Who recalls this news story ?

So that's a yes then.

End of story. Ignorance is never an excuse.

This Suarez case can be argued forever but it doesn't change anything. We do know Suarez is going to appeal so what's all this debate for????

south london

"End of story. Ignorance is never an excuse."

Never?

I was referred to as 'coloured' a few years ago by a 50 odd year old man in the staff canteen. He had no idea that the term was deemed as racially abusive..he is an easy going bloke who was shocked when I informed him of the current climate with regards to that word when referring to black people!

Is he a racist? Was he guilty of using racially abusive language?

According to you ignorance is never an excuse, so I assume that you would be completely comfortable with calling this bloke a possible racist and definitely guilty of using racially abusive language?

Is that fair?

Are you seriously equating the word "coloured" to "Negrito"?

south london

Why not? Both are supposedly offensive in Britain, although one is not even an English term!

Are you saying a Spanish term that clearly has different meanings and can clearly be interpreted differently when translated is more offensive than an English term that has been classified as offensive when used in reference to a person's skin colour?

Look at it this way. Alan Hansen used the term coloured on MOTD. There wasn't an uproar, he apologised.

If he had used the N word he would have been out of a job and an outcast. Like Ron Atkinson.

Simple. No one has offered an explanation as to why Suarez felt the need to address Evra's colour.
Because they can't.
As for LFC, they deserve every bit of criticism, for their stance of ignorance, and arrogance, led by the pied piper 'King Kenny'
Where's the fool now, hiding under a rock, or gone to Nick Griffin to earn the other 'K'

slm

But the N word that Suarez used does have a clear ambiguous issue surrounding it!

Is it fair to translate the word into English, ignore the clear cultural differences that exist with said word and then find Suarez guilty of being racially abusive in English, even though he was speaking in Spanish?

For me that is a very strangulated route to take in order to find someone guilty! Do you think a Spanish speaker with limited knowledge of English should be charged with using racially abusive language in the Trafford Centre to someone else, who was also speaking in Spanish?

If you think he should then fair enough, there is no way that you are ever going to change your point of view. I think differently, I think that a conversation should not be translated in order to suit an agenda.

I understand that the context in which the words were spoken should be taken into consideration, but surely that context should be judged using the language that it was spoken in? And not translated into English, how obscure is that?

stringerbell

But the word is clearly ambiguous when used in a Spanish speaking context.

There are numerous examples of it being used in a non-racial way by South Americans when referring to black people. The blog by Hernandez, the tweet by Pacheco, the flag that the Argentinian national team paraded etc etc etc.

Are you saying that all those examples should be considered as racially offensive? Of course they shouldn't, so why should Suarez' automatically be seen as offensive. You are guilty of implying English meaning to a word spoken in Spanish, that to me is not right...why should the conversation be translated? Why not deal with it in the context that it was spoken in?

You ask what hypocrite means...

I just point at you.

You say ppl moved on but youre still here commenting.

That makes you a hypocrite unless youve personally changed the meaning of the word. Its not racist is it

Do you enjoy getting wound up or something