X Close

In defence of Harry Kane Not all activism amounts to virtue-signalling


November 25, 2022   5 mins

Poor Harry Kane, roundly mocked for almost-but-not-quite wearing his One Love rainbow armband in support of lesbian, gay and trans people during England’s first game in Qatar on Monday. Attacked on the one hand by various curmudgeons for “self-serving virtue signalling” and ”hollow pieties”, he was then criticised by those well-known bleeding heart-types Roy Keane and Ray Winstone for capitulating in the face of a threatened booking from Fifa.

Generally, the public mood on armbands and bent knees seems to be split. There are those who assume every organised public gesture in the name of human rights must be altruistically intentioned and beneficial. And then there are those who dismiss all such gestures as self-interested attempts to gain social capital. The relation between the two looks symbiotic: the more enthusiastically the first group don flags, lanyards, and armbands, the more obstinately the second group insists there is nothing but self-promotion at the end of this particular rainbow.

Prospects of a more nuanced take aren’t helped by Left-wing lip service to universal human rights, combined in practice with squeamishness about saying anything robust in their favour which might exacerbate racial or non-Christian religious sensitivities. One only has to compare the relatively muted and qualified response of Stonewall to the stabbing-to-death of three gay men in Reading in 2021 (perpetrator: a militant Libyan asylum seeker with a history of violence) to last week’s impassioned response to a US shooting in a gay nightclub  (perpetrator: a white American with a history of threatening to blow up his mum’s house — although, in an inconvenient plot twist, he has since come out as non-binary).

Apart from leaving the stage clear for Right-wing commentators to claim the divisive spoils, the Left’s squeamishness about cultural insensitivity also entails that activist gestures are most plentiful in the contexts where they are least needed. The safest space for full-throated political activism is apparently one where you can rely on the audience’s proximity to your own values, not to mention their repressed politeness and fear of being judged as the bad people. Many tolerant people in the UK are by now very fed up with all the needless hectoring and guilt-tripping.

This hectoring reaches its apotheosis during the annual farce of Transgender Day of Remembrance in the UK. Nagged into it by Stonewall and other transactivist organisations, last week various institutions fell over themselves to mark the murders of precisely zero UK trans people during the previous year with various fulsome tributes. Perhaps imaginatively accompanied by visions of the Last Post bleakly ringing out over the Somme, the Welsh Parliament even dramatically tweeted out: “Today, we remember the trans individuals who have lived, loved, fought and fallen.”

Yet for UK political institutions to address a major factor in the majority of trans murders worldwide — working in the sex trade — not only would they have to address male violence and sex-buying, they would also have to take a public stand in some extremely macho and homophobic cultures overseas. Much easier, then, to put all such deaths down to amorphous “transphobia” and then return to the main task of leveraging irrational guilt out of soft-touch Lefties for the purposes of cash extraction and power consolidation.

But those on the Right should not think themselves off the hook either. On the side of those fulminating on Twitter about Kane’s supposed virtue-signalling were various socially conservative and post-liberal types, disapproving of the arrogance involved in imposing Western values on the Qatari nation. This position was, perhaps inadvertently, well-summed up by French captain Hugo Lloris. “When we are in France, when we welcome foreigners, we often want them to follow our rules, to respect our culture, and I will do the same when I go to Qatar, quite simply,” he said last week. “I can agree or disagree with their ideas, but I have to show respect.”

It’s likely Lloris said this for the sake of an easy life. But a growing number these days seem relatively uncritical — even occasionally offering qualified approval — of authoritarian regimes, partly because they are distinctly disillusioned with Western liberalism. Specifically, they are tired with the way that the internal logic of liberalism apparently results in endless quests for new forms of “freedom” — religious, sexual, bodily, and so on — with the result that traditional social structures such as marriage, the family, and local community have been undermined. Whereas many liberals on both the Left and Right would present things such as the advent of the Pill, no-fault divorce, commercial surrogacy, and rampant bodily modification as having no downsides whatsoever, post-liberals tend to be much more focused on what has been lost in terms of social cohesion and stability, and also upon the apparent moral and spiritual emptiness of what replaces it.

I’m not saying that these critics of liberalism would admire a country partly run under Sharia law. I’m suggesting, rather, that keen awareness of the limits of the dominant Western political model tends to make one less likely to criticise more authoritarian alternatives. And yet, no one should kid himself that failing to object vociferously to the imprisonment of gay men, or to the forcing of women to be dependent on male guardians for all their major life decisions, is a simple mark of respect for a less fractured and narcissistic culture than our own. Unless an unabashed cultural relativist, even the most post of the post-libs should acknowledge that personal autonomy — in the basic sense of being able to choose what you do — is a universally important moral and political value, whatever else is also valuable.

This seems to be well-recognised with respect to the past, with leading post-liberal writers such as Patrick Deneen rightly decrying slavery. Qatari women and sexual minorities, living in the here and now, deserve no less a defence. Radical feminists have long complained of the tendency of liberal feminists to go suspiciously quiet when it comes to the authoritarian repression of women in non-Western cultures or minority communities. Post-liberals must not make the same mistake. And nor should they tell themselves that Qatari women don’t know what they are missing. It might be true that women in medieval England couldn’t miss what they didn’t know they didn’t have — but unlike them, Qatari women have at least some access to the internet.

Another source of reluctance to intervene here might be a general scepticism about the notion of human rights. Certainly, there’s no need to be credulous about every audaciously solipsistic claim made in the name of the “rights” of an identity group. It’s also reasonable, in my view, to have a relatively pared down account of what human rights actually are: not quasi-religious edicts coming down to us from some mysterious ethical realm on high, but rather requirements derived from basic and universal human needs, articulated in terms of the minimum standard required for well-being and not the maximum. We can argue about whether free movement across the globe is a human right in this sense, but it would be difficult to argue that free movement around your own village is not.

So, though it’s a shame that Kane eventually bottled it, I think it’s great that he initially wanted to take a public stand in Qatar. Despite what Piers Morgan thinks, whether a gesture like armband-wearing counts as “virtue-signalling” surely depends on the context. Within relatively progressive enclaves in the UK, public gestures in favour of values most people already hold there are superfluous — and the primary motive for them does indeed start to look like a desire to show off your moral superiority rather than to tackle the political non-issue in question.

