Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Anchorman on November 01, 2016, 01:22:47 PM
-
Poppies are apparently banned over the next few home nations games. http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/01/fifa-bans-poppies-during-match-because-they-are-political-statements-6226627/?ito=facebook
-
How CRAZY is that? :o
-
I don't see poppies as "political statements" but neutral. People died in combat (generally not of their own making), we remember them, that's all.
Used to be able to buy a white poppy which showed a commitment to peace. I remember buying both but haven't seen any in recent years.
-
I think white poppies are an insult to those who died!
-
I think white poppies are an insult to those who died!
On a par with the White Feather of WW1.
-
Are they really? I never thought of them like that, honestly. The white feather business was dreadful, how could anyone make a judgement about someone not in uniform.
My view was that white poppies were making a statement about being committed to peace and many people who survived combat felt the same, some even going as far as becoming pacifists. However my idea of wearing a white poppy was not about pacifism in every situation but because I believed if everyone committed to peace, more peaceful solutions would be found.
Oh well, white poppies are no longer around as far as I know so the situation doesn't arise but thanks for your opinions. I wish SteveH would comment on this thread because he knows more about it than I. Not a big deal though, I'm sure you know I didn't intend any offence to anyone - still not sure that white poppies are offensive but you said so and wouldn't have without good reason.
Found this wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_poppy
It seems I wasn't being insulting by wearing a white poppy and there is nothing wrong with them!
I thought so but being as it was years ago and I am by nature a bit vague about some things, I presumed you had done some research.
Still hope SteveH comes on with his opinion though he may not care one way or 't'other.
I will buy two red poppies, as I do every year, one of which I will wear until it falls off and the other for the old man who always loses it in five minutes. If I see a white poppy on sale I'll wear both.
We used to have a British Legion club down the road to us which was quite a good social club by all accounts, my neighbours used to go but we never got around to it. It is now an extremely nice and useful Co-op, which I do go to, including this morning (no leftover pumpkins for me to make soup today)! Years ago I imagine they would have had information about the different poppies and the Wiki article says that the BL see no conflict between wearing both.
-
November 11th isn't about pacifists, it is about those who died fighting for our country!
-
I think white poppies are an insult to those who died!
Why?
I would have thought that quite a few of those who died might have preferred more peace given the option. You do sound so reactionary sometimes. They might even think it a compliment that their deaths moved people towards thinking about peace as an option.
Have you still got a black and white TV in your house?
-
Why?
I would have thought that quite a few of those who died might have preferred more peace given the option. You do sound so reactionary sometimes. They might even think it a compliment that their deaths moved people towards thinking about peace as an option.
Have you still got a black and white TV in your house?
It is about honouring people who died FIGHTING for their country. If pacifists want their own peace day with white poppies they should have one, but NOT on November 11th.
-
It is about honouring people who died FIGHTING for their country. If pacifists want their own peace day with white poppies they should have one, but NOT on November 11th.
As ever you are living up to your by-line.
-
It's not worth getting het up about.
Not everyone understands the meaning of the white poppy, that's why I posted the wiki link and there are other references if one cares to google.
No offence intended at all.
-
. . . because I believed if everyone committed to peace, more peaceful solutions would be found.
The problem with this is the "everyone". Also the definition of peace.
Putin is, supposedly, committed to peace, but, unfortunately, it is a peace on terms dictated by him. He is, of course, not the only one who thinks like this. On the matter of militant Islam and Daesh, Trump wants peace, but again a peace on terms dictated by him.
While such as these are the leaders of the world's major powers universal peace is but a pipedream.
-
Maybe Owl, only time will tell.
Still no reason not to wear a white poppy.
-
White poppies were never intended as an insult, but a gesture. The foundation was Christian and pacifist - many of those who were pacifist were survivors of the trenches who had seen their comrades butchered, or widows of the fallen. I'll wear a red poppy - but I will not condemn anyone who wears a white one. http://www.thenews.coop/91531/news/history/white-poppies-tell-the-story-of-the-alternative-remembrance-day/
-
On a par with the White Feather of WW1.
Shows how little you and Floo understand the white poppy, Owl. For one thing, someone buys a white poppy for themselves to wear, to show their commitment to peace and reconciliation. It isn't something you buy to give to someone else (unless thay ask you to buy one for them).
