.It has been so sad to see so many unthinking blerts on RAWK of late in regard to posting about Liverpool 'legends' taking jobs in Saudi Arabia - defending the 'legends' by spouting uninformed utter bollocks, or giving some bad Tory-like reasoning as excuses for them choosing to be poster boys for a brutal oppressive regime and its latest sportswashing project.
As well as the usual lazy whataboutery, attacking others to try to defend those Liverpool 'legends', incorrect and false-equivalent claims of '
you'd take the money too', and also mocking fellow Reds for highlighting these issues or voicing their opinion on those former Liverpool players with shite like
"stop bleating on",
"get off your moral high horse", or
"you hypocrites".
For those of us tired of typing out the same thing again and again in reply to those who obviously haven't actually read through the threads before posting, and just want to post their one-line whilst mistakenly thinking RAWK is twitter or facebook... here are a few 'templates' that may be of use, as some info to point to, or maybe give just a little food for thought...
On
whataboutery in recent discussions on sportswashing...
That Britain or "the West" does this, that, the other - or 'are just as bad, if not worse' than Saudi
(or Qatar etc). Yes, Britain / 'The West' has many faults, and has a lot of apologising to do for past deeds, for sure.
Yet that is not the issue being discussed here.
Nor does it mean that people in Britain, or people from 'the West', are somehow being hypocritical in highlighting countries with appalling human rights abuses - and show little-to-no appetite for change. Just as it doesn't mean that immigrant workers, their families, or people n general from... India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines, and from the African continent shouldn't. Or people from "the East" - or anywhere else - including human rights organisations, charities, and media on the ground... cannot somehow criticise Saudi and Qatar, or highlight their experiences and opinions too.
Or more simply...Henderson decides to be a poster boy for the sportswashing project of a vicious, human rights abusing, and murderous regime - to make himself more massively wealthy.
Yet anyone criticising Henderson for doing so is deemed a hypocrite.
(Because... "the West", or "British Govt does X", or "you buy products from Saudi"... or something)Um... How does that work again?
For anyone using
whataboutism or
whataboutery when discussing a particular issue...
'
The Danger Of 'WhatAbout-ism" arguments, by John Oliver' - a 3 minute video:-
<![CDATA[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/RS82JNd0YzQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/RS82JNd0YzQ</a>]]>^
or click here to watch - www.youtube.com/v/RS82JNd0YzQ'
Whataboutism explained (explainity® explainer video)' - a 3 minute video -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG5IzHQ0SMM<![CDATA[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/bG5IzHQ0SMM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/bG5IzHQ0SMM</a>]]>^
or click here to watch - www.youtube.com/v/bG5IzHQ0SMMDictionary.com definition - with some chat and examples of whatabout-ism, here -
www.dictionary.com/e/whataboutismsThere is a more detailed article
(and also report) on it, here -
www.hrw.org/news/2018/03/01/engaging-whataboutery-instead-protecting-rightsOn
moral high grounds, and
high horses, and
virtue signalling etc...
"bleating on", on a "moral high horse", "hypocrites because of Britain/West's past", "Islamophobic", "showcasing their morality", "virtue signalling", or are "Amazing how many here are separated from reality.", "going berserk at the players", on "their high horse thinking there saints", "racists", or "trying to act superior", "morals of saints", or are "hell bent" on taking "a moral stance", "virtue signalling", "holier than thou’ idiots on here", "showcasing their morality" and "people on this board who rarely follow through on your feeling with action", "Idiots lambasting Henderson would the first to run all the fucking way to Saudi if they were offered that kind of money. The utter hypocrisy in this thread is par for the course actually" etc...
^ just some of the utter shite posted by some on here in recent weeks... posted to / at fellow Reds who have highlighted their disappointment or disdain with some Liverpool 'legends' opting to taking the blood-stained money of brutal despotic regime to go be their poster boys for this latest sportswashing project. Some of us on RAWK have been highlighting what has, and is, taking place in Saudi
(and Qatar) for some time now - in the 'Saudi/Qatar sportswashing' threads, 'UEFA/FIFA', inaction against sportswashing, the cheats like City + their owners, and the '2022 World Cup in Qatar' threads etc.