But in profoundly illiberal Qatar, things are very different. I see no reason not to take any armband-wearing over there as a sincere and admirable attempt to speak up for the rights of oppressed others, and it seems to me highly uncharitable to take it any other way. Hell, never mind Qatar — in UK football, things are also very different. As is well-known, there are almost certainly gay players in the Premier League but none who will dare come out publicly, so great is the stigma. In either of these contexts, then — despite the critics — a rainbow armband or two is surely a wonderful thing.


Kathleen Stock is an UnHerd columnist and a co-director of The Lesbian Project.
Docstockk

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

61 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

I enjoy Kathleen’s essays and follow her Substack but this isn’t very coherent.

“that personal autonomy — in the basic sense of being able to choose what you do — is a universally important moral and political value, whatever else is also valuable.”

Isn’t this the crux of the culture war? There have to be boundaries on our personal autonomy for a society to function. Who sets the boundaries, by what criteria, is what’s being fought out.

For example

“As is well-known, there are almost certainly gay players in the Premier League but none who will dare come out publicly, so great is the stigma.”

I can be pretty sure in the 400 or so players in the premier league there would be more than a few (probably more than there are gay players) who didn’t want to take the knee, but “who didn’t dare come out so great is the stigma.”

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The Rosetta stone that makes it coherent is that as far as she’s concerned, trans activism bad, gay activism good. So personal autonomy (meaning the right to be gay) must be a universal value while personal autonomy (meaning the right to be a woman when you’ve got non-standard equipment for the job) somehow isn’t.

And re gay players in the premier league, this was interesting: https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-gay-is-soccer/

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

Great link, thanks

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

Unz unz unz unz unz unz unz
Und zem zem zem zem zem zem zem zem
Und in ze end, ve’re just aryan supermen.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

Great link, thanks

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

Unz unz unz unz unz unz unz
Und zem zem zem zem zem zem zem zem
Und in ze end, ve’re just aryan supermen.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

You can be sure how? Do you know these premier league players? Is this like your anti-woke grandkids and their hero mum forcing apologies from lefty teachers? Because that was pretty awesome!

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Oh it’s my pal, the troll from the grievance studies department. Lovely to know I’m getting that far under your skin.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

You get under my skin about as much as your warrior daughter made that woke teacher apologize!
But why don’t you tell us all about how much you know about premier league players and what they think? Try to bear in mind that this is a highly diverse and multicultural group of young men – not exactly your demographic…

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

You get under my skin about as much as your warrior daughter made that woke teacher apologize!
But why don’t you tell us all about how much you know about premier league players and what they think? Try to bear in mind that this is a highly diverse and multicultural group of young men – not exactly your demographic…

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“You can be sure how? ”
It’s pretty simple
The proportion of people who don’t support taking the knee is quite high among football supporters given how many booed it (as a brown skinned person who regularly visits stadiums, I can vouch that racism is non existent btw).

Football players come from largely working class backgrounds similar to fans.

There is obvious pressure to force players to take the knee

Hence the obvious conclusion. Obvious to all except those whose brain cells are subservient to the need to support the next right thing.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

What proportion of fans booed?
If racism is non-existent where did the racial abuse aimed the black players who missed their penalties last summer come from?
Why do you think the working class don’t support the fight against racism.
The obvious conclusion is that you draw conclusions with zero facts to back them up and are therefore probably a conservative.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“What proportion of fans booed?”
78%.
Ask dumb questions, get dumb answers.

“Why do you think the working class don’t support the fight against racism.”
Facepalm.
Again, kindly read this slowly so that you understand:
1. There is no racism in English football. I know that much better than you, as an Indian immigrant who has travelled across grounds.
2. Even if there was, BLM style taking the knee is NOT “fighting” against racism.
3. The elite, liberal class is actually far more truly racist than the working class.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

So a few fans boo taking the knee – you have no idea how many – and you draw the conclusion that football fans don’t support the players doing it. Interesting.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Now, if you want to see England fans booing then check out yesterday’s pathetic efforts by their boys and the reaction to it!!! Or maybe you think that was some delayed booing from the players taking the knee two hours earlier?!?!?

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

So a few fans boo taking the knee – you have no idea how many – and you draw the conclusion that football fans don’t support the players doing it. Interesting.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Now, if you want to see England fans booing then check out yesterday’s pathetic efforts by their boys and the reaction to it!!! Or maybe you think that was some delayed booing from the players taking the knee two hours earlier?!?!?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“What proportion of fans booed?”
78%.
Ask dumb questions, get dumb answers.

“Why do you think the working class don’t support the fight against racism.”
Facepalm.
Again, kindly read this slowly so that you understand:
1. There is no racism in English football. I know that much better than you, as an Indian immigrant who has travelled across grounds.
2. Even if there was, BLM style taking the knee is NOT “fighting” against racism.
3. The elite, liberal class is actually far more truly racist than the working class.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

What proportion of fans booed?
If racism is non-existent where did the racial abuse aimed the black players who missed their penalties last summer come from?
Why do you think the working class don’t support the fight against racism.
The obvious conclusion is that you draw conclusions with zero facts to back them up and are therefore probably a conservative.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Oh it’s my pal, the troll from the grievance studies department. Lovely to know I’m getting that far under your skin.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“You can be sure how? ”
It’s pretty simple
The proportion of people who don’t support taking the knee is quite high among football supporters given how many booed it (as a brown skinned person who regularly visits stadiums, I can vouch that racism is non existent btw).

Football players come from largely working class backgrounds similar to fans.

There is obvious pressure to force players to take the knee

Hence the obvious conclusion. Obvious to all except those whose brain cells are subservient to the need to support the next right thing.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

If you want to read a really good article on the topic with far less bias, read Julie Birchill on spiked.

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

The Rosetta stone that makes it coherent is that as far as she’s concerned, trans activism bad, gay activism good. So personal autonomy (meaning the right to be gay) must be a universal value while personal autonomy (meaning the right to be a woman when you’ve got non-standard equipment for the job) somehow isn’t.

