Jonathan Wilson has a very thoughtful post up which helps untangle some of the maniacal media threads that have emerged as a result of the John Terry trial, in which he was found not guilty of racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand.
Wilson painstakingly explains the basis of the rule of law, that the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the defender guilty of crimes charged “beyond a reasonable doubt.” To this day, many believe “not guilty” verdicts somehow assert inviolable empirical fact, and the reaction to the verdict in some quarters reflects this belief. As with the workings of parliamentary democracy, it’s alarming how little citizens seem to understand the judicial and governmental system of which they are an involuntary participants.
That said, Wilson’s final paragraph deserves a response. It reads as follows:
Most of all, football needs a whole reconsideration of race. It has been sickening the extent to which people have used Twitter and other media to abuse Evra and Ferdinand. For them, hopefully, police action will follow. It is also troubling how many seem to think Terry should have been convicted as a demonstration of how tough Britain and English football is on racism. Racism is deplorable, but you can only condemn those who are proven guilty of it.
It’s interesting that Wilson is writing for, in part, and American audience in Sports Illustrated, who might find the notion that ‘police action’ should be the appropriate response to comments on a social media site uncomfortable (or not, something for which we can thank the Bush administration).
Even so, within the above paragraph lies a troubling contradiction. The reason many believe Terry should have been convicted as a “demonstration of how tough Britain…is on racism” is because this was precisely the motive behind the legislation of hate speech in the first place. Far easier for governments to punish racial abuse outright via the courts than focus on racism’s root causes, some of which may uncomfortably clash in some cases with government policy (attitude toward refugees, equitable social programs, etc.).
This wouldn’t mean much if the law was actually an effective means to combat domestic racism. It isn’t, and the reason, as was once famously said, is the law is an ass. It can’t take into consideration nuance, personal history, character, or, except in consideration of mens rea, the underlying intent beyond that involving the specific action. The law gave the police no choice but to charge Terry as soon as it appeared he may have used racist language toward Anton Ferdinand. It was also entirely ineffective in addressing the possibility that Terry may have thought it was in some way fair game to make reference to race in a stream of verbal abuse. We will never know, because Terry denied he racially abused Ferdinand.
Part of the problem is that despite the sanitized apologies found in some quarters of the press, racial abuse is a symptom of a racist attitude. Hence the absurdity of fellow Chelsea defender Ashley Cole’s testimony in court that “Terry isn’t a racist” (a moment that ironically reflected the indirectly racist idea that, as a black man, Cole should know more than others); racism is not an ever-present, absolute characteristic, like hair or indeed skin colour. It is not always immediately evident, and is often context dependent. Hence the possibility that someone who believes non-whites should be able to vote may also believe that Polish workers are lazy. Or that someone can be perfectly polite to black people in his personal life and think nothing of throwing bananas at them on a football pitch.
This is what makes the fight against racism difficult, and why, unlike in other areas of criminal justice, the component of state punishment is more detrimental than helpful in that fight. This is because racism is an idea, and ideas live in the world of speech. Minds are changed not when that speech is stifled, particularly by state intervention, but they’re changed with argument, and, if necessary in the worst cases, by social ostracism. It is the value of these discussions which makes the right of free speech so important in a democracy. And that discussion was cut off in this instance and replaced with a trial that was professionally executed, if entirely ineffective.
In the end, there will always be hardcore racists among us, those who will not listen to reason. In countries where free speech is respected, they can only be fought by public opinion and social progress, far more polished weapons than a court of law can provide.
But I’m willing to believe John Terry is not one of them; however, he may have (although it hasn’t been proven in a court of law) believed it is acceptable to resort to racial abuse on a football pitch. It might have a been a spur-of-the-moment attempt to go for the jugular in a heated exchange, but we will never know, because Terry’s admission would have seen him punished by the law, and so he took his chances with a trial.
Sadly, that also meant the moment for a high profile athlete to admit wrong-doing for using racist language on football pitch; for Terry to apologize and to sit down in reconciliation with Ferdinand, his colleague in the Premier League; and to provoke an open and honest discussion about why racial abuse is wrong in any context, has come and gone. Instead we’ve seen a manager resign, a player not selected by England over under dubious circumstances and further alienated from a once friendly former team-mate, we’re faced with another FA hearing with subsequent denials, and we’ve made zero progress in bringing racial abuse in football to light.
Bravo Richard. Finally someone said it. A free society is free for biggots and racists also. Its up to the greater public to marginalize and discredit those among us who think and behave this way.
