These LGBQ protests in Qatar are hypocritical. If you had a real problem with it you shouldn't have gone. Nearly a hundred years ago, Eric Liddell refused to run in the qualifying heats of the 100 metres at the 1924 Paris Olympic Games, because they were held on a Sunday. That had a real consequence as he was forced to withdraw from his best event.

A principle isn't really a principle if you aren't prepared to suffer for it. Instead, it's a performative declaration...aka a virtue signal.

We get told that it's wrong for religious people to impose their beliefs onto others. That they shouldn't tell others how to live their lives and what is right and what is wrong.

Yet, what we see here is precisely that from secularist societies. They think they can tell others how their societies should be and in effect it's the same moral superiority. The 'diversity' that they speak of is just a ruse for the simple minded.

It's kind of amusing in a way considering the liberal left use to be all about moral relativism....but as you get older you come to realise that for many 'principles' are just a means to an ends and will be discarded just as easily as they are used......all that matters is winning.

Footballers should respect the culture of the land they chose to play in and play football and not politics.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Nov 2022 12.38pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think I would say doing something is better than doing nothing. Of course if senior players or teams pulled out that would be a bigger signal of intent, but I think FIFA cleverly left it to the last second to silence them. It seems to me the players believed they may at least have a platform to try and deliver a message, whether you or I believe that message would have any effect we'll never know. As it is the only people seeing any of these messages will largely be in countries which already protect the rights of LBTQ+ people, as in countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia it is against the law to question those in power and any of these messages will be edited out, as were the Iranian protests in Iran.

Personally I don't have any respect for the rules and laws of dictatorships, or countries which base their laws on inhumane interpretations of ancient texts. If you accept a country's laws on the basis of 'respect' then where do you draw the line? Should we also ignore the Taliban using Sharia law to justify amputations or beheadings? It's one thing saying you shouldn't take the moral high ground, but when people are speaking out against being imprisoned for being gay I think that's a pretty low bar. I mean, do you yourself actually think it's ok for people to be beaten and imprisoned for being gay? Do you personally think that law should be respected? I would hope not.

One thing I will agree with you on though is that 'principles' are something many people will abandon in the right circumstances, but that is definitely not the reserve of the liberal left. As it is we live in liberal countries where we have the luxury of having conversations like this on a public forum without fear of reprisal and ultimately that's my point, how can you host the jewel piece of football in a country that oppresses its people, imposes barbaric laws and gags its guests.

Somebody made a good point the other day.

These rights that we champion and demand other countries accept, well we only accepted them in the last 60 odd years or even less.

It is a tad hypocritical of a modern western country lecturing others about rights it only recently recognised itself.

They may well come around to our way of thinking (or not) give them time after all we had about 10,000 years of history before we did.

One more point

I'm conflicted in that I don't think Qatar should have been given the WC and I also wished that players or teams would have had the guts to boycott it. On the other hand, FIFA made the decision, not the players or countries participating. I can see the argument that it's hypocritical, but at the same time once they took the decision to participate I don't think that should mean they have to be silent. I would say they haven't done enough, but that it's better than pretending it's fine for Qatar to have the World Cup.

My point about respecting other people's beliefs is that in Qatar people are suffering due to what is surely unquestionably wrong. They don't have a chance to vote for change, they are not allowed to speak out and they have no one to protect them. To persecute gay people in this day and age is inhumane and no one should pretend it isn't and neither should they respect those who believe it is ok. To say it was illegal in the UK in the 60s is like saying segregation was still used in the US in the 60s. I think that highlights how nonsensical that argument is.

I know some people might see it as fanciful, but if a gay person in Qatar does happen to see the support they are getting from football icons around the world then maybe, just maybe, that might just make them feel a little bit better about themselves and surely that's better than respecting their persecutors.

Another bit of trivia...

