• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How dare you point out a wrong when you don’t point out other wrongs!

That’s the OP in a nutshell.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
How dare you point out a wrong when you don’t point out other wrongs!

That’s the OP in a nutshell.

I've addressed this in a few posts:

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

It's not really about "other wrongs"; more like "wrongs that affect the optics of the message and make the messenger look inconsistent and overly selective."
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Would that really send a stronger message, though? Even if individual players boycott the event, other players would take their place. Visually, the tournament would still seem like business as usual.

Some of the more popular players have tens of millions of fans around the world. There are people watching mainly for the bigger names like Messi and Ronaldo, who are playing their last World Cup before retirement. If one such big name pulled out of the tournament, yes, I believe it would be a huge message—not just in terms of visuals but also possibly financially.

It would also mean deplatforming themselves, so it would probably be counterproductive.

They would still have platforms back home and on social media to clarify their decision or double down on it. I don't know whether those would be as powerful as being there on the pitch, but combined with the decision not to play, I wouldn't rule it out.

I think what's "useful" depends on the goal. I also don't think it's really a matter of prioritizing Qatar over anywhere else, though I do think that Qatar's treatment of LGBTQ people is much worse than, say, the UK's.

In fact, I think the English team - and people generally - going to Qatar with an implicit message of "we as a nation are a people who stand up for LGBTQ rights" can, in the long run, help to improve things for LGBTQ people in England.

Even if they're falling short of that mark now, the next time some issue affecting LGBTQ rights is dealt with, this connection between LGBTQ rights and the English national identity that these sorts of gestures try to foster will push at least some people to protect LGBTQ rights as an expression of their nationality. Basically, they're hyping themselves up, which will push some people to try to live up to the hype.

The main things that critics of the current tournament have cited so far as reasons that Qatar shouldn't have been allowed to host it involve human rights in general, not just LGBT rights. When someone argues that Qatar's treatment of LGBT people disqualifies them from hosting the World Cup, how are they assessing other human rights abuses? For example, is the United States' continued support for Israeli illegal occupation a disqualifying offense too? Or the reversal of Roe v. Wade that allowed abortion bans to go through in many states?

At some point, the threshold of which issues are "acceptable" in terms of being a World Cup host becomes a value judgment that has no straightforward answer. The US has killed more innocent people in the last 20 years—not even 50 or 60, which would add Vietnam deaths to the tally—than Qatar has in probably its entire lifetime. Same for the UK. So if we zero in on LGBT rights, yes, Qatar is far worse than the US and the UK, but this is where I think some players are prioritizing Qatar for protest: why should we consider one issue (LGBT rights) to be a deal-breaker for a host but not the other (wars or exploitation)? The loss of human life in both cases is inexcusable and equally brutal.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It depends: some people feel antagonized by both, some accept one more than the other, and some just don't care either way. But the difference between wearing an armband and broadcasting a more detailed argument is that an armband is much more likely to come across as a brief act of pushing a message,...

If a bigot considers that to be an act of pushing a message then from experience I would say it is the right thing to do.

Let me elaborate: Here in Brazil, up to this day, there are still people saying that whenever an homosexual relationship appears on a soap opera (a lot of people watch them), the media is pushing their agenda.

Do you know what happened the last couple of decades? Homosexual relationships became more and more socially acceptable. It looks like pushing an agenda actually works...

...whereas a detailed argument goes further into logic and leaves more room for others to respond and for you to engage them in a persuasive manner.

That presumes the anti-LGBT stance is grounded on arguments that could be refuted. But not's how it works. It has nothing to do with arguments per se. It revolves around calling homosexuality a sin or yucky, and therefore it must be banned, that is it.

Think of it like this: are you more likely to listen to an organized, culture-specific lecture about any given religion or a short advertisement where a preacher just throws out a few lines and catchphrases without adding any other detail—all against the backdrop of criticizing you and your way of life?

The fact you are comparing wearing that armband and taking a knee with 'criticizing you and your way of life' shows where the problem resides.

It is not about the bigot's way of life. It is about the people getting sent to jail because of their own way of life.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
If a bigot considers that to be an act of pushing a message then from experience I would say it is the right thing to do.

Let me elaborate: Here in Brazil, up to this day, there are still people saying that whenever an homosexual relationship appears on a soap opera (a lot of people watch them), the media is pushing their agenda.

Do you know what happened the last couple of decades? Homosexual relationships became more and more socially acceptable. It looks like pushing an agenda actually works...

