Posted: December 21st 2011

The FA’s sign-up to the cult of Zero Tolerance means Suarez is punished without the need for adequate evidence or context.

And the ironies abound… On BBC News, Piara Powar of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) says “as I understand it the case [against Suarez] centred around the use of the word “Negrito”, which for Luis Suarez is apparently acceptable but for many of us in the UK racialising an interaction amongst players is not the right thing – its wrong, it is racially offensive”.   ‘Racialising an interaction amongst players’!!  Well, he got that right but I don’t think he meant the actions of the FA, Fifa, FARE, Kick it Out, Show Racism the Red Card …  Or did he?

Meanwhile, the incredulous reaction in Uruguay (never mind Liverpool) from newspaper El Pais seems fitting – it attacks the “pseudo-moralism” of the English.  But to be more precise – it’s the uncritical embracing of Zero Tolerance for racism that needs a straightforward attack.  Launched by the Macpherson inquiry in 1999, Zero Tolerance partnered up with ‘Institutional Racism’ to create an anti-racist warrant.  It ran like this: a racist incident is ‘any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’; Racism can be unwitting, unintentional, deeply imbedded because; society is racist.   In short, there’s no need for evidence because we now have a definition that absolves us from producing any – we have a definition that places the accusation of racism outside the boundaries of proof or rebuttal (see Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics by Dennis, Erdos and Al-Shahi, 2000) 

The unfolding saga – Sepp Blatter, Luis Suarez and soon John Terry interests me because in education the discussion of football players as role models never stops.   Which means that when Macpherson stressed “the need for education and example at the youngest age, and an overall attitude of ‘zero tolerance’ …” showtrials of former role models and the ongoing practice of policing the playground will gather in pace.