If you are one of those people who have issues with us criticising former
(or current) Liverpool players sportswashing for one of the countries with the most appalling human rights abuses on the planet, one that executes women and children, gay people for... being gay, and who have actually increased the number of executions in recent years, dismembers journalists via assassination squads, tortures women and children until they confess to crimes they did not commit, for this totalitarian oppressive regime...
then you're a c*nt. To be clear, you're not just acting as an apologist for the brutal oppressive regime that is Saudi Arabia, but you're also a c*nt. - as the mods want a more civil tone......on this left-leaning football site, for this left-leaning football club, representing the left-leaning city of Liverpool... where many fans are from - or fans from all over the world share those beliefs and values... then perhaps you'd be better off on another forum? Or supporting another team? Sportswashers Man City are on the lookout for more fans and would gladly accept and embrace you. Utd too. And you'll likely be more at home on Blue Moon or RedCafe than on here, anyway. Or in some cases, simply go back to the PR troll farm
(Hi Portland), or back to the village that is obviously missing its resident idiot. Or go support Chelsea? As trying to shit on fellow fans highlighting these and other issues, is indeed bad Tory behaviour.
On the continued
"you'd all take the money too" claims...
No, as demonstrated in many of the Gerrard, Firmino, and Fowler threads
(and now Henderson & Fabinho threads too) - as well as the 'Saudi sportswashing', 'UEFA/FIFA', and the '2022 World Cup in Qatar' threads etc over considerable time... you'll find a number of fans who have turned down the opportunity to go work in Saudi or Qatar etc. Some for big money - some for 3/4/5 times what their usual annual wage is - and yet still refused.
None of us who have refused these jobs are millionaires and already set set up for life many times over like Gerrard, Bobby and Fowler are (before they decided to go be the poster boys for sportswashing project by a brutal, oppressive, human rights abusing regime). Not everyone is "money first", or "money over morals" - try not to judge or generalise others as having the same outlook as yourself. So when some on here continue to post "you'd take the money too, if offered" - you are not only wrong, but are also obviously offering a false equivalency too.
If you are somehow offended or triggered by others... who believe there is more to life than accumulating wealth, and who have refused to work out there for x4/5 their annual wage... yet you wish to denigrate, chide, or mock them in some way - that reaction may be indicating something about you - far more than it does about them. More bad Tory behaviour too.
On "I don't think politics and sport should mix - so you guys should shut up"...Everyone would probably appreciate things being more simplistic in sport - yet the reality is quite different and this has always been the case...
(all credit to Titi)
A reminder too that human rights are not political. Sportswashing is. Promoting or endorsing sportswashing is. Defending sportswashing is. Being one of the 'faces' for sportswashing is.
On
Saudi Arabia...
A few on here have posted about Britain's and "the West"'s past actions around the world as some sort of defence or false equivalency for Saudi being a brutal oppressive regime and its recent and current human rights abuses. In fact, if you were to post online that the Saudi theocratic government had/were committed atrocities, in a similar / same equivocation, you would likely face lengthy imprisonment upon arrival in Saudi...
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/16/saudi-woman-given-34-year-prison-sentence-for-using-twitter (2022) - free Salma al-Shehab.
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/saudi-arabia-us-citizen-prison-critical-tweets-regime (2023) - free Saad Ibrahim Almadi.
'
Rate of executions in Saudi Arabia almost doubles under Mohammed bin Salman':-
Last six years among bloodiest in kingdom’s modern history despite push to modernisewww.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/01/executions-in-saudi-arabia-almost-double-under-mohammed-bin-salman (2023)
a brief snippet...'Between 2015 and 2022, an average of 129 executions were carried out each year. The figure represents an 82% increase on the period 2010-14. Last year, 147 people were executed – 90 of them for crimes that were considered to be nonviolent.
On 12 March last year, up to 81 men were put to death – an all-time high number of executions, in what activists believe was a pointed message from the Saudi leadership to dissenters, among them tribal groups in the country’s eastern provinces.
“The death penalty is routinely used for non-lethal offences and to silence dissidents and protesters, despite promises by the crown prince that executions would only be used for murder,” it added. “Fair trial violations and torture are endemic in death penalty cases, including torture of child defendants.”
The kingdom is considered one of the leading exponents of capital punishment in the region, with only Iran thought to execute more people a year. In the last six years there have also been slight increases in numbers of executions of children, women and foreign nationals, as well as mass executions and executions for non-lethal offences. A moratorium on capital punishment for drug crimes was recently lifted.'
UN rights experts denounce planned Saudi executions of megacity opponentsThree members of Huwaitat tribe face execution, reportedly for opposition to Neom projectwww.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/03/un-rights-experts-denounce-planned-saudi-executions (2023)
a brief snippet'They also demanded that Saudi authorities investigate allegations that some of the detainees had been tortured to extract confessions, and review their sentences.
“Any statement that is proven to have been made as a result of torture is inadmissible in any proceedings,” they said.
