John Yems given a racism release card by an FA panel | Soccer

[ad_1]

Despite being convicted of 12 charges of discriminatory conduct, but backed by the ridiculously outrageous conclusion that he was not consciously racist, John Yems believes he is the real victim and owes an apology. For those who believe we live in a culture of victimization, this is its natural but absurd extreme logic. Really, we are on the other side of the mirror.

This week, an independent panel set up to rule on the charges brought by the Football Association against Yems released its reasoned judgment. This judgment cataloged Yems performing the most shocking hits of lazy racist tropes: use of the N-word, referring to a player as a curry eater, portraying Muslim players as terrorists and many more. Despite this grotesque cabaret, most of the attention has focused on the panels which concluded that, while acknowledging that this was an extremely serious case that had come across to victims and others as offensive , racist and Islamophobic, Yems was not consciously racist. This conclusion was an unnecessary and dangerously confused reflection and does not appear to be justified by the other findings of the panels.

The committee, it seems, confused motive with intent. The motive can be entirely personal and subjective. Intent can be direct or indirect and inferred from evidence of behavior. In law, we can be held responsible for the natural consequences of our actions even if we say they were unintentional. If I punch you in the nose, it’s no defense to say I didn’t mean to break your nose. No one forced Yems to make his comments. He continued to make them after interventions, apparently acting with reckless disregard for the blatantly discriminatory impact of his lyrics. These appear to be conscious racist acts.

When was the last time you heard someone admit they were consciously racist? Indeed, the court put this question to Yems (although it was not obligated to do so because it was irrelevant to the question of liability) and then apparently took his answer into account by toning down his sentence from the required minimum of two years to an insulting sentence of 18 years. months (which can only discourage future whistleblowers). Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

I understand the natural human desire not to stigmatize individuals unnecessarily, especially in cases where it is an isolated incident. We live in a society where we are all close to being nullified, and calling someone a racist carries enormous social stigma. Of course, some degree of social stigma is necessary because it signifies society’s moral censure of behavior that we generally consider unacceptable. Similarly, none of us would want to be judged by reducing ourselves to the worst mistake we have ever made. There must always be ways of redemption and reconciliation. These avenues are built on the humble acknowledgment of our mistakes. These essential unwritten rules allow society to function.

In this context, accepting a subjective motive without examining patterns of behavior is dangerous because it offers an easy get out of jail card without acknowledgment of wrongdoing. The Peter Beardsley case panel in 2019 fell down the exact same rabbit hole. Yems and Beardsley also held positions of authority. In sport, coaches have a unique influence on career outcomes. With this greater power comes greater responsibility. What Yems did was an outrageous abuse of power. Rather than acknowledging his wrongs, he doubled down on denial. The panel unnecessarily offered him shelter and, predictably, he fled.

Peter Beardsley was also disciplined for racism in 2019. Photograph: Mike Egerton/PA

In these cases, the FA acts as investigator and prosecutor, with the independent panel acting as judge. The FA appear to be considering an appeal. Beyond that, we need to learn lessons for the future. For the FA, this means reviewing the overall sanctions framework and reviewing the process for recruiting, selecting, training and evaluating panelists. It’s time to refresh the panels with new blood.

To date, 18 months is the longest ban issued for discrimination. We need to see a greater willingness to use existing power to issue longer, lifetime bans. These should be used sparingly and there should be a sliding scale of conviction rates to reflect relative wrongdoing. Two years ago, a lawyer of the same age as Yems was disbarred for less serious breaches. He can make a living, but not as a lawyer. There aren’t many cases that would warrant a lifetime ban, but Yems’ ongoing abuse of power would potentially be such a case.

Quick GuideHow do I sign up for sports news alerts?ViewDownload the Guardian app from the iOS App Store on iPhone or the Google Play store on Android by searching for ‘The Guardian’. If you already have the Guardian app, make sure you’re on the latest version. In the Guardian app, tap the Menu button in the bottom right, then go to Settings (the gear icon), then Notifications. Enable sports notifications.

Thank you for your opinion.

Clubs also need to think. Crawleys, then general manager and club chaplain, both saw red flags in Yemss’s behavior. The chaplain regretted with hindsight that he had not spoken earlier. The then-CEO responded to a player calling Yems a racist by ordering him to shut up because he feared a fan might overhear him. This is an outrageous dereliction of duty. It was a red flag and he did not act. I would like to be sure that Yems was an isolated case, but no one can be sure. Clubs need to be sensitive to these warning signs and reinforce the appropriate culture, values ​​and behavior.

In all the noise around Yems, the people in danger of being forgotten are the players. They are ambitious young people who, like any other employee, have the right to be treated with dignity and respect at work. The players who showed up showed great courage. Some became depressed, turned to alcohol, or avoided bullying by avoiding work. Many have been backed by the Professional Footballers’ Association and others. I thank the players for their courage in speaking truth to power. Football must now show the same courage and use this case as an impetus for meaningful change.

Sanjay Bhandari is the president of Kick It Out

[ad_2]