Weirdness Abounds (or the Idrissa Gana Gueye Thread)

[SpartyBlue]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

How long would it have taken PSG to run the idea by its players, asked if anyone had any strong objections and then given the jeopardy free choice of wearing the shirt, wearing it without the rainbow or not playing, citing religious reasons.

I agree it’s wrong for him to be forced to wear it or sit if that is what happened there.

[SpartyBlue]

Pound for pound this Gana thread may be the most interesting one we’ve have over the years. 

[SpartyBlue]

4 minutes ago, RPG said:

I thought we were about being inclusive. How can we be inclusive when we specify a group or a colour? All lives matter and to try to concentrate on one colour, no matter how well intentioned will divide far more than it unites.

Think of what you’re saying. Minorities/gay people have suffered through an inability to vote or to get married. They’ve dealt with discrimination and violence vastly disproportionate to other groups. To say we shouldn’t focus on addressing that because “all lives matter” is baffling. It’s like saying a doctor shouldn’t treat your broken arm because you have other parts of your body as well. You focus the attention on the area that is hurting. The area that needs help. 

[SpartyBlue]

A cleaner analogy is the Ukraine situation. Most would agree that the Ukrainian people deserve our support. Imagine someone saying that they disagree with supporting Ukraine because there are lots of other countries where people could use help. Imagine them saying that support for their people is divisive. 

[London Blue]

33 minutes ago, RPG said:

I thought we were about being inclusive. How can we be inclusive when we specify a group or a colour? All lives matter and to try to concentrate on one colour, no matter how well intentioned will divide far more than it unites.

Some groups lives are so greatly affected by discrimination to the point that they are dying, that sadly some people need reminding that these lives matter.

[StevO]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

No Steve, You have an opinion. Nothing else. These good people quietly minded their own business until do gooders forced them into a corner. So they said no to their club as is their right and quite rightly so. Do you remember the UK triple jumper who wouldn’t compete at the Olympics on a Sunday because it violated his religious beliefs. No different, he wouldn’t have said anything if he hadn’t been rostered to compete on a Sunday. No different. If the NRL club had just had the decency, respect and brains to run their plans by the players first then this could all have been avoided. But oh no, somebody decides they know how everyone else has to think on a subject  and tries to force their will on others, then acts all hurt when they are quite rightly told that these players will not be cooperating and they would have appreciated being asked first rather than told. 

You are entitled to your opinion but you have provided nothing to back it up.

As I said, not an opinion, an observation. Saying what I can see. I’ll keep my opinions to myself on this. 

[Goodison Glory]

2 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

Pound for pound this Gana thread may be the most interesting one we’ve have over the years. 

He's not even signed and already we have massive debate. All healthy debate but massive debate none the less....he certainly attracts the column space. 

[chicagoblue]

7 hours ago, RPG said:

I saw an interesting viewpoint on the ‘Rainbow’ issue recently from one of the guys in Australia who also refused to wear the shirt. In essence, what he said was this: “My personal beliefs do not allow me to condone this type of behaviour but I was happy to keep my personal beliefs to myself until now. I feel that being told to support any issue by my employer violates my right to my own opinion (which, in this case was publicly neutral) but, whilst I have refrained from publicly criticizing this behaviour in the past, my beliefs will not allow me to actively support it now. The club has put me and others in a very difficult position by making assumptions on our behalf that they had no right to and it is the club that I have an issue with, not the LGBT community.”

 

Quite an articulate and well reasoned response I think.

Just a fancy way of saying "I'm a bigot, but I keep it to myself"

[SpartyBlue]

12 minutes ago, chicagoblue said:

Just a fancy way of saying "I'm a bigot, but I keep it to myself"

Largely I agree that someone could give this same response for any number of awful viewpoints.

However, I agree with the point that a club should not dictate to its players that they have to support whatever cause they are embracing. The club should be free to advocate for whatever it likes and it’s players should be free to abstain without any penalty other than public opinion. 

[Bailey]

From a footballing perspective a Gana and Doucoure midfield would make my head explode.

Lots of tackles, barely any worthwhile completed passes. 

[Palfy]

3 minutes ago, Bailey said:

From a footballing perspective a Gana and Doucoure midfield would make my head explode.

Lots of tackles, barely any worthwhile completed passes. 

And no positional sense gapping wholes all over the place as they run around chasing the ball like a couple of 5 year olds. It would be a disaster darling. 

[Romey 1878]

28 minutes ago, Bailey said:

From a footballing perspective a Gana and Doucoure midfield would make my head explode.

Lots of tackles, barely any worthwhile completed passes. 

Yep, we need a Barry type who will just sit. 

[StevO]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

And no positional sense gapping wholes all over the place as they run around chasing the ball like a couple of 5 year olds. It would be a disaster darling. 

Tactics, Palfy, tactics!!

[Btay]

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

And no positional sense gapping wholes all over the place as they run around chasing the ball like a couple of 5 year olds. It would be a disaster darling. 

It could be our best tactic. No formation just pure chaos. Hell let’s throw big Mick Keane up top while we are at it and really mind fuck the opposition.