-
November 11th isn't about pacifists, it is about those who died fighting for our country!
And, of course, over the years many pacifists have died - both amongst our and other nations' forces - fighting for their country.
-
Shows how little you and Floo understand the white poppy, Owl. For one thing, someone buys a white poppy for themselves to wear, to show their commitment to peace and reconciliation. It isn't something you buy to give to someone else (unless thay ask you to buy one for them).
Does one "buy" a poppy?
I'm not trying to score points, Hope, but just wondering how people perceive the act of obtaining a poppy (red or white).
-
That's nit picking. We may not 'buy' a poppy as such. There is no fixed amount but I've never known anyone to take a poppy and not put any money in a collection box.
Anchor and Hope (sounds like a pub!), good posts about the white poppy.
-
Shows how little you and Floo understand the white poppy, Owl. For one thing, someone buys a white poppy for themselves to wear, to show their commitment to peace and reconciliation. It isn't something you buy to give to someone else (unless thay ask you to buy one for them).
It says "If you and yours hadn't fought, ours would not have had to die!"
Had these people not fought this forum would be in German!
And like many of my family i would be dead because of my familiy's religion!
-
Owl: With respect, one of the greatest men I ever met - an agnostic some of the time, atheiist the rest - wore a white poppy. He had fought in North Africa, Sicicily and Italy in the second war, as a soldier of the (reconstituted) 51st Highland division. What he saw sickened him and made him a committed lifelong pacifist. He's better known nowadays as a great poet songwriter and collector of folk ballads - the late Hamish Henderson, and I honour his fight and admire his courage in rejecting war. The white poppy was not a sign of defeat or of disdain for the military, but a pledge to work for peace.
-
Hmmm this doesn't pass the smell test for me. Looks too much like click bait.
For example how can FIFA possibly police this? It's an England Scotland match. Nobody is going to raise a complaint.
I notice that FIFA haven't commented on the article, which was mined from The Sun and comes from The Metro. I lay myself open for you all to sneer at my cynicism as I suggest that they may not be telling the truth, but are looking for the public to distribute their outrageous story to increase the number of clicks on their site, thus increasing their advertising revenue and profile.
Just saying. ::)
-
T8...... Here's the Beeb's latest article on the subject: http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37832115
-
Hmmm this doesn't pass the smell test for me. Looks too much like click bait.
Whilst this might be true, T8, it wasn't click bait when the same issue was raised by FIFA 5 years ago and Prince William and David Cameron urged FIFA to rethink. On that occasion, England were playing Spain on Saturday 12th November 2011. In the end, FIFA allowed poppies to be worn on armbands, rather than on the shirts.
-
Does one "buy" a poppy?
I'm not trying to score points, Hope, but just wondering how people perceive the act of obtaining a poppy (red or white).
Effectively, yes. As far as I am aware, money changes hands in the process of obtaining a poppy. The people distributing them are known as poppy sellers. Whilst there is no set charge for the poppy - you donate what you feel you want to - they are still being sold.
I suspect that many people, especially the older ones around, regard the buying of a poppy - of whatever colour - as a means of solidarity with the families of those who died in battle and in thanks for their sacrifice.
-
It's like seem this story has an element of credence, and so I apologise.
I can only blame my lack of judgement on the confusion caused by deciding who I trust the least; FIFA or the media :o
-
I am more unhappy with the alacrity with which varioius orgnisations, including our Government, local and national, ban anything that might annoy or upset.
The Poppy has been around for years, its meaning is known worldwide (I used to donate to get mine in Aussie), I really feel banning it for any reason is unreasonable.
-
Yes, it is stupid to ban it.
-
What I'd like to know is how FIFA reach the conclusion that the poppy is a political and/or religious motif?