Exactly! Well said.
Make it three. Great read.
I’m not following what is so bad about the law itself. The law exists to protect people from the violence of racial abuse (deter, punish for the action). Not intended to change minds/attitudes, or get at the root causes. And I don’t think that just because the law exists that the whole “conversation” on racism gets shut down. The discussion was not really cut off by that trial.
I’m all for getting at the root causes of all criminal behaviour, I just don’t see how having laws is detrimental to the cause.
You are free to be racist in a free society, but you are not free to racially abuse. Just because this form of violence comes in the form of “speech” should it have immunity?
Agree with Ally Mac…also, to protect people from the tangible exclusions of racism (ie. the civil rights movement was for the right of African Americans to sit at the front of the bus, not necessarily for every white person to like it).
As I wrote in the article it is detrimental precisely because John Terry was subject of a criminal investigation, he had a massive disincentive to admit guilt in order to facilitate a broad discussion of why it is wrong to use racial epithets in a heated argument.
And it was cut off in the sense that it set off protracted legal proceedings, which had an indirect effect that extended all the way to Fabio Capello’s resignation as England manager, plus the media sensation that follows any criminal trial involving a major celebrity. All of which have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
As for this: “You are free to be racist in a free society, but you are not free to racially abuse. Just because this form of violence comes in the form of “speech” should it have immunity?”
I think people have the right to be free from abusive language in any context, but police investigating a Tweet which was an indirect reference to a footballer many degrees removed from the discussion? As in the “choc-ice” tweet to Rio Ferdinand?
In fairness, I have more issue with Rio’s reaction to that tweet than the tweet itself. Mostly the fact that he’s BS’ing that there’s no racial component to it, and laughing at what’s essantially a joke at the expense of someone who otherwise refers to him as a “friend”. It’s catty…
But also, JT had many disincentives to admit guilt beyond just the criminal investigation. It’s not as though he’d admit guilt if it was only the FA involved.
But, you could argue that police intervention in the context of social media is a form of social ostracism applicable to the worst cases of racism (ie. the anonymous ones).
What I mean is, by uncovering the real names of people who post racist messages using anonymous Twitter handles (such as the guy making comments about Fabrice Muamba) and prosecuting them, you’re exposing them to real ostracism, because now the world (future employers, family members, etc) know who they really are.
Will it do away with their racist attitudes? Probably not, if they’re actually racist. But, it will deter them from making outlandish racist comments, which they may or may not believe anyway. That in turn hopefully lessens the groupthink mentality that exists in cyberspace which cause people to say whatever they want as long as they can find one other person who “likes” it.
This is such a complex area that it probably needs a book rather than a blog post but I think that what is percieved as overreaction (mostly by the police; it was an off duty police officer who filed a complaint aginst Terry) in the UK to twitter racism etc. comes from criticism of police indifference to racism in the past.
I mostly welcome the shift in emphasis but accept that at times it can come across as a “thought police” style of enforcing the law.
“But again, different bodies require differing burdens of proof; that’s why the outrage some Uruguayans and some Liverpool fans seem to have felt over the Terry judgment is misplaced.”
Not sure I agree with this statement fully – from what I’ve seen, the outrage over the Suarez incident was the fact that Suarez was subjected to the lower burden of proof, where Wilson even acknowledges he would not be convicted in a criminal court. The anger stems from the fact that Terry has not yet been charged by the FA yet; the perception is that the FA doesn’t want to touch this case given that it’s the former England captain. The fear is that he may never be charged and subjected to the same standard as Suarez was.
You say that the legal proceedings and other indirect effects cut off the broader conversation about racism. Of course you must agree that the broader conversation lives on, so perhaps you mean in this particular instance, an opportunity was lost.
I think it is unrealistic to think that if only there were no law/criminal proceedings JT would readily admit guilt and we would have a broad discussion heart-to-heart afterwards. (Did Materazzi admit guilt?) There is no reason to think this would happen.
I think the law is good, does as intended (deter/punish racial abuse) and footballers will think twice about uttering racial abuse. And the broader conversation about racism will live on, undetered by the occasional criminal investigation and court procedings.
I like the article, except when you say “there will always be racists among us”
I disagree with this, and believe that in the future, maybe long in the future, it will be a thing of the past.
Did people not once think that blacks and whites would “always” live in segregation in the new world? Progress is happening, it can keep happening.