The experts also raised concerns about the Neom project as a whole, amid accusations from rights groups of serious abuses being committed.
Saudi authorities are allegedly illegally displacing Huwaitat tribe members from their homes in three villages, often without adequate compensation, and violently cracking down on those who peacefully oppose or resist eviction.
In 2020, a Huwaitat tribe member was shot dead after he refused to give up his land for the project.
“These actions would certainly amount to forced evictions, which are prohibited under international law as a violation of the right to adequate housing,” the experts said.
“The actions also constitute flagrant violations of the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.”
Any companies, including foreign investors, involved in the project should “ensure they are not causing or contributing … serious human rights abuses”, the experts said.'
On the assassination of James Khashoggi at the Saudi Cinsualte in Istanbul in 2018...
Jamal Khashoggi - murder in the consulate':
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/21/death-of-dissident-jamal-khashoggi-mohammed-bin-salman (2018)Jamal Khashoggi - All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45812399 (2021)Jamal Khashoggi - How journalist met his death inside Saudi consulate:
https://news.sky.com/story/jamal-khashoggi-how-journalist-met-his-death-11522641 (2021)Saudis behind NSO spyware attack on Khashoggi’s family:
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/nso-spyware-used-to-target-family-of-jamal-khashoggi-leaked-data-shows-saudis-pegasus (2021)US intelligence report finds MBS responsible for approving operation that killed Khashoggi:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics/biden-administration-khashoggi-report/index.html (2021)Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggia little more information...www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/saudi-arabia/safety-and-security &
www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/saudi-arabia/local-laws-and-customs (UK Govt)
www.ohchr.org/en/countries/saudi-arabia (The UN)
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136322 (UN alarmed over ‘imminent executions’ in Saudi Arabia)
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/saudi-arabia (US State Dept)
www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabiawww.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabiawww.amnesty.org.uk/saudi-arabia-human-rights-raif-badawi-king-salmanhttps://freedomhouse.org/country/saudi-arabia/freedom-world/2022https://www.fidh.org/en/region/north-africa-middle-east/saudi-arabia (IFfHR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_ArabiaSportswashing works... on some... unfortunately. As demonstrated by those any unthinking blerts on RAWK of late... spouting uninformed, cliché ridden, utter bollocks... in an attempt to mock, castigate and ridicule others for speaking up and highlighting these issues... and then yet still repeating their factually incorrect and long-disproven claims, ad nauseum.
^ The poster boys for the latest Saudi sportswashing project of a brutal, oppressive, human rights abusing, journalist dismembering, women and child torturing, regime...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.'
Football clubs were born to represent communities and fans, not owners' - by Jonathan Wilson:-
As multi-club ownership shows, the game, especially in England, has lost sight of the notion of football as a civic goodwww.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/jul/01/football-clubs-communities-fans-owners
a snippet...'What is a football club? It’s one of those questions that seem simple but turn out to be extremely difficult to give an answer to. Not all clubs are the same, and not all people will view a club in the same way, but – and this is perhaps especially true in an age in which it’s becoming more common for a single entity to own multiple clubs – it’s probably worth trying to define what a club is, or what we want it to be, as part of working out the direction it would be desirable for football to go.
The first clubs were established in the mid-to-late 19th century for members who wished to play. Gradually it became apparent that people were willing to pay to watch, but these were not neutral spectators as might be found at the theatre or the concert hall; rather they were partisan, exposing the enduring myth that football is an entertainment.
By 1882, when hundreds of fans travelled south to support Blackburn Rovers in the FA Cup final, clubs had become emblems of local pride, something confirmed the following year as thousands turned out to welcome Blackburn Olympic home after they became the first northern side to win the FA Cup.
Provincial self-assertion was the great driver of early football as factory owners and mine bosses funded clubs from the industrial cities of the north and Midlands, looking to elevate their home through football. Or, more cynically, they recognised a means of keeping the masses quiescent: far cheaper (and more fun) to pluck a gifted centre-forward from Scotland than to raise wages or improve working conditions.
But that led to a disconnect – in England at least – that has never really been reconciled, which is that clubs represent people who do not own them. It would be misleading to portray the days when owners were unctuous local spivs or gravel-voiced haulage magnates as a golden age, but two things ensured they were, at least to an extent, run for the good of their communities. First, gate receipts were by far the greatest source of income for clubs, so there was a need to ensure there was something happening on the pitch worth watching. Second, until 1981 dividends were capped at 7.5% and no director could be paid by the club. Clubs were not seen as profit-making entities.'