-
I wondered the same and googled, "Wearing red poppy", and found a wiki article which gives some detail about the controversy over poppy wearing (not specific to FIFA). Here's an extract:
"In recent years, there has been growing controversy over the Poppy Appeal. Some—including British Army veterans—have argued that the Poppy Appeal has become excessive and garish, that it is being used to marshal support behind British military campaigns, and that poppy wearing has become compulsory for public figures.[29][30] Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow described it as "poppy fascism".[31] Columnist Dan O'Neill wrote that "presenters and politicians seem to compete in a race to be first – poppies start sprouting in mid-October while the absence of a poppy is interpreted as absence of concern for the war dead, almost as an unpatriotic act of treachery".[32] Likewise, Jonathan Bartley of the religious think-tank Ekklesia said "public figures in Britain are urged, indeed in many cases, required, to wear ... the red poppy, almost as an article of faith. There is a political correctness about the red poppy".[33] Journalist Robert Fisk complained that the poppy has become a seasonal "fashion accessory" and that people were "ostentatiously wearing a poppy for social or work-related reasons, to look patriotic when it suited them".[34] Controversially, some far-right groups have used the poppy as a symbol of militant British nationalism, while some Muslims have begun to reject it as a symbol of Western imperialism."
Some people don't have enough to complain about.
-
Not only that, Brownie, but, sadly, in some parts of Northern Ireland, wearing or not wearing the poppy is very much a political statement. It shouldn't be, of course, but it is.
-
I agree it shouldn't be but in a way it is understandable in NI, Anchorman.
-
I think white poppies are an insult to those who died!
They are a symbol of the desire for peace. Many people wear both a red and a white one.
-
Are they really? I never thought of them like that, honestly. The white feather business was dreadful, how could anyone make a judgement about someone not in uniform.
My view was that white poppies were making a statement about being committed to peace and many people who survived combat felt the same, some even going as far as becoming pacifists. However my idea of wearing a white poppy was not about pacifism in every situation but because I believed if everyone committed to peace, more peaceful solutions would be found.
Oh well, white poppies are no longer around as far as I know so the situation doesn't arise but thanks for your opinions. I wish SteveH would comment on this thread because he knows more about it than I. Not a big deal though, I'm sure you know I didn't intend any offence to anyone - still not sure that white poppies are offensive but you said so and wouldn't have without good reason.
Found this wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_poppy
It seems I wasn't being insulting by wearing a white poppy and there is nothing wrong with them!
I thought so but being as it was years ago and I am by nature a bit vague about some things, I presumed you had done some research.
Still hope SteveH comes on with his opinion though he may not care one way or 't'other.
I will buy two red poppies, as I do every year, one of which I will wear until it falls off and the other for the old man who always loses it in five minutes. If I see a white poppy on sale I'll wear both.
We used to have a British Legion club down the road to us which was quite a good social club by all accounts, my neighbours used to go but we never got around to it. It is now an extremely nice and useful Co-op, which I do go to, including this morning (no leftover pumpkins for me to make soup today)! Years ago I imagine they would have had information about the different poppies and the Wiki article says that the BL see no conflict between wearing both.
Hi - I'm back. White poppies are still available, though you have to order them. I used to be a member of the PPU in the 70s.
-
I think you are a bloody idiot. They are a symbol of the desire for peace. Many people wear both a red and a white one.
You are entitled to your opinion - I will not post my opinion of you.
-
I don't know if this will work, but here goes . . .
14632874_10211296021177730_9123599233011202857_n
Update - it doesn't - damn it!
-
The much missed FastFlint #13
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9431.0
-
Given the fuss made over people not wearing a red poppy, it is already politicised before FIFA. Let's presume the 'ban' is overturned and a player on either side on Scotland v England chooses not wear the armband, and imagine the fuss that would be made by some.
-
On a par with the White Feather of WW1.
Ah yes the great cowardice of refusing to kill people.
-
I wondered the same and googled, "Wearing red poppy", and found a wiki article which gives some detail about the controversy over poppy wearing (not specific to FIFA). Here's an extract:
"In recent years, there has been growing controversy over the Poppy Appeal. Some—including British Army veterans—have argued that the Poppy Appeal has become excessive and garish, that it is being used to marshal support behind British military campaigns, and that poppy wearing has become compulsory for public figures.[29][30] Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow described it as "poppy fascism".[31] Columnist Dan O'Neill wrote that "presenters and politicians seem to compete in a race to be first – poppies start sprouting in mid-October while the absence of a poppy is interpreted as absence of concern for the war dead, almost as an unpatriotic act of treachery".[32] Likewise, Jonathan Bartley of the religious think-tank Ekklesia said "public figures in Britain are urged, indeed in many cases, required, to wear ... the red poppy, almost as an article of faith. There is a political correctness about the red poppy".[33] Journalist Robert Fisk complained that the poppy has become a seasonal "fashion accessory" and that people were "ostentatiously wearing a poppy for social or work-related reasons, to look patriotic when it suited them".[34] Controversially, some far-right groups have used the poppy as a symbol of militant British nationalism, while some Muslims have begun to reject it as a symbol of Western imperialism."
