly always will be, the reality of the situation.

But whilst there, surely it matters that some speak out and highlight it? In your way, nobody says anything...I'd take a voice, even one being paid a lot of money, over someone being paid a load of money and happily doing so whilst not giving a shit.

And it's the same for the players, I see some posts about a ranking of who's worse and it's not their fault, but the likes of Kane and Southgate have mouthed of about the armband and used that as their excuse for going, and yet when it comes down to it they shit themselves and decide just playing is more important. Just the same as those who never made a stance in the first place.

So again, whilst you are right about this tourney and the money, you should see that at least people using their voices on that stage is better than those that wouldn't. Keane and Wright spoke out and said things their replacements wouldn't, on live TV. Surely by any metric that's got to be a positive no?

There are plenty of groups saying lots.

A football pundit spending five mins a week talking about it, in order to make the broadcaster look responsible, is useless. Just by being there and taking the money thry have validated the world cup.

They are there to make money. Nothing more. You won't hear a peep from these guys about LGBT issues once the world cup and their payday is over.

 

[Dumbstar]

Thank you for making it clear, Dumbstar, and moving beyond the wilful slipperiness / vagueness that others in this thread are hiding behind. I respect you doing that.

It just seems so odd (and dangerous) to level sexuality as a choice, when I’m sure, deep down you KNOW that you’ve not chosen to be straight…

Like, I know that I didn’t choose to be straight. It’s ridiculous.

So I guess the deeper stance is that you actually believe that everyone is straight and some people are choosing to deny that in themselves…

But the massive problem with that is that the animal and natural world is full of homosexuality… and so it all falls down again.

One thing I would like to know, and please be honest, is this -

If faced with 2 acts that are viewed by your religion as immoral, which does Islam generally support over the other? In this case, being gay vs oppressing people gay.

Which is generally viewed as the worse of those two things?

Example in the Western world - shoplifting is wrong, and beating someone up is wrong, but it’s really easy to see that it’s generally accepted that shoplifting is the lesser wrong. It carries lesser punishment legally than harming another person and it provokes a lesser reaction from us as Westerners.

I’m asking this because I’m trying to understand the real context of this within the modern Islamic world. And specifically within the nonsense that qatar are pulling, I want to know why they are being excused in their actions by some.

Before I answer I'd like to add that Roane is doing the right thing by keeping his counsel. These are deep matters that require proper discussions in appropriate forums. Generally not internet ones. His knowledge and delivery is on another level from me and I always listen to what he has to say about Islam.

I also sensed the frustrations of the forum so came in as a poor layman to try to help. However I'm not a good source for anything more involved.

Now to answer your question quickly, oppression is always worse in Islam. Also I want to reiterate Qatar is not the face of Islam. No country is any longer. Think of any Muslim country being the bastion of Islam as the USA being the bastion of democracy. It looks like it but it really isn't.

 

[utdalltheway]

You must be joking! Do you really think it's going to happen? How many international tournaments have been held in the USA after they bombed the hell out and invaded Vietnam?

This is why I said it’s not the time. After this WC is over. No sense in derailing the thread to talk about other countries issues when we can stay focused on qatars.

 

[Boavista]

It's four weeks. How much do you think can be achieved?

Do you think Keane, Souness etc will say another word about LGBT issues once the world cup is over and they've had their pay?

I'd wager not.

Nobody knows how much can be achieved, but is that the deciding factor as to what should be discussed?

Personally I think a realistic achievement would be showing the next generation of footballers and football supporters that standing up for certain issues matter to the public and will get positive support, as vague as that may sound. I think that already would be something positive, even if it's not much.
And in many ways this world cup, the attention on issues around it and FIFA's ridiculous response to the armband debate have been pretty unique. I'm sure there's going to be plenty more crazy developments and lessons to be learnt for the FA, UEFA or whoever on how to handle situations like that. And for that it's good to have pundits that don't just gloss over those topics.

Anyway, I don't know what can be achieved but I'm not sure why you're so focussed on whether the pundits genuinely care? At least to me it seems a bit irrelevant how "pure" Keane or Souness' motivations or convictions are when speaking out on human rights issues.

