Foreign secretary advice to LGBT fans.... Be respectful
- Thread starter GaryLifo
- Start date
Unless the media are lying, I have no issue. Are the media disingenuous pricks? Yes. But if they are telling the truth then you can't ask for more in this instance. Media bias exists and I am very aware of it and critical of it but there does seem to be human rights issues, so lets just focus on that, for the sake of the oppressed.
Yeah, change from within would be the best scenario. But there is a bit of that that is out of context therapy speak, the reality is different. Throughout history, oppressive power has rarely been changed or defeated from within. Almost all of our human rights have been a violent struggle to achieve. Power is rarely conceded with a quiet word in someone's ear. Slavery wasn't ended from within it's cultural stronghold or led by black people. Irish freedom was pushed along by the educated Protestant class inspired by the French revolution, which in turn was a peasant Revolt inspired by aristocrats. None of that was accepted as right by the oppressors at the time.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to quieten criticism at all - would I have posted that podcast if I was? I would encourage people to listen to it and actually learn more detail about the situation
Read my posts, I've been plenty critical of Qatar and the World Cup where I feel it is warranted but there is a huge difference between constructive criticism and a lot of the foaming at the mouth hysteria I see on here (not accusing you of that BTW)
Also I have no interest in discussing 1950s Black America in the World Cup forum, the situations are completely different so not comparable to me - Ive not posted much in here as the majority of the recent discussion isnt directly relevant to the World Cup, Qatar or the wider region
And I don't claim to have all the answers but I think it's a very important point being bought up regarding Western activism against this World Cup and what it might acheive which I why dipped back into this thread.
The idea that "doing X to prevent Y is actually an empty gesture that makes Y worse" is a really tired argument that gets trotted out about literally everything. Don't raise taxes because it'll cut GDP and government will have less money. Don't raise minimum wage because companies will just cut jobs. Don't protest because the backlash will set back your cause.
Imagine being so insecure in yourself and your country, your sexuality and your religion that you have to beat up some homosexual neighbors because some westerner said something.
On the bolded, that's fair enough., it's just that the oppressed rarely champions meeting the oppressor head on. Ever.
My only issues is with the idea that there is hysteria. Where ? Nobody is boycotting it. Keane attends as a pundit and speaks out and is called a hypocrite. There is no actual material opposition by anyone to actual human rights abuses.
What is the appropriate column inches for human rights abuses before it's hysteria? I'm appalled at the lack of action and you think there is hysteria with the exact same data available. Humans are a complicated bunch.
Also there is century old campaign for gay rights, so the idea that it's just to make the west look good is utter nonsense and disrespectful to the victims and the many people who have dedicated their lives at sometimes great sacrifice for gay rights. One tweet doesn't alter the reality of 100 years of slow hard won progress.
Well that's the crux of it! I guess it's all about perception and what angle you are coming from.
I was referring to hysteria on this forum - you asked why I post counter arguments and it's mostly to provide balance to that and to correct a lot of misinformation I see posted.
But this is extended into the wider media, perhaps not hysteria but I think the balance between football and politics has gone too far one way at this World Cup.
Plus some prominent players say they are boycotting from Cantona to a several Lionesses. And I personally think it's idiotic that the likes of Neville and Keane are accused of hypocrisy, I think they are doing exactly the right thing in going out there to see the situation for themselves and then report on it.
On a simple level I'm sure we can agree that the situation for LGBT in Qatar is not good and needs improving but then it's a question of how best to achieve that.
That's exactly what those Twitter posts are asking, he's not trying to shut anyone down either - it's a discussion point and surely the most important one in this case.
You suggested that Qatari LGBT+ people maybe aren't oppressed at all, that they're left alone to do what they like as long as they stay underground. This goes against all available evidence.
I remember you brought up Nasser Mohamed a while ago, saying that it's a huge step forward for LGBT+ rights in Qatar that he is openly gay - even though he was granted asylum in the US because of the fear of persecution. Mohamed is the campaigner mentioned in the following Guardian article: Gay Qataris physically abused then recruited as agents, campaigner says
Here his experience matches those from the human rights report I linked you yesterday, but also goes further: Not only are Qatari LGBT+ people spied on, they're sometimes forced to spy on their own community to avoid torture.
No I didn't - that's just your misinterpretation of what I was saying
I'd already read the HRW article you posted weeks ago
Ok, my bad. Do you mean that they are oppressed but not abused, or am I misinterpreting that as well?