And re gay players in the premier league, this was interesting: https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-gay-is-soccer/

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

You can be sure how? Do you know these premier league players? Is this like your anti-woke grandkids and their hero mum forcing apologies from lefty teachers? Because that was pretty awesome!

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

If you want to read a really good article on the topic with far less bias, read Julie Birchill on spiked.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

I enjoy Kathleen’s essays and follow her Substack but this isn’t very coherent.

“that personal autonomy — in the basic sense of being able to choose what you do — is a universally important moral and political value, whatever else is also valuable.”

Isn’t this the crux of the culture war? There have to be boundaries on our personal autonomy for a society to function. Who sets the boundaries, by what criteria, is what’s being fought out.

For example

“As is well-known, there are almost certainly gay players in the Premier League but none who will dare come out publicly, so great is the stigma.”

I can be pretty sure in the 400 or so players in the premier league there would be more than a few (probably more than there are gay players) who didn’t want to take the knee, but “who didn’t dare come out so great is the stigma.”

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“I see no reason not to take any armband-wearing over there as a sincere and admirable “
Or maybe just don’t go.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Exactly. God forbid that there should be a price to pay for moral rectitude. Didn’t we use to take it for granted?

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

The people that voted for Boris Johnson are talking about “moral rectitude”?!?!?! Or maybe you are more of a Trump guy?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“The people that voted for Boris Johnson are talking about “moral rectitude Or maybe you are more of a Trump guy?”
Graeme, Graeme, Graeme…
The majority of the people who didn’t voted for Trump voted for Biden, Hillary, the California mafia and co.
The majority of people who didn’t vote for Boris voted for the SNP fascists or the labour camp full of anti semites, and the vote banks of Rochdale, Rotherham…

Being in that camp doesn’t make you look quite as nice as you think, believe me.

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“SNP fascists”??!?!?
LOL! That’s pretty good! Almost as funny as thinking that Trump and Johnson are models of moral rectitude..

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Try reading the definition of fascism, mate.
Go on.
It might surprise you.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I looked and there was just a picture of Nicola Sturgeon with a funny little moustache!
Not really – that was be almost stupid as describing the SNP as fascists. Who would be that dumb?

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I looked and there was just a picture of Nicola Sturgeon with a funny little moustache!
Not really – that was be almost stupid as describing the SNP as fascists. Who would be that dumb?

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

Try reading the definition of fascism, mate.
Go on.
It might surprise you.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

“SNP fascists”??!?!?
LOL! That’s pretty good! Almost as funny as thinking that Trump and Johnson are models of moral rectitude..

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

“The people that voted for Boris Johnson are talking about “moral rectitude Or maybe you are more of a Trump guy?”
Graeme, Graeme, Graeme…
The majority of the people who didn’t voted for Trump voted for Biden, Hillary, the California mafia and co.
The majority of people who didn’t vote for Boris voted for the SNP fascists or the labour camp full of anti semites, and the vote banks of Rochdale, Rotherham…

Being in that camp doesn’t make you look quite as nice as you think, believe me.

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

The people that voted for Boris Johnson are talking about “moral rectitude”?!?!?! Or maybe you are more of a Trump guy?

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Just don’t go? This isn’t a holiday trip but a vitally important part of these footballers’ careers, and they have been put in a hopelessly difficult position by the greedy snouts who run international football in their own no doubt corrupt interests. Nobody, on the other hand, is insisting that businessmen who deal with the shadier cultures of the world in the interests of *their* careers should wear armbands, or make gestures that will lead to their immediate disadvantage.

I am normally instantly against the sort of performative lollygaggery that leads to people kneeling in support of an unexamined campaign of ‘equity’, but in this instance our millionaire young representatives have been hard done by, and are trying their best to make sense of it all.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

No it’s not a holiday, it’s a career choice.
“trying their best to make sense of it all.”
Whats so difficult?

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

What’s so difficult? Kathleen Stock has put together a series of cogent arguments and counter arguments. If it wasn’t “difficult” she needn’t have bothered.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

What’s so difficult? Kathleen Stock has put together a series of cogent arguments and counter arguments. If it wasn’t “difficult” she needn’t have bothered.

MJ Reid
MJ Reid
1 year ago

If all the players in the “Western world” refused to go to Qatar because of the human rights abuses that happen in the country, the World Cup would have been cancelled. But if the countries taking part along with all the football managers who provide players had objected when Qatar was picked “from the hat”, this discussion would not be taking place. They all need to grow a pair and make a real stand for human rights for all humans, including Qatari women and foreign workers. Or do what they did here go along with it and shut up as they are all complicit…

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

No it’s not a holiday, it’s a career choice.
“trying their best to make sense of it all.”
Whats so difficult?

Last edited 1 year ago by Brett H
MJ Reid
MJ Reid
1 year ago

If all the players in the “Western world” refused to go to Qatar because of the human rights abuses that happen in the country, the World Cup would have been cancelled. But if the countries taking part along with all the football managers who provide players had objected when Qatar was picked “from the hat”, this discussion would not be taking place. They all need to grow a pair and make a real stand for human rights for all humans, including Qatari women and foreign workers. Or do what they did here go along with it and shut up as they are all complicit…

John Tumilty
John Tumilty
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Maybe the FA could have decided not to send a team. But no of course the players need to be moral crusaders.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

That would be awkward. What next, stop buying their oil, stop taking those millions of well paid jobs going to westerners, stop making billions in arms sales…

Clarence Clemons
Clarence Clemons
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It’s laughable that a grown man’s idea of protest is an arm band, especially when standing on the graves of dead construction workers. Even more laughable is him being too scared to wear it on the pitch.
Harry Kane may just about have the intellect of a small child, and accordingly should be seen and not heard

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Exactly. God forbid that there should be a price to pay for moral rectitude. Didn’t we use to take it for granted?

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Just don’t go? This isn’t a holiday trip but a vitally important part of these footballers’ careers, and they have been put in a hopelessly difficult position by the greedy snouts who run international football in their own no doubt corrupt interests. Nobody, on the other hand, is insisting that businessmen who deal with the shadier cultures of the world in the interests of *their* careers should wear armbands, or make gestures that will lead to their immediate disadvantage.

