European teams ditch pro-LGBTQ+ armbands at Qatar World Cup | Hacker News Reader

European teams ditch pro-LGBTQ+ armbands at Qatar World Cup

politico.eu

40 pointsbmmayer172 comments

What other last min rule changes will FIFA bravely make to keep the last few payouts of those bribes going. Between Fox and AmBev they are already going to making significantly less money at 2026 because of concessions over Qatars World cup. https://adage.com/article/media/fifa-admist/309601 Must have been quite a lot to be worth it, and can’t wait to read about the sweetheart deal they give ambev to avoid lawsuits.

Honestly whatever it takes to save face I expect.

That said, "well break the rules and just pay the fine" attitudes make my blood boil. And I support ramping up the punishment for premeditated rule breaking.

That's separate from the fact that this rule is cynical and clearly to appease Qatari sensibilities

I'm not sure which of these is worse:

* (Awareness) Europeans who didn't realize that Qatar is a muslim country that doesn't allow LGBT advertising

* (Asymmetry) Europeans who knew about Qatar's values, but didn't think Qatar would enforce them with the same vigor as Europeans enforce their values

* (Naïveté) Europeans thinking that the reason they could impose their values on these types of international events in the past was something other than money

What is happening is that as the West declines in relative economic dominance, other societies become more important on the international stage, and their moral codes must be accommodated. Europeans are finding out that the shoe is now on the other foot in terms of who must accommodate whom, and they are shocked by the discomfort.

No, it could also mean that events will fork between cultural systems. Not everybody puts money ahead of ethics. There names for people who do that, though.

It's interesting that the good fight for LGBTQ+ is given up as soon as there is a place with actual LGBTQ+ repression and powerful resistance.

What then is this signalling for?

Strong with the weak, weak is the strong

Western Europe's motto since ww2

the people shooting up gay night clubs?

In the case of the recent gay club shooting in Colorado Springs, wasn't the shooter a gay "incel" man himself?

It's interesting that the good fight for LGBTQ+ is given up as soon as it threatens revenue.

Maybe I just need anti-depressants, but how does everyone else just carry on with the absurd hypocrisy in the world?

Elon says he's going to tweak Twitter moderation from "ban" to "don't spread, but don't delete" for problematic posts. Reaction: American corporations publicly proclaim they're leaving the platform and cutting their advertisement budgets.

Qatar builds stadiums using slave labor, sends rape victims to jail, treats gay people as sub-human. Reaction: Carry on advertising and sponsorships as usual.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation or maybe complying w/ Qatar now somehow eventually makes the world a better place in the future? Or if someone can just tell me Prozac/Adderall/Zoloft/something just makes this feel fine and lets you carry on, that'd work too.

Elon did quite a bit more than that.

And I'm afraid there's no pill for being alive during a collapse, but here you are, and the party's just getting going.

>Elon did quite a bit more than that.

He also unbanned american conservatives that had been banned for not agreeing with American progressive ideology, and allowed the majority of workers to take a severance packet. The absolute evil of it make Qatar World championship look like a childs play!

Public messaging is performative. Very few people actually care, and those who do are not getting airtime, so you wouldn't hear from them.

It's like a soap opera. You don't get mad at characters in soaps doing stupid things to create drama, because that drama is the reason they exist. Media largely works the same way, and you should treat it accordingly. Don't get upset, just don't watch soaps if you don't like drama.

I don't know. It seems the plot has been lost and all the good intentions are just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And maybe it's just that: billions of apes, mindlessly imitating each other.

Normally people flag such a post. Because they can’t handle the truth when it becomes as naked as it gets.

I was flagged for calling people sheep the other day. Apes, sheep, don’t know whats better.

Lol @ all those journalists, politicians, ... saying "we have to go to Qatar to let our voices be heard!"

Seems to be going well!

Globalization means culture clash, even if one side looks the other way in the name of profit, it doesn't mean cultural hegemony has actually been achieved in either direction. Just a truce, and resentments fester.