I'm saying they try to avoid abuse by staying underground but the media spotlight is making that more difficult, hence making abuse more likely
In fact it's not even me saying it - I'm just repeating things from those with more knowledge from Twitter, the podcast etc
In fact it's not even me saying it - I'm just repeating things from those with more knowledge from Twitter, the podcast etc
What does it say?
Click the link mate. Translation is beneath.
What an asshole I am.
If it wasn't so sad & unfortunate, I'd fill my post with laughing emojis.
You ain't the only one based on that translation.
It's an important discussion to have, but El-Baghdadi doesn't really offer any alternative or even evidence that the Western media is actually making things worse. I don't doubt that he's noticing more outspoken social/online backlash against the LGBT community in response to the attention it's gotten, because for the average person in the region LGBT people might have been "out of sight, out of mind". But that homophobic sentiment existed anyway, outspoken or not. Any hypothetical "organic" or domestic push for a semblance of equality from the Qatari queer community would be met with even more resistance, ignoring the fact that any such push would be suppressed and cracked down immediately by the authorities with the Qatari public not even hearing about it.
However I disagree with the notion that this is merely a Western media campaign working against the interests of the queer community in the region. I imagine some LGBT people there would rather not have the attention out of fear of backlash, but many of the reports we're getting are based on accounts of gay or trans people who are telling their stories of abuse and oppression to human rights organisations and the media. Would it be right to ignore their voices because pragmatically it's possible it might make things worse in the short term? I think the people brave enough to come forward deserve to be heard.
It's probably true to some extent that for many LGBT people in Qatar life is bearable as long as they keep their heads down, but for many it's clearly not the case. El-Baghdadi seems to be arguing in favour of preserving the status quo in which living in the shadows is the best possible outcome, but blaming the West for upsetting that delicate and arbitrary status quo isn't that great of a point when clearly there are people in the country who don't feel that situation is worth preserving and wouldn't have a voice otherwise.
I can understand the idea that the Western media barging in with good intentions potentially might not be best course of action, and speaking for the silent/silenced Qatari LGBT community, parts of which would rather be invisible than become the focus of attention, could be seen as presumptuous and hubristic. But who are we to decide not to support the people that have spoken out anonymously because they fear for their own safety? What's the alternative here?
Besides, for the longest time the media focus was primarily on the abysmal treatment of migrant workers which is directly linked to the world cup. For better or worse, I don't believe there were any huge plans to protest for LGBT rights beyond fairly tame gestures of support like wearing those armbands and some rainbow flags in the crowds. The "hysteria" mainly started after FIFA's and Qatar's sudden and disproportionate departure from their own reassurances on the matter. It's worth discussing whether pushing for LGBT rights in this way might lead to a worse outcome, but on the other hand Qatar should have known that cracking down on benign symbols of solidarity would lead to huge Western media backlash.
I think you have probably misunderstood El-Baghdadi's intentions - it's a bit messy to follow but worth reading through all his Tweets on the subject. The limited nature of Twitter means it's not the best platform for nuanced discussion and he himself acknowledges this and it's an ongoing process with no conclusions reached as yet
I do agree that FIFAs heavy handed approach has made the hysteria worse, if they had simply allowed the captain's to wear the armbands I think there would have been less exposure for the whole issues than the way it has eventually played out
I do agree that FIFAs heavy handed approach has made the hysteria worse, if they had simply allowed the captain's to wear the armbands I think there would have been less exposure for the whole issues than the way it has eventually played out
I saw those tweets and I don't think I misunderstood El-Baghdadi's intentions. Admittedly saying "El-Baghdadi seems to be arguing in favour of preserving the status quo in which living in the shadows is the best possible outcome" was poorly phrased, but I somewhat disagree with the way he reasons in terms of cause and effect.
Mainly because I don't think there is a way to address LGBT issues, by the West or anyone else, that wouldn't initially lead to massive social backlash. Even in campaigns in football in recent years that weren't specifically about this world cup or LGBT rights elsewhere, for instance the rainbow laces campaign in the Premier League, social media abuse is absolutely vile. Of course a lot of that from within the UK, but also a lot from people outside of the country.
While El-Baghdadi might not endorse the views, using examples like
to support his point that western media is causing more damage seems somewhat disingenuous. I'm sure that narrative has gained traction more recently, but I don't think at any point were LGBT rights and the rainbow flag not seen as a Western thing in many parts of the world. Pretty sure Putin also has used similar rhetoric recently, implying LGBT issues are Western corruption or something along that line. Branding it as neocolonialism or racism is just a convenient defence; the actual attitude towards the issue remains the same whether you reject LGBT people on religious grounds, or supposedly in protest to Western self-righteousness.