I don't know enough about Brazil to give an educated response here, but I will say that generally, multiple factors give rise to such shifts in social attitudes. Do you think the soap operas were the main reason for the increased acceptability of same-sex relationshils in Brazil?

That presumes the anti-LGBT stance is grounded on arguments that could be refuted. But not's how it works. It has nothing to do with arguments per se. It revolves around calling homosexuality a sin or yucky, and therefore it must be banned, that is it.

No, it doesn't presume that; it just presumes that a lot of people will change logically ungrounded beliefs they grew up with or absorbed from society when confronted with sound arguments and evidence. This absolutely doesn't work with everyone, and I agree that many just won't accept anything but what they believe in. But if even a subset of anti-LGBT people change their attitudes as a result of campaigns, then that's still a win for human rights. Large-scale cultural changes often come in increments; you won't find any country that suddenly achieved equality for LGBT people or any other persecuted minority.

The fact you are comparing wearing that armband and taking a knee with 'criticizing you and your way of life' shows where the problem resides.

It is not about the bigot's way of life. It is about the people getting sent to jail because of their own way of life.

This is your view and mine, which I believe is the only ethical and logical way to view LGBT rights. As I said earlier, however, you can't look only through your perspective if you want to give persuasive messaging. Since any campaign for LGBT rights has to tackle anti-LGBT bigotry at one point or another, knowing how it works and the various cultural factors that contribute to it can be immensely useful.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Two players in the English national soccer team took the knee after FIFA strictly warned players not to wear a "OneLove" armband in their first World Cup game. Taking the knee has been an anti-racism gesture the team has adopted for a long time, but the Football Supporters' Association had the following to say:



England players take the knee vs Iran after Harry Kane ditches OneLove armband

As someone who lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years, including two as an atheist, and experienced the terrible human rights situation and lack of freedom first-hand, I find this extremely shallow, inconsistent, sanctimonious, and tone-deaf. The UK has a litany of human rights abuses on its hands overseas and has yet to even pay any substantial reparations to some of the countries it helped to destroy like Iraq, yet we're supposed to see a rainbow armband—worn by players who haven't publicly criticized their own country's human rights record—as a progressive gesture when wearing it won't even achieve anything beyond antagonizing the host nation for 28 days only to be forgotten later.

Also, the next World Cup will be jointly held in the US, Canada, and Mexico. I wonder whether we will see similar statements from British soccer associations about LGBT or reproductive rights in the US, or cartel violence and government corruption in Mexico. Right now same-sex marriage is at risk of following Roe v. Wade to the reversal grave by a theocratically minded SCOTUS majority.

History shows that this is not how social and cultural changes happen. I don't believe such changes in countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will come from wealthy, protected foreign athletes wearing colored armbands during a 28-day tournament or posting moralizing tweets without any concrete activism; the change will have to come from within these countries and be led by progressive natives thereof like Raif Badawi, Loujain al-Hathloul, and Samar Badawi.
I have two arguments with the view expressed in this post:

First, it is naive to suppose that no protest (and therefore no correction) of any injustice can ever be initiated until all existing injustices have been corrected. Sorry, we're humans, and we are never going to fix it all, but that's no reason not to try to fix what we can.

Second, you say that this is not social and cultural changes happen, and while I agree to a point, I can't help but notice that while only I can change myself, sometimes I do so when I see myself through the eyes of others -- and as a consequence gain some additional insight into my own behaviours.
 
Last edited:

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I've addressed this in a few posts:

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

England Players Ditch "OneLove" Armband, Supporters' Association Criticizes Qatar

It's not really about "other wrongs"; more like "wrongs that affect the optics of the message and make the messenger look inconsistent and overly selective."
Why can’t we just agree to condemn a wrong? Why must we analyze the “optics” and alleged inconsistencies?
 
As someone who lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years, including two as an atheist, and experienced the terrible human rights situation and lack of freedom first-hand, I find this extremely shallow, inconsistent, sanctimonious, and tone-deaf. The UK has a litany of human rights abuses on its hands overseas and has yet to even pay any substantial reparations to some of the countries it helped to destroy like Iraq, yet we're supposed to see a rainbow armband—worn by players who haven't publicly criticized their own country's human rights record—as a progressive gesture when wearing it won't even achieve anything beyond antagonizing the host nation for 28 days only to be forgotten later.

Of course the West is frequently hypocritical and sanctimonious, and people are right to highlight this. It is true though that basically everyone is too, we all notice other's transgressions more than our own, and no one can criticise all injustice equally.

There is a bit more context that you seem to be missing though.