I am normally instantly against the sort of performative lollygaggery that leads to people kneeling in support of an unexamined campaign of ‘equity’, but in this instance our millionaire young representatives have been hard done by, and are trying their best to make sense of it all.

John Tumilty
John Tumilty
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Maybe the FA could have decided not to send a team. But no of course the players need to be moral crusaders.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

That would be awkward. What next, stop buying their oil, stop taking those millions of well paid jobs going to westerners, stop making billions in arms sales…

Clarence Clemons
Clarence Clemons
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It’s laughable that a grown man’s idea of protest is an arm band, especially when standing on the graves of dead construction workers. Even more laughable is him being too scared to wear it on the pitch.
Harry Kane may just about have the intellect of a small child, and accordingly should be seen and not heard

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

“I see no reason not to take any armband-wearing over there as a sincere and admirable “
Or maybe just don’t go.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

“And then there are those who dismiss all such gestures as self-interested attempts to gain social capital.”
And those of us who think that they are right.
Few things in this world are clear cut, but this is one of ’em.

Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Perhaps the “Day of Transgender Remembrance”should be renamed Remembering My True Self Before This Bullsh*t Day.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Perhaps the “Day of Transgender Remembrance”should be renamed Remembering My True Self Before This Bullsh*t Day.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

“And then there are those who dismiss all such gestures as self-interested attempts to gain social capital.”
And those of us who think that they are right.
Few things in this world are clear cut, but this is one of ’em.

Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

So, in the world of woke, on the one hand assertion of cultural superiority is bad. We must atone for our historical sins by taking the knee, decolonialising, perhaps paying reparations. Qatar, though, is a society that doesn’t view maximal personal autonomy as an overall good. In this case, marching in and asserting our cultural superiority is a good thing. Perhaps we’re now at the stage of post-post-colonialism. For what it’s worth, I’m with Lloris. When in Rome…

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Just like the England team gave the Nazi salute in 1935. I bet you would have loved that!

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

1938.
1935 was Germany in England, no salute, protests by anti German activists though.

Also, the “rioters” at the US “insurrection” had no guns, and (unlike the BLM “protests”) no innocent or policemen were killed.

I know, unrelated, just thought I would clear two egregious misconceptions in your mind at the same time. Saves time.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Actually 1936.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

I seem to recall 1936 was when the Brits pissed off the great man by showing him the absolute lack of respect that he deserved.
Berlin 1938 was when they threw their toys out at the prospect of a repeat…

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The Olympics were in Berlin in 1936. That’s when an English team might have given a Nazi salute.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Maybe. To be honest, I am not an expert, but a Google check shows 1938 was when the English footy team was forced to salute. And they were mightily annoyed about it, none of the empty virtue signalling of this ages.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

Maybe. To be honest, I am not an expert, but a Google check shows 1938 was when the English footy team was forced to salute. And they were mightily annoyed about it, none of the empty virtue signalling of this ages.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

The Olympics were in Berlin in 1936. That’s when an English team might have given a Nazi salute.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  harry storm

I seem to recall 1936 was when the Brits pissed off the great man by showing him the absolute lack of respect that he deserved.
Berlin 1938 was when they threw their toys out at the prospect of a repeat…

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Actually 1936.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

It hardly needs saying that the personal insult is contemptible and odious, and the implied comparison between Qatar and Nazi Germany is, let’s say, a bit extreme. But, if you could lay off the offensive trolling, you do make an intelligent point, which I’ll respond to. It was 1938, by the way.
There is a difference between being forced to make an explicit gesture in support of a regime (Nazi salute) and making a symbolic gesture to try to distance yourself from one (One Love armband). So, for example (and without implying any moral equivalence with Nazi Germany), if Qatar were forcing players to affirm that there is one God named Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, there would a strong case to object on grounds of conscience. But they’re not.  They simply expect people to respect their standards and obey their laws. If you find the standards and laws objectionable, don’t go. Those who choose to go shouldn’t then make a public display of symbols that are offensive in that country.
In both incidents, the pass was sold long before the players arrived, although the players ended up being the public face of a situation they wouldn’t have chosen.  And what causes so much outcry is the hypocrisy of the stances being taken. All those FIFA executives, TV companies, pundits and officials who have taken Qatari money or profited somehow have made their accommodation with the regime. Pleading and armbands make no difference at all.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Excellent point. And your last sentence – one should add they also cost nothing at all as well. Which is the point.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Excellent point. And your last sentence – one should add they also cost nothing at all as well. Which is the point.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

1938.
1935 was Germany in England, no salute, protests by anti German activists though.

Also, the “rioters” at the US “insurrection” had no guns, and (unlike the BLM “protests”) no innocent or policemen were killed.

I know, unrelated, just thought I would clear two egregious misconceptions in your mind at the same time. Saves time.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

It hardly needs saying that the personal insult is contemptible and odious, and the implied comparison between Qatar and Nazi Germany is, let’s say, a bit extreme. But, if you could lay off the offensive trolling, you do make an intelligent point, which I’ll respond to. It was 1938, by the way.
There is a difference between being forced to make an explicit gesture in support of a regime (Nazi salute) and making a symbolic gesture to try to distance yourself from one (One Love armband). So, for example (and without implying any moral equivalence with Nazi Germany), if Qatar were forcing players to affirm that there is one God named Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, there would a strong case to object on grounds of conscience. But they’re not.  They simply expect people to respect their standards and obey their laws. If you find the standards and laws objectionable, don’t go. Those who choose to go shouldn’t then make a public display of symbols that are offensive in that country.
In both incidents, the pass was sold long before the players arrived, although the players ended up being the public face of a situation they wouldn’t have chosen.  And what causes so much outcry is the hypocrisy of the stances being taken. All those FIFA executives, TV companies, pundits and officials who have taken Qatari money or profited somehow have made their accommodation with the regime. Pleading and armbands make no difference at all.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Just like the England team gave the Nazi salute in 1935. I bet you would have loved that!