Some people don't have enough to complain about.
I agree with your quoted paragraph, and dislike poppy-fascism as well. I have been a poppy refusenik for the last few years, in protest.
-
Everyone is entitled to their opinions on the matter of poppies.
-
I don't know if this will work, but here goes . . .
14632874_10211296021177730_9123599233011202857_n
Didn't
-
Everyone is entitled to their opinions on the matter of poppies.
...and everyone else is entitled to disagree. My insult was rather unnecessary, though, so I've removed it. Sorry.
-
Im not against either red or white poppies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/remembrance/how/poppy.shtml
I didn't know white poppies caused some to lose their jobs :o
I have a red poppy brooch this year and I see it as a reminder of all those involved in various wars that didn't come home, and our responsibility towards those who came ( or still do, now) home injured or disabled.
I don't think banning it on a football match when the parties involved are in the UK as we are still remembering the same people as in those wars the soldiers came from all over the uk, on first glance is reasonable.
I suppose it could be an issue and a political statement if the soldiers you are remembering were killing off relatives of people you are playing or mixing with.
NI could be an issue if the people perceived as being remembered were thought to be the surpressers there.
However that's just one match, which could be sorted by listening to how both sides felt about wearing poppies and just stopping the wearing of it, if it was likely to cause tensions.
If it was used as a Protestant symbol to wind up the republicans, that's probably not a good idea.
It would be an abuse of what the poppy is supposed to mean, a rememberance of the dead and a giving to the living.
I suppose it depends how likely it is for the symbol of the Poppy to be abused to wind up and increase hostilities.
Maybe they thought it could be, after all people have been known to abuse symbols to mean quite offensive things.
The swastica used to be a Hindu symbol.
Initially my reaction to a poppy ban is that it is ridiculous.
However, I'm prepared to discover it may be being abused to mean something else, and maybe fifa's answer is to stop it, altogether.
Not sure.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/fifa-set-allow-england-scotland-9172846
So England, Scotland and Wales is fine but NI isn't ?
Looks like there may be something in what I thought about the likelihood of the Poppy being misinterpreted.
In some places maybe it does come across as political.
I wonder how Germans view it?
I know there was an issue sometime back with how a few Muslims saw it, with regard to Afghanistan.
Remember Anjem Choudary and the poppy fiasco?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055365/Poppy-burning-Muslims-plan-new-hell-heroes-demonstration-November-11.html
I think Fifa just want to avoid conflict.
-
The poppy is contentious in some parts of NI - seen as an Imperialist symbol by some, and as a gesture toward republicanism to those who don't wear it (despite many from the Free State fighting in WWII) In Scotland, it has caused contention, when several Glasgow Celtic players did not wear it on their strips. Imagine the controversy if the symbol were allowed at a game? Imagine if a player or two - Scots or English - did NOT wear it, whilst the rest did. The furore and backlash would be horrendous. Poppy fascism is real, and devalues the meaning of the symbol. It must be a matter of personal choice to wear or not to wear - except if there is pressure brought to bear to wear - in which case I would stand with those who refused to bow to the pressure.
-
The poppy is contentious in some parts of NI - seen as an Imperialist symbol by some, and as a gesture toward republicanism to those who don't wear it (despite many from the Free State fighting in WWII) In Scotland, it has caused contention, when several Glasgow Celtic players did not wear it on their strips. Imagine the controversy if the symbol were allowed at a game? Imagine if a player or two - Scots or English - did NOT wear it, whilst the rest did. The furore and backlash would be horrendous. Poppy fascism is real, and devalues the meaning of the symbol. It must be a matter of personal choice to wear or not to wear - except if there is pressure brought to bear to wear - in which case I would stand with those who refused to bow to the pressure.
Yes, I agree, I think it should be personal choice.
Although I don't suppose there is a real need to wear it while playing football.
They can always wear it, while not actually playing.
I can understand you not wanting to be told and be forced to wear it, no one likes being told what to do.