[London Blue]

28 minutes ago, RPG said:

That is an incredibly ignorant response. The guy has genuine reservations on religious grounds which he was happy to keep to himself until forced into a corner by agenda driven zealots such as yourself who hoped to bully him into publicly supporting a position at odds with his privately held convictions.

I may or may not agree with Gueye’s views but either way, I admire him for standing up for what he believes in against the wokerati mafia. Who the bloody hell do they think they are to assume that they can speak for everyone and to try to dictate how people should think! Fuck off!

I say shame on the people who put Gueye in that position and all those with similar zealous and ignorant attitudes, including you.

There is a significant difference between someone holding a genuine religious view that homosexuality is wrong, and a person holding the same view for purely bigoted reasons, who instead of having the courage to admit they hold this view to just attack those who seek to promote equality. 

Winston Churchill for example was a racist, sexist bigot who believed people of colour were second class citizens and had no problem with the killing of them just for wanting freedom. At least he had the courage of his convictions, however immoral those convictions were.

With someone who holds a religious view that homosexuality is wrong the question of right to religious freedom vs right to a normal life and not be the victim of prejudice is a complex one, see legal arguments in the courts. 

Perhaps RPG you are not suited to genuine debate as you seem unable to grasp the finer points of philosophy, legal and societal arguments in play, you seem incapable of leaving anger and hatred behind, as demonstrated by your anti woke rant. 

I feel sorry for you  

[StevO]

If anyone still thinks this argument is about Gana they haven’t read the posts properly from the last few days. 

[Formby]

12 minutes ago, RPG said:

All he has done is to say that he can’t actively support it by wearing the shirt. 

Has he actually said anything? 

[Shukes]

My one and we not point on this argument.

Freedom of belief is a wrong attitude to take. It’s about accepting and respecting those who choose to be different, even if you do disagree. 
 

But you have to temper this with each instance. Do I accept that people want to be a different gender? Yes. 
Do I understand it? No. But i still respect it and support people who do. This is what’s wrong with Gana’s stance.

You can disagree with LGBT as much you want, but to choose not to support those people and their right to equality is a huge let down and mistake. 
 

Respect is NOT something that needs to be earned. 
 

I see you view and respect it RPG. But I also question it. If Jimmy Saville decides he wants to be a Pheadophille, do we have to respect his decision? If Gana chose (and I say chose, as I have no idea the reasons behind his stance) to treat Gay and Lesbian people differently, do we need to respect that decision?

No, because it is simply wrong and has no place in this world.

[Shukes]

Good player and on the basis of his ability, would have him back on a free.

His opinions have soured my decision though.

I also question is this where we should be heading in building our squad? Transfers so far have been at the correct end of careers. Yes we need experience, but surely we have enough in the team already.

[Formby]

11 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well he has obviously told PSG that he isn’t wearing the shirt so he has to have said something to them. His previous silence on the subject confirms his prior neutrality.

Indeed, and given that he was happy to promote alcohol and gambling on his shirt, any claims to a strict religious adherence are spurious at best.    

[Formby]

6 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Good player and on the basis of his ability, would have him back on a free.

His opinions have soured my decision though.

Agree on both.

[RuffRob]

This is the problem with big social gestures, people nowadays people can feel forced in to having to go along with them and jumping of the band wagon as part of a wider group, because if they don't they are branded as racists or bigot etc. I don't feel anybody should have to get on board personally with any sort of movement or get behind a cause if they don't really want to. 

Some people just want to keep their opinions to themselves and don't want to make 'statements' either way on any particular topic. There shouldn't be anything wrong in not wanting to championing a social or political opinion and kind of just minding your own business if that's the kind of person you are.

All movements are about cutting out hate and promoting tolerance and equality - so not tolerating people who want to keep there opinions to themselves or join in on the big gestures - becomes a form of intolerance itself. The irony. 

As quoted in the Life of Brian for the poor old hermit who just wanted to go quietly go around his own business  - 'Stone the unbeliever' 

 

Do we think Gana still has the legs to cut it in the prem?

 

[Formby]

40 minutes ago, RPG said:

Maybe to you but there are varying degrees of ‘sin’ in his faith and maybe he initially tried to stretch a point out of respect for PSG but felt this last act (particularly with PSG not even running the idea by the players beforehand) was just a bridge too far. Quran 4:31 refers.

No varying degrees with gambling and drinking alcohol. Both absolutely haram (forbidden) in Islam.

[London Blue]

1 hour ago, RuffRob said:

This is the problem with big social gestures, people nowadays people can feel forced in to having to go along with them and jumping of the band wagon as part of a wider group, because if they don't they are branded as racists or bigot etc. I don't feel anybody should have to get on board personally with any sort of movement or get behind a cause if they don't really want to. 

Some people just want to keep their opinions to themselves and don't want to make 'statements' either way on any particular topic. There shouldn't be anything wrong in not wanting to championing a social or political opinion and kind of just minding your own business if that's the kind of person you are.