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

So, in the world of woke, on the one hand assertion of cultural superiority is bad. We must atone for our historical sins by taking the knee, decolonialising, perhaps paying reparations. Qatar, though, is a society that doesn’t view maximal personal autonomy as an overall good. In this case, marching in and asserting our cultural superiority is a good thing. Perhaps we’re now at the stage of post-post-colonialism. For what it’s worth, I’m with Lloris. When in Rome…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

If one encourages grotesque knee-bending BLM tosh, what else can one expect?

Perhaps make them ‘play’ naked (Gymnos) as the Ancient Greeks would have done. Then at least all forms of virtue signalling advertising etc would be virtually impossible!

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

But then they might be accused of willy-waving?

It’d certainly make the options for defending corners more interesting!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

The Ancient Greeks had thought of that, and had some method of securing the ‘member’ lest it interfere with sprint running!
The Romans employed a similar system but as to whether they had an athlete called ‘Bigus Dickus’ is uncertain.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

The Ancient Greeks had thought of that, and had some method of securing the ‘member’ lest it interfere with sprint running!
The Romans employed a similar system but as to whether they had an athlete called ‘Bigus Dickus’ is uncertain.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

But then they might be accused of willy-waving?

It’d certainly make the options for defending corners more interesting!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

If one encourages grotesque knee-bending BLM tosh, what else can one expect?

Perhaps make them ‘play’ naked (Gymnos) as the Ancient Greeks would have done. Then at least all forms of virtue signalling advertising etc would be virtually impossible!

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Something irritates me about footballers and their political action: what about the fans?

In nearly all interviews the footballers and pundits trot out the mantra, “The main thing is the fans.” So, has anyone asked the thousands of travelling fans about their views on armbands?

Suppose Kane had worn an armband, got a yellow card and then a second yellow. Then he would have been sent off, England might have lost and been ejected at the group stage. How would the fans react, having paid (a relative) fortune to get out to Quatar? Would the footballers have clubbed together and paid the fans’ air fares? I think not.

So, footballers are non-too-clever, overpaid stars who think that their views are more important than others’. And they are not.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Something irritates me about footballers and their political action: what about the fans?

In nearly all interviews the footballers and pundits trot out the mantra, “The main thing is the fans.” So, has anyone asked the thousands of travelling fans about their views on armbands?

Suppose Kane had worn an armband, got a yellow card and then a second yellow. Then he would have been sent off, England might have lost and been ejected at the group stage. How would the fans react, having paid (a relative) fortune to get out to Quatar? Would the footballers have clubbed together and paid the fans’ air fares? I think not.

So, footballers are non-too-clever, overpaid stars who think that their views are more important than others’. And they are not.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

I don’t think the author’s stance is defendable. Anyone can be coerced into projecting stances they don’t in truth at all support – and Quatar is precisely the type of nation where you would be forced to keep your head down and go along with the consensus unless you want to get victimised or even killed. But it’s completely obvious them f’bllers are not in that bind, and they are playing to a different audience, ultimately for wonga, and nothing to do with supporting victimised groups etc.

I appreciate the author does not want to throw out the LGB baby out with the TQ++ bathwater, but imagine some interviewer asks Harry Kane, on the back of his ludicrous armband kerfuffle, to clarify his stance on if someone can change gender because they feel like it, or what his views on Rowling or even Stock are, and it turns out he actually believes all that stuff, and he snarls back an answer “of course people can self identify, what do you think that T in the rainbow means?” At that point it follows them f’bllers would be no different from the howling activists who hounded the author out of her career. Would the author then be quite so sanguine?

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

I think the author is relying upon an implicit assumption that unless people have gone to the trouble of publicly asserting the more ludicrous aspects of radical gender politics, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume instead that they are sane.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

I think the author is relying upon an implicit assumption that unless people have gone to the trouble of publicly asserting the more ludicrous aspects of radical gender politics, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume instead that they are sane.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

I don’t think the author’s stance is defendable. Anyone can be coerced into projecting stances they don’t in truth at all support – and Quatar is precisely the type of nation where you would be forced to keep your head down and go along with the consensus unless you want to get victimised or even killed. But it’s completely obvious them f’bllers are not in that bind, and they are playing to a different audience, ultimately for wonga, and nothing to do with supporting victimised groups etc.

I appreciate the author does not want to throw out the LGB baby out with the TQ++ bathwater, but imagine some interviewer asks Harry Kane, on the back of his ludicrous armband kerfuffle, to clarify his stance on if someone can change gender because they feel like it, or what his views on Rowling or even Stock are, and it turns out he actually believes all that stuff, and he snarls back an answer “of course people can self identify, what do you think that T in the rainbow means?” At that point it follows them f’bllers would be no different from the howling activists who hounded the author out of her career. Would the author then be quite so sanguine?

Mark Chadwick
Mark Chadwick
1 year ago

Football was once a working-class sport but TPTB have used it as a means to effectively demonstrate to ordinary people where they stand in the pecking order. It was so eloquently put by Andrew Neather “to rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Of course “diversity” is nothing more than cultural Marxist triumphalism and should best be avoided.
As a spectacle it has become unwatchable. I used to enjoy watching it with my friends in the pub but can’t stand hearing any of it now. On top of that we have VAR which is a tangible way of “controlling” games on behalf of the Far-East betting syndicates and the corruption, both moral and financial, is complete.
Any objective viewer knew exactly what a World Cup held in Qatar would bring and it never should have been awarded there in the first place.
The virtue-signalling, female commentators (who have no right to share a platform with the likes of Roy Keane or Graeme Souness whatsoever), taking the knee and LGBT bull$h!t have made this something to avoid. I haven’t watched football for years as a result and I’m not bothering with this either.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

You seem remarkably angry about something you are not bothering with…

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

You really should start watching again, the game has improved immensely over the past 50+ years that I have watching my local team. Your comment about VAR is ludicrous.

Last edited 1 year ago by Philip Burrell
Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

You seem remarkably angry about something you are not bothering with…

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

You really should start watching again, the game has improved immensely over the past 50+ years that I have watching my local team. Your comment about VAR is ludicrous.