Do you think LGBT England fans appreciate the gesture, or would they be equally happy if it was brushed under the carpet?

Football has traditionally been pretty racist and homophobic, and a lot of effort has been put in to reduce this and become more inclusive.

Qatar basically said to fans "you can come to the World Cup, as long as you don't partake in any of that gayness while you are here".

FIFA both promotes inclusivity, but when there is enough money attached tells the players to shut their mouths and stick to football.

It's not necessarily about changing Qatar, but continuing to promote inclusivity in their own countries and among their own fans.

If they speak out, then folk criticise them for not speaking out equally on all the ills of the world.

If they stay quiet, they will be criticised for showing they care little for inclusivity and are happy for LGBT people to be discriminated against as long as they get paid.

I don't see how you can seriously promote diversity and inclusion in football, and then not mention it when the biggest footballing event is held in a place where gay fans could be imprisoned for sleeping with their spouse.

Can you think of a way they could stay quiet about discrimination against their fans and also maintain they are committed to promoting inclusivity in English football?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Raises awareness in whom, though? It has generated antagonism and been viewed as disrespectful by many Arabs so far. On the other hand, those who already support LGBT rights are likely aware of Qatar's atrocious laws in that area, so there's nothing new.
Even to wear an armband or kneel is "viewed as disrespectful"?
People who oppose civil & peaceful protest on that basis
should not be catered to with silence. Sure, sure, those laws
are nothing new. Tis all the more reason to protest them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread has some fascinating opposing perspectives...
1) Expecting individuals to behave as the group they belong to.
And if one's group has sins, then "Sit down & shut up!".
2) Allowing individuals the freedom to have views not of their
group. Let each express views with civility & conviction.

I prefer a big steaming pile of #2.
Don't abuse protesting players for a peaceful message
to inspire change....just because their country has its
own problems. Let each say as each believes.
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Why can’t we just agree to condemn a wrong? Why must we analyze the “optics” and alleged inconsistencies?

If the goal is to promote LGBT rights, the optics matter a lot in this case. To avoid repeating myself, I'll quote one of my earlier posts in this thread:

It's not about apologetic references; rattling off a list of unflattering historical facts about the UK just to appear consistent would seem cliché and forced, if anything. But when a public figure's opinions over many years show no signs of any self-examination and then they pick their battle against a distant overseas country, the optics just become weird and overly selective. Optics matter when the goal is to convince as many people as possible of a message or cause.

Imagine if I smoked two packs a day but then decided to run an anti-smoking campaign. Logically, my own actions would have no bearing on the validity of what I said about smoking: to argue that they did would be a tu quoque. But in the eyes of many among the audience, I would definitely look insincere and damage my own credibility, thereby reducing my potential to persuade others of my message.

We can agree to condemn a wrong; what we disagree on is that the inconsistency and selective outrage displayed in Qatar are helpful to the long-term goal of shifting cultural attitudes about LGBT rights.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Even to wear an armband or kneel is "viewed as disrespectful"?
People who oppose civil & peaceful protest on that basis
should not be catered to with silence. Sure, sure, those laws
are nothing new. Tis all the more reason to protest them.

There are many alternatives to kneeling and wearing armbands in the manner that has happened so far that don't necessitate silence. Social media and off-pitch interviews exist, as do widely circulated press conferences. To choose a method of protest that is possibly the most likely to generate hostility may be emotionally fulfilling (even to me at times) but ultimately counterproductive if you want to promote specific cultural shifts in views.

This thread has some fascinating opposing perspectives...
1) Expecting individuals to behave as the group they belong to.
And if one's group has sins, then "Sit down & shut up!".

This is not even close to my argument, and I'm not sure where you got that from if you have read my posts in this thread.

The point is that if I were a public figure and never or almost never spoke of my country's issues, then defying domestic laws when I was in another country and antagonizing a majority of its population would probably seem self-righteous, inconsistent, and overtly selective. This doesn't render the criticism invalid, to be sure: Qatar is indeed a country with terrible human rights conditions for multiple groups. It does, however, affect the impact of the criticism and its capacity to achieve the desired changes.

I addressed a similar argument in my post just before this one.

2) Allowing individuals the freedom to have views not of their
group. Let each express views with civility & conviction.

It is highly debatable whether it is "civil" to intentionally violate the laws of a country you voluntarily traveled to when doing so is unlikely to benefit the locals who suffer the persecution to begin with. Furthermore, I wasn't under the impression that any of the players' protests were individual; all of the protests so far have seemed to be coordinated gestures backed by their respective countries' soccer federations.