 

[Mas Risky]

What perplexes me about the recent campaign for LGBT rights in world football is why it is being voiced more by straight male players and club executives. What Colin Kaepernick did with his kneeling campaign to voice injustice against black people felt more relevant because he had a moral basis for his views.
That is the reason why for people in non-Western countries, the issue of LGBT at the World Cup feels forced. Racism is still a problem in football but never seems to be a major issue at the World Cup, a stage where players from different nations come together. Indeed, human rights should not be a political issue, but it can become a political issue when several countries with certain geopolitical powers want to dictate which issue suits them best.

 

[SilentWitness]

Above people are speaking about pundits and how those who went and spoke out about the injustices and created awareness etc (without any fear of reprisal) are more valuable than those who didn't / won't but is it not the same for the Players/ FAs who attempted to do something but were stopped by the governing body? Thereby creating awareness?

Aren't the players to be commended by sparking this conversation (which exposes fifa corruption) through their attempted actions?

Aren't the attempts (which have been shut down by FIFA) better than doing absolutely nothing at all? Aren't the players feelings pretty clear? Isn't it the governing bodies (FIFA and their FAs) which are preventing them from protesting?

They weren't stopped. They could have still done something but chose not to.

Why would they be commended? They'd be commended if they followed through with their words. It's not commendable to say you're for and support a cause and then drop that cause the moment it gets tough (not even) for you.

Are the players feelings clear? How can they be when they said they care about something but then remove their support for it? As has been said multiple times, members of the LGBTQ+ community, not only in Qatar but around the world have to live every single days in societies which ostracize them. They didn't prevent them from protesting as Germany have proven. There are multiple ways of pushing messages.

The England and Dutch players/managers in their comments said ok, we will shut up and move on with football, Germany didn't.

 

[SilentWitness]

Impossible to say with certainty that all of them care tbh.

They are doing a good job of pretending!

In the midst of me talking about the pundits motivation to be there you brought the quite abstract possibility of hypothetical replacement pundits not saying anything.

Okay, so I didn't say it then. I even put in my post that I know they are hypocritical but it's better to have pundits who are there and will speak up than pundits who are there and do not.

 

[The Boy]

I don't personally think you should have to sacrifice. I just feel this is the latest bamdwagon pundits are on whilst being in Qatar for no other reason than enhancing their bank balance.



It's four weeks. How much do you think can be achieved?

Do you think Keane, Souness etc will say another word about LGBT issues once the world cup is over and they've had their pay?

I'd wager not.



A few pre rehearsed words and profiteering off the back of it is better than not going in the first place? No I don't think so.

This is the reasoning they use to justify beimg there. You're repeating Gary Neville's nonsense.

All the major pundits don't take part. Make a stand. Don't make money off it.

That wouldbe something of substance.



There are plenty of groups saying lots.

A football pundit spending five mins a week talking about it, in order to make the broadcaster look responsible, is useless. Just by being there and taking the money thry have validated the world cup.

They are there to make money. Nothing more. You won't hear a peep from these guys about LGBT issues once the world cup and their payday is over.

I'm not sure why you're so upset about pundits being paid, it feels like misplaced anger. They're doing a job, should they do it for free, if they're going to have any opinion outside of the football played on the pitch?

They are not being paid by Qatar or Fifa. The ones we should be angry with are Samuel L Jackson and Beckham and anyone else taking Qatari cash to try and give this world cup a better PR spin. Football is better with pundits, I'm glad they are there and I'm glad they're speaking up.

 

[Marwood]

I'm not sure why you're so upset about pundits being paid, it feels like misplaced anger. They're doing a job, should they do it for free, if they're going to have any opinion outside of the football played on the pitch?

They are not being paid by Qatar or Fifa. The ones we should be angry with are Samuel L Jackson and Beckham and anyone else taking Qatari cash to try and give this world cup a better PR spin. Football is better with pundits, I'm glad they are there and I'm glad they're speaking up.

I don't think you should be profiting from Qatar hosting the world cup and at the same time for example say it shouldn't be held there.

Especially when you're already very wealthy and have no fiscal need to be there.

It's about having some principles.

And please, drop the online one-upmanship thing of cracking on a poster is upset or worked up. It's just a bit of debate.