Last edited 1 year ago by Philip Burrell
Mark Chadwick
Mark Chadwick
1 year ago

Football was once a working-class sport but TPTB have used it as a means to effectively demonstrate to ordinary people where they stand in the pecking order. It was so eloquently put by Andrew Neather “to rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Of course “diversity” is nothing more than cultural Marxist triumphalism and should best be avoided.
As a spectacle it has become unwatchable. I used to enjoy watching it with my friends in the pub but can’t stand hearing any of it now. On top of that we have VAR which is a tangible way of “controlling” games on behalf of the Far-East betting syndicates and the corruption, both moral and financial, is complete.
Any objective viewer knew exactly what a World Cup held in Qatar would bring and it never should have been awarded there in the first place.
The virtue-signalling, female commentators (who have no right to share a platform with the likes of Roy Keane or Graeme Souness whatsoever), taking the knee and LGBT bull$h!t have made this something to avoid. I haven’t watched football for years as a result and I’m not bothering with this either.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

hmm incoherent. Agree with Martin below. Kathleen also refuses to countenance the degree to which feminism – her kind of liberal feminism – created the kind of gender politics (there is no biological nature/natural law – only social construction), that led to the current trans-war

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

hmm incoherent. Agree with Martin below. Kathleen also refuses to countenance the degree to which feminism – her kind of liberal feminism – created the kind of gender politics (there is no biological nature/natural law – only social construction), that led to the current trans-war

Mike F
Mike F
1 year ago

“I see no reason not to take any armband-wearing over there as a sincere and admirable attempt to speak up for the rights of oppressed others, and it seems to me highly uncharitable to take it any other way.”
Perhaps, but is it uncharitable to see his backing down under threat of a yellow card as being cowardly, weak, and a sign that he’s only happy to speak up until it causes him the tiniest amount of difficulty in his career? I mean, if I was in danger of death at the hands of a brutal regime, I’d hope the very least that a footballer could do would be to take a yellow card in my name. Still, at least he took the knee, so the oppressed of the world can take heart from that as they are confronted by a loaded gun in the hands of a soldier of their own country.

Mike F
Mike F
1 year ago

“I see no reason not to take any armband-wearing over there as a sincere and admirable attempt to speak up for the rights of oppressed others, and it seems to me highly uncharitable to take it any other way.”
Perhaps, but is it uncharitable to see his backing down under threat of a yellow card as being cowardly, weak, and a sign that he’s only happy to speak up until it causes him the tiniest amount of difficulty in his career? I mean, if I was in danger of death at the hands of a brutal regime, I’d hope the very least that a footballer could do would be to take a yellow card in my name. Still, at least he took the knee, so the oppressed of the world can take heart from that as they are confronted by a loaded gun in the hands of a soldier of their own country.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Please unherd I a bored sick of all this woke pandering to this profoundly unimportant, tedious and irritating subject…. as if those on the terraces give a damn, let alone have so much as a scintilla of sympathy? Do you seriously think that the lads at Millwall, Liverpool or West Ham lay awake a night concerned for LGBTQ? please?!!!!!!

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

And what exactly do you know about “the lads at Millwall, Liverpool or West Ham”?

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

And what exactly do you know about “the lads at Millwall, Liverpool or West Ham”?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Please unherd I a bored sick of all this woke pandering to this profoundly unimportant, tedious and irritating subject…. as if those on the terraces give a damn, let alone have so much as a scintilla of sympathy? Do you seriously think that the lads at Millwall, Liverpool or West Ham lay awake a night concerned for LGBTQ? please?!!!!!!

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

“We can argue about whether free movement across the globe is a human right in this sense, but it would be difficult to argue that free movement around your own village is not.”

Interesting point, and in fact there’s a global-villagey sort of answer to this that exposes the whole problem in a conceptually-accessible nutshell: actually, a village is a physical, social, economic and institutional grouping within which free movement is only valuable at all as a direct consequence of the limits imposed upon it by other rights, privileges and obligations, and the historic efforts of others to build, maintain and mature that village to begin with.

For example, you can’t wander into people’s homes at will, rarely would walking through someone else’s garden be acceptable, your progress in a motor vehicle will necessarily be much slower on a road through the village than on the open roads outside it, you cannot just walk into a local workplace and offer your services and expect to be given work, and you cannot walk into the local doctor’s surgery and expect free treatment without registered and identifying (this last example is a bit iffy given that the NHS usually treats anyone for free if they are physically present in the UK, but if we go abroad to most villages, that won’t happen). Your presence in commercial establishments will usually require you to be a customer and if you trample the flowerbeds on the village green out of an obtuse desire to walk exactly how you please on public land, you are likely to face vandalism charges.

The point of course is that free movement in principle sounds very noble until you see that in practice, free movement always seems to involve people “freely” moving to places where the historic efforts of others have made them attractive places to be, and in some cases importing with themselves attitudes and values that rapidly dilute and damage the attractiveness of the place in question. Villages, with their stable social structures, established customs and their networks of cooperation based upon historic adherence to commonly accepted obligations and rules, do not experience the problem of the local unemployable deciding to move into the rich man’s house without his permission (not, at least, without this attracting immediate consequences for the transgressor). That is why the typical village cannot act as an accurate microcosm of the debate about free movement between nations.

On the final point of the article generally, while it might be plausible to argue that Harry Kane is sincerely speaking out for LGBT rights, the fact is that he’s ostensibly taking a stand against Qatari attitudes to LGBT people while tactily doing exactly what the Qataris want from him. So really I say it counts for nothing. That’s not to say that Harry Kane should ruin his career by refusing to play, but I do say that the gesture is empty. What would be best all round is that we and Harry Kane do whatever gives him and the team the best chance of winning the World Cup. That’s what he’s there for, and to listen to all the shouting it would appear many people have forgotten this.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

“We can argue about whether free movement across the globe is a human right in this sense, but it would be difficult to argue that free movement around your own village is not.”