I prefer a big steaming pile of #2.
Don't abuse protesting players for a peaceful message
to inspire change....just because their country has its
own problems. Let each say as each believes.

1) I didn't and couldn't possibly "abuse" famous players who will never read or be affected by my words. That's such a bizarre statement, unless you meant something I missed.

2) It is exactly the counterpoductivity to the cause of inspiring change that renders the protests mostly undesirable. The players will go home afterward; LGBT Qataris and their allies will be stuck in the country with the same old homophobic laws now coupled with hostile social backlash against perceived inconsistency and moralizing from foreign public figures representing powerful countries that have their own issues—which, as I said, many of these public figures don't bother addressing even fleetingly.

3) My objection is not because their countries have their own problems; it's because some of them conveniently stay silent on their countries' issues but moralize to others in a way most likely to be unhelpful to promotion of diversity and inclusion, for reasons I have elaborated on here.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
People usually hold beliefs for much more complicated reasons than that. Sure, the beliefs themselves are bigoted, but when someone is brought up in a specific culture where LGBT rights are widely reviled, what do you expect? They couldn't just push a button and be convinced the ethical thing to do is to support equality. Human psychology doesn't work that way.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia and was extremely homophobic up until a year or so after I joined this forum and got to talk to LGBT people. Many others with a similar background don't have the luxury of knowing English or never have that exposure in a way that would be particularly conducive to change. Antagonism is not an especially useful feeling to engender if you're looking to increase understanding and awareness.
You see the armbands as antagonistic?The message behind them is literally just that LGBTQ rights should be respected.

What wouldn't be seen as antagonistic?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I don't know enough about Brazil to give an educated response here, but I will say that generally, multiple factors give rise to such shifts in social attitudes. Do you think the soap operas were the main reason for the increased acceptability of same-sex relationshils in Brazil?

It is hard to know what exactly were the main driving forces. But it certainly can't be attributed to changes in the law nor in reliogiosity. It was definitely a social change. More and more people started coming out, and then the easier it became for other people to follow their example. I am pretty certain it wouldn't have happened if people going were being sent to jail for being gay.

No, it doesn't presume that; it just presumes that a lot of people will change logically ungrounded beliefs they grew up with or absorbed from society when confronted with sound arguments and evidence. This absolutely doesn't work with everyone, and I agree that many just won't accept anything but what they believe in. But if even a subset of anti-LGBT people change their attitudes as a result of campaigns, then that's still a win for human rights. Large-scale cultural changes often come in increments; you won't find any country that suddenly achieved equality for LGBT people or any other persecuted minority.

But those arguments will revolve around unshared values. The logical rationale is very simple here, trivial even, the hard part is to make someone else accept distinct values.

This is not YEC. YEC has a lot of assumptions that could be challenged with evidence. The same is not true for anti-LGTB.

This is your view and mine, which I believe is the only ethical and logical way to view LGBT rights. As I said earlier, however, you can't look only through your perspective if you want to give persuasive messaging. Since any campaign for LGBT rights has to tackle anti-LGBT bigotry at one point or another, knowing how it works and the various cultural factors that contribute to it can be immensely useful.

But we do know how it works. It is pretty similar across the globe.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
You see the armbands as antagonistic?The message behind them is literally just that LGBTQ rights should be respected.

What wouldn't be seen as antagonistic?

I don't, but I'm in another minority who are also largely distrusted and discriminated against in the Arab world and, as such, my views on LGBT rights are far from representative of the majority. I just know that Arab societies generally do, especially since the armbands were specifically banned by both FIFA and Qatar. Wearing them now breaks local laws on top of everything else.

The overwhelmingly negative and hostile reactions from Arabs on social media provide a sample of this and make me wonder how Arab LGBT people are going to benefit from this at all. The Arab world needs a lot of cultural changes and social reform, but I don't believe they will come from incidents like these.

As for what wouldn't be seen as antagonistic, I think most pro-LGBT messages will face varying degrees of hostility in any Arab society due to the perception that they go against "religious and cultural norms," but some are much more likely to resonate well than others. An example was when an Egyptian actor, who has frequently also gotten in trouble for vocally highlighting issues in Egypt, changed his Facebook picture to a rainbow one back in 2015 when the US legalized same-sex marriage and then became one of the first Egyptian celebrities to publicly endorse LGBT rights in various media outlets. His activism has had enough influence and raised awareness so much that some of his critics said he had successfully "spread debauchery" among many people.