There's currently live football on both BBC1 and ITV1. A different game on each channel. I wonder if that's ever happened before, but am prepared to wager that it hasn't.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Yes, I think your last paragraph is really only the one area that we would completely agree on. You are right that my point about principles isn't the preserve of the liberal left but an apolitical and systemic phenomenon that's independent of politics.

Having said that it's the neo and social liberals who both own the institutions whether that's public and private....Possibly only Musk in the US isn't....who I'd regard as more as an autistic centralist....who now has a grudge against progressivism as their sick ideology turned his daughter trans.

Other than the principle point your perspective has little framing that I can agree with. I feel my central points of western 'gaysplaining' so to speak, tends to prove my point about this moral superiority towards countries with different value systems.

From the tenor of your post I think it's obvious that we would disagree on questions around alphabet ideology and what a healthy response a society should have towards minority sexualities.

I'm a social conservative. My politics in this area are similar to Thatcher's in the eighties. I think homosexuality is part of nature and will always be with us, so it shouldn't be illegal and no one should live in physical fear and is entitled to the same protections as everybody else. However, as far as I'm concerned that's as far as it goes.

I agree with civil unions but not marriage, as I don't agree that marriage was ever intended or designed for homosexuals. I don't agree that children should be taught about homosexuality at young ages and I don't agree that all lifestyles are equal to all other lifestyles. So I'd agree with Thatcher's section 28.

So I'm at variance with the current culture and feel that it has significantly over stretched what benefits society. While these modern attitudes and laws aren't the only factor, I believe their negative social implications can be proven and shown in the social metrics in family and hence social cohesion, identities, mental health, sexual health, STDs, marriage, and most importantly in the birth rate itself.

However, while my views are obviously socially conservative, they don't support the violence that is meated out to homosexuals and those who identify with an alphabet community in countries like Qatar or indeed anywhere.

However, as much as you may wish them to change, personally I don't hold out much prospect of that. I imagine they look at what western tolerance did to western societies. We went from correctly legalising homosexuality in the early seventies as a display of tolerance and understanding to absurdity in a matter of a few decades.

In my own lifetime we went from tolerance to straight people being prosecuted for not making an activist's 'gay cake'. Indeed, people who even just don't agree with the modern culture on homosexuality, whether it's from a religious perspective or personal taste now can be sacked or be considered as 'hateful' (whatever that actually means). The left have invented a whole raft of ridiculous language to justify their authoritarian stances on this.

People can be cancelled professionally just for airing views that didn't concord with the alphabet community....look at what happened to even a liberal like JK Rowling. I view it as totally ridiculous and absurd....I imagine countries like Qatar look at that and say, 'not an inch'.

So no, I don't agree with Qatar, however, there are many countries around the world that I don't personally agree with on topics, I suspect that's true of most people about many countries. I'm someone who rather fondly remembers Quentin Crisp and I regard that period in the eighties of the high point of common sense and balance on this topic. Crisp himself was not a fan of the direction the emerging alphabet ideologies had taken and he suffered what I'd regard as real difficulties as a younger man.

In modern times homosexuals who'd be in general agreement with me would be Douglas Murray and David Starkey and even further right you get homosexuals like Milo and John Dee....the latter being someone whose views in this area, when sought out, are pretty much identical to mine.

[Tweet Link]

So to bring this to an end I can say that if I went to a country, like Qatar...which isn't likely, either on work or on my personal time I wouldn't feel duty bound to proceed to publicly inform them that I don't like their attitudes.....The question could rightly be raised that if they feel that way you shouldn't have come in the first place. Would you like it if they came to this country preached at you? I imagine you'd also feel insulted.

Back in the eighties the English cricket team decided not to tour South Africa because of apartheid. Whatever anyone thought of that decision it was one that they made. They lost money doing that. A lucrative 'rebel tour' was arranged and all the players who refused to go onto that also lost out financially.... that is what I regard as a principle and not a virtue signal.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2022 2.39am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)