Interesting point, and in fact there’s a global-villagey sort of answer to this that exposes the whole problem in a conceptually-accessible nutshell: actually, a village is a physical, social, economic and institutional grouping within which free movement is only valuable at all as a direct consequence of the limits imposed upon it by other rights, privileges and obligations, and the historic efforts of others to build, maintain and mature that village to begin with.

For example, you can’t wander into people’s homes at will, rarely would walking through someone else’s garden be acceptable, your progress in a motor vehicle will necessarily be much slower on a road through the village than on the open roads outside it, you cannot just walk into a local workplace and offer your services and expect to be given work, and you cannot walk into the local doctor’s surgery and expect free treatment without registered and identifying (this last example is a bit iffy given that the NHS usually treats anyone for free if they are physically present in the UK, but if we go abroad to most villages, that won’t happen). Your presence in commercial establishments will usually require you to be a customer and if you trample the flowerbeds on the village green out of an obtuse desire to walk exactly how you please on public land, you are likely to face vandalism charges.

The point of course is that free movement in principle sounds very noble until you see that in practice, free movement always seems to involve people “freely” moving to places where the historic efforts of others have made them attractive places to be, and in some cases importing with themselves attitudes and values that rapidly dilute and damage the attractiveness of the place in question. Villages, with their stable social structures, established customs and their networks of cooperation based upon historic adherence to commonly accepted obligations and rules, do not experience the problem of the local unemployable deciding to move into the rich man’s house without his permission (not, at least, without this attracting immediate consequences for the transgressor). That is why the typical village cannot act as an accurate microcosm of the debate about free movement between nations.

On the final point of the article generally, while it might be plausible to argue that Harry Kane is sincerely speaking out for LGBT rights, the fact is that he’s ostensibly taking a stand against Qatari attitudes to LGBT people while tactily doing exactly what the Qataris want from him. So really I say it counts for nothing. That’s not to say that Harry Kane should ruin his career by refusing to play, but I do say that the gesture is empty. What would be best all round is that we and Harry Kane do whatever gives him and the team the best chance of winning the World Cup. That’s what he’s there for, and to listen to all the shouting it would appear many people have forgotten this.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
jmo
jmo
1 year ago

It’s tiresome that trolls are ruining the comments section now, baiting others and bringing that childish Twitter energy here. It’s also quite sad that someone would actually pay a subscription to do so.

jmo
jmo
1 year ago

It’s tiresome that trolls are ruining the comments section now, baiting others and bringing that childish Twitter energy here. It’s also quite sad that someone would actually pay a subscription to do so.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

OK, some interesting points but I still feel its one of her weaker articles as it is a bit incoherent.
As others have said. If Harry Kane (and others) don’t agree with Qataris just don’t go. I you do go just play football. He can state clearly that he why objects back home. Otherwise do as Hugo Loris stated (I think he is unfairly slighted by the writer (does she know what his motives are)).
At the end of the day there is so much wrong with holding a World Cup in Qatar – most of it already said – I think this just shows that to hold any major sporting event the host country should, at the very least be a democracy.
All this thing about arm bans etc. now the the Qataris have made their own with “I love Qatar”. At the end of the day (whatever they their own regime) most of them would strongly disagree with any LGBT+ sentiments – as do most Muslims and this “virtue signaling” will change nothing.
Another couple of interesting points (made by Ed West on his substack) is that:
when England hosted the WC , homosexuality was illegal too.
it is mostly post-protestant countries who shout loudest about these things.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

OK, some interesting points but I still feel its one of her weaker articles as it is a bit incoherent.
As others have said. If Harry Kane (and others) don’t agree with Qataris just don’t go. I you do go just play football. He can state clearly that he why objects back home. Otherwise do as Hugo Loris stated (I think he is unfairly slighted by the writer (does she know what his motives are)).
At the end of the day there is so much wrong with holding a World Cup in Qatar – most of it already said – I think this just shows that to hold any major sporting event the host country should, at the very least be a democracy.
All this thing about arm bans etc. now the the Qataris have made their own with “I love Qatar”. At the end of the day (whatever they their own regime) most of them would strongly disagree with any LGBT+ sentiments – as do most Muslims and this “virtue signaling” will change nothing.
Another couple of interesting points (made by Ed West on his substack) is that:
when England hosted the WC , homosexuality was illegal too.
it is mostly post-protestant countries who shout loudest about these things.

Last edited 1 year ago by Isabel Ward
Michelle Johnston
Michelle Johnston
1 year ago

“As is well-known, there are almost certainly gay players in the Premier League but none who will dare come out publicly, so great is the stigma.”
This struck me as interesting because in The Gulf the median position is that sexual behavior is something that should remain private for all. There is a sense that life in public should be pursued modestly. All that Qatar has asked for, looking at it from my position living for much of the year in the Gulf, is to observe that modesty when you come to watch the football.
They are well aware that the expression of sexuality in public is considered liberating in the West but then the West might like to consider that all that will interest people living in the Gulf, is the quality of the football play, rather than a rigorous examination of the player’s views on sexual and gender rights. If these countries do evolve into less modest societies where openness is considered a virtue they will do it without being pushed. Personally, I find modesty very attractive among all my friends who cover all the letters.
Many people in these columns lament the constant attention given to T issues and the creeping way in which it has gone from being a few hundred people wishing to reassign their gender each year, which is enshrined in law, to a Tsunami of self-identification and non-binary this and that and the other. I agree with this view and the “pressure” put on Qatar is part of the same movement, where you raise up to a very high-level something that is of little interest to others, particularly if you agree that sexual preferences are a private matter and gender questions should be dealt with the utmost diligence and care. Put simply the vast majority even in a so-called tolerant society do not mind what people are but they do not want it pushed into their faces that in a different way applies in the Gulf.
On the question of woman’s access to the internet, smartphones are everywhere and given it is the same smartphone I use Unherd is available to them too. The idea they are hidden from the Global Internet just does not fly. Walk into any mall or check out any restaurant they are wedded to their phones like everyone else in the world.
Though this article is not about ensuring and improving the lot of workers in the Gulf it is a far more important matter and one which behind the scenes I would hope everything possible is being done to change practices. It’s true to say the abuses I am aware of come from fellow countrymen higher up the food chain and X Pats as much as the locals and it needs to be frowned upon and practices introduced from the very top so that all stop it.