These are a couple of news articles about him:

Khaled Abol Naga responds to "closeted gay" accusations! | Al Bawaba

Egyptian actor Khaled Abol Naga reiterates his support for gay rights - Egypt Independent

On the other hand, from what I have seen and read so far, one of the least likely forms of protests to be received even remotely well or achieve anything helpful is one where public figures from abusive powers (such as the UK) violate other countries' local laws on purpose while staying silent about numerous major issues back home.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
There are many alternatives to kneeling and wearing armbands in the manner that has happened so far that don't necessitate silence. Social media and off-pitch interviews exist, as do widely circulated press conferences. To choose a method of protest that is possibly the most likely to generate hostility may be emotionally fulfilling (even to me at times) but ultimately counterproductive if you want to promote specific cultural shifts in views.

Where is the evidence those alternatives would be seen as less antagonizing and be more productive?
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I understand the feeling, but I don't see it as conducive to the desired cultural change in this case. I wish it were effective at achieving that, but it demonstrably just doesn't work by itself.

When we look at beliefs as an emergent property of multiple socioeconomic and political factors (including religion), it seems to me that it makes a lot more sense that many otherwise decent people end up holding terrible beliefs. There are ways to change cultures, but it's usually a long, arduous process that takes many years or even decades.
It doesn't have to work by itself. I'm absolutely certain wearing an armband will do nothing to change the position of the Qatari state or correct the bigoted opinions of people who would find the message "aggressive" or "disrespectful". I'm also certain that staying quiet won't help either.

What is important is that LGBT people watching the tournament from abroad and especially within Qatar feel that the solidarity football expresses towards them isn't forgotton because some despots bribed enough of the right people.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Where is the evidence those alternatives would be seen as less antagonizing and be more productive?

I don't know of any systematic evidence such as a study, nor do I think the Arab world's current social and political issues would make those easy to conduct reliably. But I think various reactions whether in different media can provide at least a general overview. For example:

"My Daughter Noura Is Now My Son Nour," Says Hesham Selim As He Comes Out In Support Of His Son's Transition | NileFM | EGYPT'S#1 FOR HIT MUSIC

This actor was widely respected in Egypt and lived here until he passed away this year. His support for his son garnered widespread sympathy even from some people who admitted they previously knew little or nothing about transgendered people's issues.

I have major doubts that we would have seen the same effect if a British or American soccer player had worn a trans flag armband during a 28-day sporting event without having any record of being as socially aware or as publicly concerned about their own country's abuses.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I don't know of any systematic evidence such as a study, nor do I think the Arab world's current social and political issues would make those easy to conduct reliably. But I think various reactions whether in different media can provide at least a general overview. For example:

"My Daughter Noura Is Now My Son Nour," Says Hesham Selim As He Comes Out In Support Of His Son's Transition | NileFM | EGYPT'S#1 FOR HIT MUSIC

This actor was widely respected in Egypt and lived here until he passed away this year. His support for his son garnered widespread sympathy even from some people who admitted they previously knew little or nothing about transgendered people's issues.

I have major doubts that we would have seen the same effect if a British or American soccer player had worn a trans flag armband during a 28-day sporting event without having any record of being as socially aware or as publicly concerned about their own country's abuses.

But where is the evidence concerning "Social media and off-pitch interviews" specifically, since you have mentioned those as alternatives?

Is there any evidence of athletes making use of those methods and bringing about any change?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
It doesn't have to work by itself. I'm absolutely certain wearing an armband will do nothing to change the position of the Qatari state or correct the bigoted opinions of people who would find the message "aggressive" or "disrespectful". I'm also certain that staying quiet won't help either.

What is important is that LGBT people watching the tournament from abroad and especially within Qatar feel that the solidarity football expresses towards them isn't forgotton because some despots bribed enough of the right people.

An important consideration is whether it is wise or responsible to engage in a protest that will inevitably result in more anti-LGBT backlash in societies with widespread homophobia—thereby contributing to an even worse climate for native LGBT people and allies—just to send a message to fans that the players and federations can still send in multiple other ways.

It's not an easy or straightforward issue, and I can see why a player would feel it was helpful to wear such an armband in these circumstances. I just don't think it will help those who are suffering the most under Qatari laws and prevalent homophobia.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
But where is the evidence concerning "Social media and off-pitch interviews" specifically, since you have mentioned those as alternatives?

Is there any evidence of athletes making use of those methods and bringing about any change?

There's no evidence that wearing armbands in the World Cup changes homophobic societies either. I thought we were only talking about the different ways in which players could convey their messages, anyway.
 
Top