All movements are about cutting out hate and promoting tolerance and equality - so not tolerating people who want to keep there opinions to themselves or join in on the big gestures - becomes a form of intolerance itself. The irony. 

As quoted in the Life of Brian for the poor old hermit who just wanted to go quietly go around his own business  - 'Stone the unbeliever' 

 

Do we think Gana still has the legs to cut it in the prem?

 

Trouble is if somebody is intolerant of intolerance does that make them intolerant. Or does tolerating intolerance therefore make somebody intolerant by failing to take a stand against it. To paraphrase MLK "Evil succeeds when good people fail to take a stand against it"

Would be happy for Gana to come back on loan on good wages, IF he has the legs for the prem.

[Wall Writer]

The question about what his beliefs are with regard to homosexuality is rather here nor there. Homosexuality is a fact, a biological fact that has been proven in many scientific studies, not just in humans, but in hundreds of species.

I don't know what his real actual position is, as all I have heard and read is hearsay on forums, social media and newsites. However, I will say this, there are unfortunately many people who still need to be educated on the difference between fact and belief.

He may not like it, he may not want to participate in it, and that is fine. In fact I'd go as far as to say that that is normal. Whether he wants to promote it, well, I guess that's up to him.

On the question of whether a person's employers, or anyone else for that matter, can tell someone them what to support or believe or promote. Well, I don't think they should have that right. People should be free to make their own educated decisions about which causes/movements they want to participate in. 

As for whether I'd have him back... No, but not for the reasons stated above. For me his age is the dissuading factor.

 

 

[Romey 1878]

Well, he's currently training alone so it looks like he will be on the move.

[Sibdane]

1 hour ago, London Blue said:

Trouble is if somebody is intolerant of intolerance does that make them intolerant. Or does tolerating intolerance therefore make somebody intolerant by failing to take a stand against it. To paraphrase MLK "Evil succeeds when good people fail to take a stand against it"

Would be happy for Gana to come back on loan on good wages, IF he has the legs for the prem.

I keep seeing “neutrality” being thrown around(other posts). Just because someone is silent doesn’t mean they are neutral. He can still be silent and support policies that are anti-LGBQ, and he doesn’t have to say a word about it to anyone. I’m not saying he’s done that, but I’m merely pointing out that not saying anything doesn’t have to mean shit. 
 

Sure, it’s within his right to think that way, but it’s not a view that is accepting of a different lifestyle(that is not a choice), and that is not okay. 

….really not looking forward to this thread coming back. 
 

[SpartyBlue]

7 minutes ago, RPG said:

There are still varying degrees and if you talk to an Islamic Scholar I am sure they will be happy to explain. It is also worth pointing out that far more press attention would be given to the Rainbow badge than ‘regular’ advertising and that may also have affected his decision.

Bottom line is that Gueye doesn’t need defending. He is well within his rights to act as he did for his own personal reasons and its nobody else's business but his own!

To try to force him to promote something that he feels morally unable to is intolerant behaviour and I thought we wanted a tolerant society - or is that only for when we agree with the wokist mafia?

I agree that in general he should not be forced to promote a cause. Though one might argue his objection is what is intolerant here. As far as it being nobody’s business but Gana’s eh… He’s a public figure making an obscene salary by the grace of the fan’s that support his club. If he personally gets less support because of his views and it effects his career negatively than to some degree that’s just the way the system works.

I’d be curious to know how these things work contractually. For instance he wouldn’t be able to say that a gambling advert goes against his beliefs and so he’s not going to wear it on his jersey. I’m not sure if that applies to other badges and such.

The “well within my rights” thing isn’t really the point. I’m well within my rights to believe I am the messiah or to be against interracial marriage or any number of other things. That I’m free to believe these things does not absolve me from criticism. Nobody is saying he can’t have an opinion, just that it’s a disagreeable one.

“Woke” has been twisted into a dirty word for political purposes (the same way liberal has) but all it’s supposed to mean is someone who strives to be enlightened. I can agree that at times people who would describe themselves that way are overzealous but it’s not the cutting insult some people seem to think it is. 

[SpartyBlue]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

But you see, this is the whole crux of the issue. What right have you, I or anyone to say that Gueye’s decision not to support LGBT is a mistake? To him, it is the right thing to do and if we are really going to respect each other’s right to diversity then we have to respect his right to that opinion. I believe he did respect the LGBT community by keeping his beliefs to himself until PSG put him in a very difficult position. Once PSG did that, Gueye had no choice but he still, I believe, behaved respectfully by simply declining his active support - which is very different to actively speaking out against LGBT.

By this logic nobody is allowed to make a moral judgement on another’s actions. If I know a person who is clearly a racist I have no right to judge their decision as a mistake?  Sure I do. We get to make those decisions for ourselves based on our own morality. 

[SpartyBlue]

4 minutes ago, RPG said:

Neutrality, in the way I used it was referenced to his actions (or chosen lack of actions) and what he may think is nobody else’s business. PSG denied him the opportunity to continue to act neutrally by forcing the issue. He then had no choice other than to refuse to wear the shirt. PSG handled this very badly, not Gueye.

Of course he had a choice.