Michelle Johnston
Michelle Johnston
1 year ago

“As is well-known, there are almost certainly gay players in the Premier League but none who will dare come out publicly, so great is the stigma.”
This struck me as interesting because in The Gulf the median position is that sexual behavior is something that should remain private for all. There is a sense that life in public should be pursued modestly. All that Qatar has asked for, looking at it from my position living for much of the year in the Gulf, is to observe that modesty when you come to watch the football.
They are well aware that the expression of sexuality in public is considered liberating in the West but then the West might like to consider that all that will interest people living in the Gulf, is the quality of the football play, rather than a rigorous examination of the player’s views on sexual and gender rights. If these countries do evolve into less modest societies where openness is considered a virtue they will do it without being pushed. Personally, I find modesty very attractive among all my friends who cover all the letters.
Many people in these columns lament the constant attention given to T issues and the creeping way in which it has gone from being a few hundred people wishing to reassign their gender each year, which is enshrined in law, to a Tsunami of self-identification and non-binary this and that and the other. I agree with this view and the “pressure” put on Qatar is part of the same movement, where you raise up to a very high-level something that is of little interest to others, particularly if you agree that sexual preferences are a private matter and gender questions should be dealt with the utmost diligence and care. Put simply the vast majority even in a so-called tolerant society do not mind what people are but they do not want it pushed into their faces that in a different way applies in the Gulf.
On the question of woman’s access to the internet, smartphones are everywhere and given it is the same smartphone I use Unherd is available to them too. The idea they are hidden from the Global Internet just does not fly. Walk into any mall or check out any restaurant they are wedded to their phones like everyone else in the world.
Though this article is not about ensuring and improving the lot of workers in the Gulf it is a far more important matter and one which behind the scenes I would hope everything possible is being done to change practices. It’s true to say the abuses I am aware of come from fellow countrymen higher up the food chain and X Pats as much as the locals and it needs to be frowned upon and practices introduced from the very top so that all stop it.

Mark Duffett
Mark Duffett
1 year ago

This should be really simple. Don’t use your extremely privileged position in elite sport as a platform to make political statements. End of.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Duffett

Interesting that you consider being anti-racism as a political position. And clearly one that you are very opposed to.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Duffett

Interesting that you consider being anti-racism as a political position. And clearly one that you are very opposed to.

Mark Duffett
Mark Duffett
1 year ago

This should be really simple. Don’t use your extremely privileged position in elite sport as a platform to make political statements. End of.

S R
S R
1 year ago

Stock is great, I love her writing and this piece even though I have some questions about it. I think the title is actually not very good, and colours the reading of the article in a bad way.

“he was then criticised by those well-known bleeding heart-types Roy Keane and Ray Winstone for capitulating in the face of a threatened booking from Fifa.”

Tbf, Keane said that if this issue is *actually* that important to Kane, then he should be willing to take the punishment. That’s integrity. I agree with Keane. His bleeding-heart sensibility, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

“Generally, the public mood on armbands and bent knees seems to be split. There are those who assume every organised public gesture in the name of human rights must be altruistically intentioned and beneficial. And then there are those who dismiss all such gestures as self-interested attempts to gain social capital.”

This could be a fair characterisation of some (most?) of the discourse. But there are some people who think all the kneeling and armband-wearing is done out of good intentions. These footballers are well-meaning and useful idiots for the progressive movement.

If Kane and co. stuck to purely football – racism in football, LGB discrimination in football, etc. – that’s one thing. But they’ve set themselves a wider remit – to be moral arbiters of the culture in the UK, and now of the world. It’s bizarre.

Last edited 1 year ago by S R
S R
S R
1 year ago

Stock is great, I love her writing and this piece even though I have some questions about it. I think the title is actually not very good, and colours the reading of the article in a bad way.

“he was then criticised by those well-known bleeding heart-types Roy Keane and Ray Winstone for capitulating in the face of a threatened booking from Fifa.”

Tbf, Keane said that if this issue is *actually* that important to Kane, then he should be willing to take the punishment. That’s integrity. I agree with Keane. His bleeding-heart sensibility, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

“Generally, the public mood on armbands and bent knees seems to be split. There are those who assume every organised public gesture in the name of human rights must be altruistically intentioned and beneficial. And then there are those who dismiss all such gestures as self-interested attempts to gain social capital.”

This could be a fair characterisation of some (most?) of the discourse. But there are some people who think all the kneeling and armband-wearing is done out of good intentions. These footballers are well-meaning and useful idiots for the progressive movement.

If Kane and co. stuck to purely football – racism in football, LGB discrimination in football, etc. – that’s one thing. But they’ve set themselves a wider remit – to be moral arbiters of the culture in the UK, and now of the world. It’s bizarre.

Last edited 1 year ago by S R
Margaret Donaldson
Margaret Donaldson
1 year ago

My 16 year old grandson: ‘Been stuffing my eyes with the World Cup. Great quality of football.’ One person who hasn’t taken his eye off the ball…..

Margaret Donaldson
Margaret Donaldson
1 year ago

My 16 year old grandson: ‘Been stuffing my eyes with the World Cup. Great quality of football.’ One person who hasn’t taken his eye off the ball…..

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Anyone who uses the term “virtue signalling” can be safely ignored. Same goes for “woke”.
The only thing being signalled is that the writer is mad about about something while also being a hopelessly lazy scribe.
Although it is funny to see the right lose their collective minds over every little gesture. But if someone doesn’t wear a poppy in November then look out!

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

What a great example of a smug, self satisfied putz who apparently believes virtue signalling and wokeness don’t exist. In other words, a reality denier. Feh.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

What a great example of a smug, self satisfied putz who apparently believes virtue signalling and wokeness don’t exist. In other words, a reality denier. Feh.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Anyone who uses the term “virtue signalling” can be safely ignored. Same goes for “woke”.
The only thing being signalled is that the writer is mad about about something while also being a hopelessly lazy scribe.
Although it is funny to see the right lose their collective minds over every little gesture. But if someone doesn’t wear a poppy in November then look out!