Pride and BLM, but definitely not Jesus

Virtue signaling, being woke & adhering to diversity equity & inclusion is exhausting. Not only for those trying to meet the expectations, but for the rest of us normal people trying to understand it.

Those who shout about “diversity & inclusion” are often the worst at demonstrating both of those. And there were two classic examples last week in the UK.

Most of you will know that I’m a die-hard Liverpool fan – you’ll never walk alone – so last week was a very good week. Liverpool won the English Premier League with four games to spare.

But during the match there was major controversy. Almost criminal activity. Let me show you. Prepare to be highly offended…

Yes – truly shocking.

Dutch player Cody Gakpo exposed a shirt that had the word “Jesus”.

Now it wouldn’t have been the first time that the name of Jesus was heard on the pitch that day. Believe me. It would have been quite probable that somebody fluffed their shot and blasphemed the name of Jesus. Having sat in the crowd at Anfield, blaspheming accompanied by other expletives was quite common to hear – especially if Liverpool was losing.

But the 25-year-old was shown the mandatory yellow card from the ref for taking off his jersey, not that anyone else in the stadium was bothered. But any player who takes of their shoot after scoring a goal gets a yellow card. But you only do it once. Do it twice and it’s a red card and you’re off the pitch.

And he’s not the first person to reveal a message on his undershirt after scoring a goal

Spanish player Andres Iniesta showed this when he scored in the 2010 world cup final

In 2011 Billy Sharp dedicated his goal to his two day old son

In 2013 Dimitar Berbatov played for Fulham and celebrated with this shirt

Cody Gapko’s Liverpool teammate Luis Diaz showed this shirt when his father had been kidnapped back in his home country of Columbia

Another old Liverpool player Luis Suarez showed his family on his shirt in 2013

This is Manchester City’s Edin Dzeko

Mario Balotelli seems obsessed about himself

And another Liverpool player way back in 1997 displayed a shirt supporting the Liverpool dockers

But for Cody Gakpo and that darned Jesus t-shirt, that mightn’t be the only sanction he receives for that act.

According to reports:

As reported by The Telegraph, the Liverpool forward could yet be charged with a breach of a little-known rule prohibiting the displaying of religious messages.

Law 4 in the FA handbook states that “Equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images. Players must not reveal undergarments that show political, religious, personal slogans, statements or images, or advertising other than the manufacturer’s logo.

“For any offence the player and/or the team will be sanctioned by the competition organiser, national football association or by FIFA.”

The nature of any punishment which may be handed down to Gakpo hasn’t been specified.

“must not have any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images.”

Let’s just check that, shall we?

In 2020, this happened

Premier League players will not face sanctions for in-game George Floyd protests, FA confirm. Premier League players will be able to show solidarity with the George Floyd justice campaign during games without facing sanctions after the Football Association endorsed Fifa's stance over in-game protests… The world governing body earlier this week said "common sense" should be adopted when assessing justice protests which could be technical breaches of the laws of the game.

DEI and wokeness is not “common sense”. Let’s be clear.

In this report:

the English FA, which oversees disciplinary action for Premier League games, has given the green light for players using games to protest against social and racial inequality.

So shirts about BLM are all good. Shirts with a statement of faith – and the word Jesus – are no-go.

See the hypocrisy? Doesn’t the rule say “…must not have any political statements…..”?

The poor English FA have got themselves all in a tangle in their attempt to virtue-signal and ram down diversity equity & inclusion.

That's because diversity & inclusion only applies to what they agree with - generally woke things, and definitely not Christian things!

The other political religious statement that IS allowed is of course anything to do with “pride”. Displaying your gender and sexuality.

So-called “rainbow” armbands and “rainbow” laces.

Those “political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images” are all sweet.

Oh - unless of course you also mention that offensive word – “Jesus”

And I actually did a McBlog episode on this back in January – but just a quick reminder

Boycotting 'pride' is okay - for some

According to ESPN

Crystal Palace defender Marc Guéhi wrote "Jesus loves you" on his rainbow-coloured captain's armband against Ipswich Town on Tuesday despite a reminder from England's Football Association (FA) over religious messages. The rainbow-coloured armbands, which feature the branding of Stonewall's Rainbow Laces campaign in support of the LGBTQ+ community, were issued to all 20 Premier League clubs ahead of last weekend's matches.

I know!!! You’re saying right now – but Bob, I thought political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images weren’t allowed.

I know!

ESPN revealed earlier on Tuesday that Guéhi could have been being charged by the FA when he wrote "I love Jesus" on his rainbow armband for Palace's Premier League clash against Newcastle United on Saturday.

Classic. So Guehi wrote “I love Jesus” on his first one – but still wore the woke armband, and then when reprimanded, changed it to “Jesus loves you” – but still wore the armband.

Here’s the best bit.

Instead, the FA reminded Palace and Guéhi about their responsibilities that the appearance of a religious message on any item of clothing is prohibited as stated in Rule A4 of the FA's kit and advertising regulations.

Ah – which religious message are we talking about? Worshipping the cult of LGBT – the new cultural religion?

Guehi told Sky Sports. 'I think the message was pretty clear to be honest. It was a message of love and truth as well, and a message of inclusivity so I think it speaks for itself.'

So Guehi was noticeably put on notice.

But then the ESPN article continues – and they print this with a straight face:

Ipswich midfielder Sam Morsy, who is a practicing Muslim, was the only captain to refuse to wear the armband last weekend.