All these organizations showing the real “global” values — greed, fame, profit. At least saying one thing and doing the other seems to be a truly universal thing.

Mostly because FIFA threatened with in-game actions (yellow card) and not fines or other penalties. Players would be punished by making the game easier to lose, which would give ther opponents an unfair advantage.

Disgusting behvarior by one of the most corrupted orgs around.

I wonder if every player came out with armbands, would they give them all yellow cards? Would they disqualify entire teams?

And yet the theme of the Opening Ceremony was "tolerance, respect and inclusivity. Actual dialogue:

"With tolerance and respect we can live together under one big home" [1]

[1] https://youtu.be/fy3jjN0D5iQ?t=99

It would be interesting to see the diplomatic efforts if players from one of the teams would go out drinking in public.

I guess we now see the true colors of FIFA, not withstanding the FIFA president who feels like a gay person.

Would be interesting to see him actually carry that out in public in Qatar.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/19/fifa-gianni...

Virgin Atlantic also dropped their gender neutral flight uniforms going to Qatar.

That happens when you host World Cups in a backwards regime. A big cesspool.

Screw FIFA and organised sport in general. Hate the suits, love the game.

Has anyone significant said no to the World Cup situation?

Just some pop singers I think. What a mess.

Curious, what role do pop singers play in the world cup? Honest question, I've never watched it, so is this for a half-time show?

I have never watched either, but my guess is they are there to legitimize this event as a sort of a pan-cultural spectacle worthy of being taken seriously as a corporate distraction.

Here in the US, we have freedom of expression.

Unfortunately, most countries (including European countries) don't.

What European countries count as most?

Pretty much all of them.

Like Qatar?

I like how you make sweeping generalisations, with out getting specific enough to actually be required to defend yourself.

Does the UK have freedom of expression? if not why not, if so what about Germany, or France, or Belgium, or Luxembourg, or the Netherlands, or Sweden, or finland, or Norway, or Denmark?

I'll be nice and give you belarus, Hungary, I'll even give you transnistria.

I’m sure you mean freedom of expression unless the authorities disapprove?

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

Colin Kaepernick's NFL career has been destroyed just because he kneeled during an anthem.

More recently, Kyrie Irving had a lot of problems "just" because he shared a controversial documentary available on Amazon.

That's not what I would call "freedom of expression".

100% even when BLM took off as mainstream he was persona non grata

The difference being that in the US you don't have to fear prosecution for most things you'd get prosecuted for in, say, Quatar. You might get cancelled on Twitter but you don't end up in jail or get killed at least.

Exactly. In countries of Europe denying the Holocaust occurred can get you fined or even land you in jail. Americans should appreciate what they have.

You do get jailed, though, for talking to the authorities in a way they don't like.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

Totally there are cases like that but let's not pretend it's as bad as in many other countries. Cases like this also consistently make the news in NA and Europe.

How fast we went from "Best and unique in the world" to "let's not pretend it's as bad as in many other countries" ...

That is exactly freedom of expression. The first amendment protects against government action, which it did in both cases. What it does not and cannot do is force other people to continue doing business with someone, as that would violate their own rights to free expression.

It's shocking how common this misconception is recently. To maintain our democracy citizens need to understand and care about civics. If we reach a critical mass of people who fundamentally don't care what the constitution says, we are in for big problems.

I don't think it's so shocking as it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

> What it does not and cannot do is force other people to continue doing business with someone, as that would violate their own rights to free expression.

If I fire someone after they change their religion to one I disagree with, would I be free from legal consequence?

Yes, as you would be guilty of religious discrimination. Colin Kaepernick was not fired. He opted out of his contract in 2017 and became a free agent.[1]

[1] https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2695566-colin-kaepernick...

And neither of them were imprisoned, beaten or detained for exercising those expressions. Nor did either have a fear of those things happening to them. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Both men are still free to to express themselves as they see fit.