 

[The Boy]

I don't think you should be profiting from Qatar hosting the world cup and at the same time for example say it shouldn't be held there.

Especially when you're already very wealthy and have no fiscal need to be there.

It's about having some principles.

And please, drop the online one-upmanship thing of cracking on a poster is upset or worked up. It's just a bit of debate.

But they're not profiting from Qatar hosting the World Cup, they're doing their jobs they'd be at the World Cup whether it was in the UK, Qatar or the North Pole and if it wasn't the World Cup they'd be in studios talking about the Premiership etc.

They're speaking up while there which is a good thing surely. I can not fathom why you would blame them with no mention of Beckham, Morgan Freeman, BTS etc these are people profiting specifically from Qatar hosting the World Cup and as you say have no fiscal need to be there.

As for your last sentence, there was no attempt at one-upmanship going on at all, I didn't realise upset was offensive. For context, I am extremely upset about the arm band, about the LGBTQ laws in Qatar, about homophobia and I'm very glad that the BBC and ITV are still talking about it.

 

[Marwood]

Okay, so I didn't say it then. I even put in my post that I know they are hypocritical but it's better to have pundits who are there and will speak up than pundits who are there and do not.

Every pundit for the major broadcasters will say something. They have to. It would be a PR disaster not to. There will have been meeting after meeting on how to address this as broadcasters. How do they nod to the problem and justify being there etc etc. It's just a PR game.

This is always how it goes. A few words are said. A few small gestures made. Everyone then feels a bit better. For the pundits, broadcasters, viewers and everyone, the collective consciences can rest a little easier.

It's worked a treat on posters here. Lots of people very happy Keane and Souness have spent 5 mins talking about LGBT issues. Now genuinely convinced it might make a difference.

Meanwhile the real business of making money is happening. Once the money is made they all move on and its never mentioned again.

It's how the money makers deal with all contentious cultural and political issues. Sadly it works very well.

 

[SilentWitness]

Every pundit for the major broadcasters will say something. They have to. It would be a PR disaster not to. There will have been meeting after meeting on how to address this as broadcasters. How do they nod to the problem and justify being there etc etc. It's just a PR game.

This is always how it goes. A few words are said. A few small gestures made. Everyone then feels a bit better. For the pundits, broadcasters, viewers and everyone, the collective consciences can rest a little easier.

It's worked a treat on posters here. Lots of people very happy Keane and Souness have spent 5 mins talking about LGBT issues. Now genuinely convinced it might make a difference.

Meanwhile the real business of making money is happening. Once the money is made they all move on and its never mentioned again.

It's how the money makers deal with all contentious cultural and political issues. Sadly it works very well.

Not every pundit has been. Some will stand/sit and say nothing while the convo occurs. Some like Souness will caveat their argument by saying that we shouldn't forget how the British are bad. Some like Keane will just say it how it is.

I personally think it's weird that you seem pretty against them saying something and seek cynicism on the topic. Of course it makes a difference when people who are icons of their sport are showing their support for things like this.

 

[Marwood]

But they're not profiting from Qatar hosting the World Cup, they're doing their jobs they'd be at the World Cup whether it was in the UK, Qatar or the North Pole and if it wasn't the World Cup they'd be in studios talking about the Premiership etc.

They're speaking up while there which is a good thing surely. I can not fathom why you would blame them with no mention of Beckham, Morgan Freeman, BTS etc these are people profiting specifically from Qatar hosting the World Cup and as you say have no fiscal need to be there.

As for your last sentence, there was no attempt at one-upmanship going on at all, I didn't realise upset was offensive. For context, I am extremely upset about the arm band, about the LGBTQ laws in Qatar, about homophobia and I'm very glad that the BBC and ITV are still talking about it.

You're talking about them as if they're a camerman or sound guy, employed by ITV. Obligated to be there.

Keane, Souness, they're self employed. I'd imagine they turn work and opportunities down all the time. I'm self employed, I turn work down all the time. As do all self employed people.

Even easier for them being very wealthy blokes.

I've criticised Beckham lots here. He's disgusting. As is Gary Neville. But I can't criticise every single person profiteering in every post can I.

But ultimately they can go if they like. Fill their pockets. Just be honest about it. Empty words and empty gestures are corrosive.