Well good for him. At least he didn’t break Law 4 in the FA handbook !

So he didn’t graffiti the armband but still wear it. He didn’t even put it near his arm! And he did this for two games!

He again wore the usual black version for the clash with Palace on Tuesday. The FA considers Morsy's decision to be a matter for the club and the individual and does not contravene any kit regulations.

Anybody note the inconsistency here. The one who didn’t wear the armband got a wink and a nod. The one who did wear it but put the name “Jesus” on it was severely reprimanded.

Did you also note that Sam Morsy is Muslim?

Ipswich even put out a lovely statement in support of bigotry and homophobia from Muslims

VIDEO

That's the problem with being woke.

They keep exposing the hypocrisy of their so-called "inclusion & diversity".

Just before I go, I did notice this other football-related story this week from the UK

Tranmere Rovers midfielder Sam Finley has been handed a 13-match suspension and fined £2,000 by the FA for making a homophobic comment to an opposition player. The 32-year-old has also been ordered to attend an education programme…

… 'It was alleged that the midfielder’s language towards a Walsall player around the 23rd minute was abusive and/or insulting and/or improper contrary to FA Rule E3.1.

More specifically

FA Rule E3.1 prohibits any participant in football from acting improperly or bringing the game into disrepute. It also prohibits violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent, or insulting words or behaviour.

Back to our media report

It was further alleged that this constitutes an ‘aggravated breach’, which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as it included a reference – whether express or implied – to sexual orientation.

Yes – a special category of offence around “reference to a person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, or disability”

Apparently an opposition player from Walsall got called a naughty word, and went and told the ref that Finley had said a naughty word. Finley admitted to the referee that he had called the opposition player a homophobic term. It followed a foul involving other players, and then there was lots of verbal insults between players.

There seems to be nothing in the many media reports which suggest that the opposition player is LGBT. But he still felt he had to nark.

Now let me just tell you. I have played football most of my life. Over-35s Over-40s and Over-45s towards the end of my dismal career.

Please know that I have been called every name under the sun – to do with my looks, my parentage, my size, specifically my stomach size, my speed (or lack of it), even my smile, sometimes even my faith. And I’ve been called every foul mouthed word as well including the c-word.

In fact I wonder if a player would get a 13 week ban for calling another player the c-word.

There would possibly be many players not playing football at the moment.

I have never gone to the ref and said “that player called me a naughty word”. It doesn’t mean it’s right – but a group of testosterone laden males do get wound up in sport. Believe me.

But is this an indication of how precious we have got.

Or is it more an indication of the penalising of any blasphemy towards the new cultural religion of LGBT, diversity, inclusion and wokeness.

And as we’ve previously covered, I can guarantee that if a player had said to the ref “That player just blasphemed” Or “That player said the name of our Lord with the F-word in between” – he would not be receiving a 13-match ban.

But 13 games?

Good question. Let’s just check what other bans have been given – and for what.

I found this list of the 10 longest suspensions.

Some of the really long ones have been around drugs

A Chelsea's player was sacked in 2004 after he failed a drugs test, testing positive for cocaine.

Rio Ferdinand was suspended for eight months in January 2004 for failing to turn up to a drugs test.

In 2002, Mark Bosnich – an Australian keeper - was sacked by Chelsea and given a nine month ban after testing positive for cocaine.

The worst one was probably one you’ve heard about.

Manchester United were trailing Crystal Palace in a match in 1995 and Frenchman Eric Cantona was sent off for a foul on an opposition player and on his way to the tunnel he kung-fu kicked a person in the crowd.

He was suspended for NINE months.

But let’s check ones related to interaction between players on the field.

Two years ago, Aleksandar Mitrovic was handed one of the longest punishments in Premier League history after he was banned for EIGHT games for pushing the referee in Fulham's FA Cup loss to Manchester United

In 2006 Man City’s Ben Thatcher received an EIGHT-game ban following a sickening elbow on Portsmouth's Pedro Mendes. Mendes received oxygen on the pitch and suffered a seizure on the way to hospital.

A Liverpool player! In 2013, Suarez received a TEN-week ban after biting a Chelsea player on the arm. In 2011, after a 1-1 draw with Manchester United Suarez was accused of racially abusing an opponent Patrice Evra.

Suarez has always completely denied the claim but the FA after a seven-day hearing handed Suarez an EIGHT-match ban

So biting, elbowing, assaulting the ref and racial abuse that couldn’t be confirmed – the worst was TEN weeks for biting another player.

Remember our naughty offensive hurty word got THIRTEEN games!

Close to that was TWELVE games – that was for Joey Barton from Queens Park Rangers. Suspended for 12 games back in 2012. Why? Elbowed a player in the head. Then kicked another player in the back of the leg, attempted to headbutt another player and had to be held back from attacking another player.

Still not as many games as the hurty word. Word. One word.

But it’s not the hurty words as such, because there’s always sledging and abuse of opposition players on the pitch. Believe me. I still referee football now. It happens all the time.

Dealing with the issue with yellow cards and then a red card that removes the player from the pitch seems appropriate – at the worst.

But to effectively ban a player from their profession for saying naughty words?

Next minute we’ll be giving bans to players who have the word Jesus on their shirts rather than displaying the words BLM or the pride rainbow.

Oh wait……