Not everything I'm saying here or in my previous comment are directly tied to or opposing those tweets, and maybe I'm wrong on some points. I just think LGBT rights have gained a lot of traction and support in Western Europe over the past decade, and at least superficially as well in football. And as with most causes, more visibility often causes more outspoken reactions from people with differing viewpoints. Ideological polarisation, or at least the perception thereof online, is something we're seeing in many forms on different topics around the world. Maybe it's always been like that, the constant action and reaction back and forth between traditional values versus progressive (for lack of a better word) values, maybe it's happening more than ever. That's why I don't know if it's right to pin increasingly vocal anti-LGBT rhetoric that much on western media in connection with the world cup.
Of course it shouldn't be up to the West to decide to unleash that backlash on the local queer community, but as other tweets under his have pointed out, even as an experienced human rights activist El-Baghdadi also doesn't speak for the local LGBT community. It's a complicated topic for sure, and as with many things there's really no right answer. I'm curious to see what he has to say after speaking to LGBT Arabs
Charles Moore at the Tel wades in.
If Qatari fans dressed up in SS uniforms to watch a match on English soil how would we react?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/29/might-sunak-use-wealth-cut-national-debt/
If Qatari fans dressed up in SS uniforms to watch a match on English soil how would we react?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/29/might-sunak-use-wealth-cut-national-debt/
I am still surprised on a daily basis at how thick people can be
He's a mufti of Islam but coming out with emotion and personal jibes instead of thought out Islamic dogma.
Why is he calling Qatar "displaying true Islam in it's glorious image"? Qatar continues to go against Allah's words in other aspects which renders it a non Islamic state but there's no mention of condemnation.
The most important point the mufti should be making is the poor (Muslim and non Muslim) that could have done with the billions spent on one of the biggest vices in Islam - vanity/ego (not homosexuality). Virtue signalling by a scholar, bought out by the same ££££ signs as FIFA.
I don't think many of the hundreds of thousands of football fans who have gone to Qatar are complaining, the vast majority are enjoying the World Cup
Is there any update about what happened to the 'crusaders'?
There are 'crusaders' in Qatar?
Jesus Christ. And we wonder why everyone hates us and completely ignores our (often legitimate and well-meaning) human rights concerns. What a bellend.
Tbf fans of many countries often act like fecking idiots during World Cups. It isn’t comparable with the behaviour of the actual government of the host nation.
It’s not as if the UK government has encouraged people to dress up like fecking idiots.
And the vast majority (or at least a good number) of English people will immediately call this type of thing out - including the British media itself (hence us reading about it and thus talking about it on here)…
If anything it’s blatant proof that our views on Human Rights aren’t hypocritical or biased.
We aren’t whatabouting pathetically for this idiot and performing laughable mental gymnastics to explain away what he’s doing as ‘part of his culture’.
Yup I'd be very surprised if anyone on this thread defended their actions ("It's just a month python reference" , "English fans have dressed as knights for every world cup, there's loads of evidence" etc etc) , in fact I think pretty much everyone thinks they are idiots.
I'm not English and personally I don't think they represent the vast majority of the English public or that their actions should be used as a reason to rubbish other English people's opinions but that's just me.
Is he... Is he saying that he would like other nations to ignore racism in our country???? John Barnes, a black man who knows first hand what racism in the game and in life is like in England. And hes advocating that people shut up about it because they are not from here??? When Rashford, Sancho and Saka missed the pens at the euros and people were racially abusing them for it, was John on Twitter telling the rest of the world to stop defending Rashford, Sancho and Saka and sort out their own countries first???? What a fecking idiot.
great analogy John.But then Barnesy’s been a long time apologist for disgraceful behaviour like when Suarez was racist…
Is this a satirical piece by Barnes? What utter stupidity if not. Of course any reasonable person would want that!
Barnes has always overcomplicated these discussions when given the chance. He's not thick, he's just not as smart as he thinks he is so he over reaches and ends up nowhere.
The idea that anyone would object to black voices on racism is absurd.
The idea that anyone would object to black voices on racism is absurd.
Also I think anyone that did would be regarded as a troglodyte by the vast majority of people.
Barnes always ties himself in knots on this subject. Pre Suarez and Evra he was mostly ignored but that debacle encouraged him to weaponise his stupidity in defence of a racist.