action unlikely for boruc

apparently it was not allowed to name a teddy mohammed in that country. it's supposed to be allowed in scotland, but it doesn't seem so.

I can't remember the teddy country, but great britain are supposed to be a first class country, an eastern european giant, but they ain't even better than the teddy country when it comes to religion.

 

just right thats * racist, not on a par with artur's t shirt

 

nah, overkill what i mean is- in that country its not alowed, no matter how obscure we see it in that country its a no-no.
that woman didn't know that and where she's from its fine to call a teddy what ever you want - but she got jailed because it.

question is- is she showing a lack of respect for naming it mohamad
or are they showing lack of respect for not letting her name it mohamad because it is acceptiable in her country?

 

Living his own religion is not a crime and allowed. see the kappah and turban analogy. those people don't attack anybody.


the naka incident ain't the same. they don't praise their own country/religion whatever (orange marches kinda praise their own religion and they are allowed). instead it's something like "all black people sell drugs"... a cliché, depends on where you are, it can be construed as discrimination.

 

Got to be honest boys I did laugh when I saw that.

 

When in Rome...............

 

and again why do you even compare it?

boruc's case is supposed to be allowed.
the teddy thing is clearly not.

 

overkill you've missed the point again.
IN SPORT its not alowed. in ANY country under fifa's rules.

 

do you know there's a hierarchie in the law world. religious freedom is established by law (federal constitution in CH for example) where sport rules don't have much to say. (compared to fc's, EMRK etc)

beside that, I can see brazilian players with I love *, jesus loves me etc all the time and nothing happens at all.

 

then maybe its a very lax rule and nothing will happen to boruc . i'll post the paragraph from fifa again for you.

 

Beside that *, no one seems to have a problem with that (FIFA/UEFA) apart from the Huns (huns, SFA and huns)

 

i don't disagree.
my point is though, wether we think its right or wrong, or for what reason he done it by the law's of the book its not alowed. - how well fifa enforce this law is a diffrent story.

do i have a problem with boruc expressing his religion? nope.
do i have a problem with boruc possiably being banned, getting the club fined, warned what ever? yes. especially since it could have been avoided

 

Thats sectarianist. What a * legend is our Artur. The Rangers dont have any proper legends in their team. They can say all they like about Alan McShagger but Artur tops that easily.

 

Britain doesnt have a written constitution or bill of rights. The EU are the driving force but im not sure how much we cherry pick those.

 

Right on Paul ma man,for a minute ithought Artur had done something wrong?We need guys like him to stand up to these arseholes,however the * he chooses to do it is fine by me.

 

me too and everyone else I know except the very PC CQN crowd who were mortified. I actually was surprised by their creativity even if the daftness of it is partly laughing at them as well as with them. Its like the vicar who was dragged up when in the church magazine he said there was a nip in the air when refering to a Japanese visitor who was coming. Its just fun and a bit like all the tight fisted/haggis/nessie etc * you put up with if you live outside Scotland for a while. Its just banter.

 

the British monarch has also been head of Britains main protestant church for centuries since Henry VIII so their is a parallel.

 

that's true.
however everyone who got offended was looking for it. no sane person would get offended by it. like you and me we don't get offended by a kippah or turban, do we?

Yes I know that, that's why I wrote "for example... in CH".