Would you agree that a word/phrase is homophobic because of the meaning behind the words imparted by the person saying those words?

A for instance, a year or so back a 15 year old at training where I coach said the same word Hardaker is accused of using. We obviously stopped him and told him he shouldn't say it. He had no idea it had any association to gay people. He'd only heard it used to describe someone being a bit "soft". He also wasn't using it in a particularly nasty way. He was telling his friend to "get up".

Would you say this lad was homophobic? Or was he using the word like any other swear word?

So homosexuality isn't still illegal in many of those places?

Which ones do you think it is illegal in? "Africa" is a bit of a generalisation. It is not illegal in Russia (happily for two fairly close friends of mine there), though the levels of discrimination they face there are not, in my opinion, acceptable in the modern world. "Asia" is also a bit sweeping. Which parts? Again, thinking purely of LGBT people I know personally, a Thai friend of mine has a civil partnership in Thailand. I believe they were a little ahead of us in that regard. India, to pick a rather large part of Asia is a bit of a grey area, with the government somewhat at loggerheads with the supreme court, with the result that same-sex couples can face a lot of harassment from public and police, but in practice are not likely to be convicted of anything.

It is illegal in some countries, of course. But I would argue that just because something goes on in the modern world that means there is a place for it in the modern world. So I don't really understand what is to be gained by trying to contradict that point.

I'd say the lad was ignorant of the meaning. Not an excuse that could be extended to the vast majority of adults.

It's not too long ago that Kelvin's Ferret used the term "window licker" on the sin bin. Now although I found it difficult to believe that an intelligent adult would not know the meaning of the term, his level of contrition convinced me that he truly did not know the meaning of the phrase he used.

I don't think I've criticised Hardaker per se. My criticisms have been saved for those who would simply dismiss all allegations against him as "banter"

Two weeks and still no charge but you all have assumed he is guilty. Hypocrites, all of you.
3 means of proving guilt.
Video
Referee
Opposition players

How long does it take? An absolute farce

How unlike you to be so dramatic [size(not)[/size

Wouldn't put it past the RFL to ban him 5 minutes before kickoff tonight.

All?

Not like you to be sanctimonious,overbearing and boring

I agree. But I'd also suggest that the word Hardaker is accused of using has been widely used without any homophobic intent or meaning on the part of the person saying it.

What I'm trying to say is that words true meaning are dependent on both context and the users intent.

For instance the lad I coached used, what is thought of as a homophobic word, but he didn't mean it as such and certainly isn't homophobic.

I've said earlier in the thread I have severe reservations about how this is being investigated by the RFL, I think it's setting a dangerous precedent. But that doesn't mean I think Hardaker is blameless.

Personally I don't think he's homophobic. I think he's yet another fine example of Jerry's Big Daft Lad Theory. I think he struggles to control himself and to compose himself in certain situations and has a lot of growing up to do. I think he just blurts out the first words that come into his head.

Personally I think, if it's proved he said it, Leeds should fine him for being so stupid after his first indiscretion and give him a final warning.

I am, however, uncomfortable with the governing body banning players for saying things on the pitch (other than at match officials). As I said I think it's opening up a very dangerous precedent for the RFL.

On YouTube they've been uploading full matches that have been shown on Sky this season. The game from the night before the Hardaker incident (Warrington vs Hudds) has been on for a few days and now the Wigan vs Leeds game is on there from a week later. Why isn't the Leeds vs Saints game on there so we can see exactly where Silverwood was stood when the Hardaker/Flanagan incident occurred?

If the word was used to describe someone as "soft" or not a "real man" then I'm sorry but it was homophobic, no matter how latent it may be. As I said, the lad could claim ignorance in mitigation and I would accept that but that's not an excuse available to any adult. We have a wonderful and diverse language, there are plenty of words in our lexicon that could be used, that carry no passive intent to slur the gay community.



I agree, the whole thing is pis[is[/ipotical: justice must be fair and it must be swift, to keep this hanging over Hardaker for so long is a farce. But it is the RFL we are dealing with here, an organisation that has never been known for exhibiting common sense.

It is also possible that some words are used without homophobic intent. After all, a phobia is an "irrational fear" of something. At the same time, there's no doubting the fact that such words (including what Hardaker is alleged to have said) are also used as an insult, no matter how mild. The simple question is: why should it be viewed as an insult to be gay or even different?

been away 2 weeks, has ZH been hung/burnt at the stake yet?

still trying to find a lip reader who says what they want to hear i guess

fair enough. youd think it would be pretty quick to sort out. im sure i read on ZHs twitter that hes struggling to sleep with "all this hanging over my head" or words to that effect.... thats not on, it should be black and white if hes guilty or not.
i did read the rhinos statement. quality bit of "stfu" from the rhinos to RFL. fu