You seem to be conflating two different issues. Freedom of expression although closely linked to freedom of association is distinct from it. Freedom of association is the right to form and join clubs, societies, trade unions or political parties with anyone you choose. In your two examples both of those individuals chose to join professional sports clubs as contract employees. As such they were beholden to whatever codes of conduct their employers set forth, the same as any job. Contrast this to Kanye West who was also recently shoveling a bunch anti-semitic garbage. Kanye works for himself and so was not beholden to an association's code of conduct.

By the way the net result of Kyrie Irving's "problems" were an 8 game suspension. He's back playing as of yesterday. And just to put in perspective how different Kapernick and Irving situations are, four years ago Kyrie Irving was pushing "flat earth" nonsense.[1]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/movies/kyrie-irving-nba-c...

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

I really don't understand what your URL is meant to convey and you don't provide any detail yourself. Per the ACLU:

>"WHAT DOES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ACTUALLY MEAN?"

>"The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and free association, which means that the government does not have the right to forbid us from saying what we like and writing what we like; we can form clubs and organizations, and take part in demonstrations and rallies." [1]

However the The First Amendment has limits, it does not cover what's classified as "true threats."[2][3] And of course context matters. In this case Brittany Martin was standing chest to chest with a police officer in extremely tense situation and exclaimed:

“Y’all want war, y’all got it,” “We’re ready to die for this,” and “You better be ready to die for the blue. I’m ready to die for the Black” [4]

Do you believe had if she been in the middle of the crowd or in an empty parking lot exclaiming the same with a megaphone she would have been arrested? And while I don't agree with the outcome of any of this, she did in fact have a jury trial. It was a jury that found her guilty. A jury of eight men, five being white and the other three being Black, and six women, five of whom where Black and one white.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-free-expression

[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats

[3] https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/true-threats-case

[4] https://www.theitem.com/classifieds/stories/jury-finds-sumte...

> Do you believe had if she been in the middle of the crowd or in an empty parking lot exclaiming the same with a megaphone she would have been arrested?

No, that's my whole point. She said something that the authorities did not like. She did not do anything whatsoever. And she was jailed for it. She was punished by the government for saying something she liked to say.

You consider a single unarmed woman speaking a 'true threat' to a phalanx of armed police men? I guess there's not much right to free expression left then. The cops on the photo sure do look frightened. I guess she can be happy that she wasn't simply shot on the spot.

If any stranger, man or woman, got in my face and told me "You better be ready to die", then yes I would find that threatening. I think most people would feel threatened by such behavior. I think you would as well. This is generally considered aggressive behavior.You are no longer expressing an opinion when you tell someone they "better be ready to die." Further, you would also have no idea if that person was armed or not. Lastly the idea that the police officer was part of a phalanx appears to be a detail you made up and it's irrelevant anyway, as a particular formation means nothing if you are outnumbered.

Here's another good one where some guy gets "arrested, jailed, and prosecuted because he made fun of his local police department on Facebook".

https://ij.org/press-release/new-supreme-court-appeal-asks-c...

Unless in your world jokes on facebook are also "true threats".

Yes of course you can always find an outlier to support your case but this is not the general case in the US. And certainly not at all comparable to what your options for self-expression would be in any of the United Arab Emirates which is actually the context of this whole discussion. The idea that they might be in any way comparable is absurd.

My understanding is that Kaepernick wasn't even that great of a player and wouldn't have had much of a career regardless of the kneeling. Maybe another season at most so he didn't really lose anything. He also didn't even want to play, he said the NFL players were slaves... Unless he wanted to be a slave?

Your own country disagrees with you.

Freedom House researches this exact topic and they're funded by the US Government. Their current chair is a republican but they're non-partisan.

Looking at their most recent data[0], we can see the US scored 14/16 in 2022 on "Freedom of Expression and Belief", meaning that 53 countries were better by scoring 15/16 or 16/16. Of the 27 countries that scored 16/16, 11 were European. Qatar scored 6/16 by the way.

When you look at the total Freedom Index, the US scores 83/100 which is good for place 62 and lower than most of Europe. Qatar scored 25/100. Here is a world map[1].

[0] https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Aggrega...

[1] https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2022

Reply on news.ycombinator.com