I think if I was told I had to wear it ( rather than personal choice) I wouldn't like it either.
🌹
-
If FIFA deem remembrance poppies to be political, religious or commercial symbols, why do they allow national teams to wear their national symbols on their shirts? There is possibly nothing more overtly political a symbol than this badge!!
-
Quite.
Honestly, I wouldn't have thought FIFA would consist of people who sit down and debate the ethics of poppy wearing.
-
I emailed FIFA earlier this evening asking them to explain why the poppy is seen as a political, religious and/or commercial symbol, but the national badges on the players' shirts aren't.
-
Apparently, the Scots are ignoring the ban: http://stv.tv/news/scotland/1371823-scotland-team-to-wear-poppy-armbands-in-spite-of-fifa-sanctions/?utm_content=buffer75fe4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
So, what will FIFA do? Declare the game invalid?
I think FIFA should be told that they have no jurisdiction in internal UK law. What two British national teams choose to do inside the UK, which is acceptable to both teams and which does not infringe the laws of England or Scotland is none of FIFA's business.
-
I think it's clear FIFA misunderstand poppies .But having seen box pops I wonder if it has been seen as a mark of militarism rather than a symbol promoting the need for remembrance.
What are poppies for?
-
So, what will FIFA do? Declare the game invalid?
I think FIFA should be told that they have no jurisdiction in internal UK law. What two British national teams choose to do inside the UK, which is acceptable to both teams and which does not infringe the laws of England or Scotland is none of FIFA's business.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue. The Associations are part of FIFA and signed up to the rules.
-
Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue. The Associations are part of FIFA and signed up to the rules.
I am well aware that both Associations are part of FIFA.
My first statement was asking what FIFA will do about this. The two Associations are breaking no English or Scottish law and thus are doing something which is entirely legal and culturally appropriate. Will FIFA argue that its rules take precedence over national law?
FIFA should be told that wearing Poppies is not a political but a humanitarian, cultural gesture.
-
I am well aware that both Associations are part of FIFA.
My first statement was asking what FIFA will do about this. The two Associations are breaking no English or Scottish law and thus are doing something which is entirely legal and culturally appropriate. Will FIFA argue that its rules take precedence over national law?
FIFA should be told that wearing Poppies is not a political but a humanitarian, cultural gesture.
No, it won't be arguing that, it will be arguing that its rules apply, there is no question of precedence. Plenty of things in football are 'legal' but have disciplinary effect.
As I noted earlier, imagine the storm if one of the players say they don't want to wear a poppy, and then tell me that it isn't political.
-
To add a parochial bit to NS: When Glasgow Celtic happened to be playing a game a few years back around this time of year, two players did not wear a poppy. The resultant bile from certain sections of the media suggest that they misunderstand the meaning of rememberance just as much as FIFA do.
-
To add a parochial bit to NS: When Glasgow Celtic happened to be playing a game a few years back around this time of year, two players did not wear a poppy. The resultant bile from certain sections of the media suggest that they misunderstand the meaning of rememberance just as much as FIFA do.
I'm not sure that FIFA 'misunderstand' it, rather I suspect that the aim is to avoid having lots of cases where they have to have discussion of whether something is political.
-
A poem attributed to a member of the 1st Shankhill Somme Association
The Poppy
I am not a badge of honour
I am not a racist smear
I am not a fshion statement
To be worn but once a year
I am not a glorification
Of conflict or of war.
I am not a paper ornament
A token
I m more.
I am a loving memory
Of a father or a son
A permanent reminder
Of each and every one.
I am paper or enamel
I'm old or shining new
I'm a way of saying thank you
To everyone of you.
I am a simple poppy
A reminder to you all
That courage faith and honour
Will stand where heroes fall.
-
No, it won't be arguing that, it will be arguing that its rules apply, there is no question of precedence. Plenty of things in football are 'legal' but have disciplinary effect.
And of course there are those who are arguing that the rules apply - yes - but that FIFA are wrongly applying them in this case since they are wrongly interpreting their own rules.
-
And of course there are those who are arguing that the rules apply - yes - but that FIFA are wrongly applying them in this case since they are wrongly interpreting their own rules.
As I wrote in reply to Anchorman, I suspect there is precious little interpreting being done by them, and this is more seeking to avoid having to make decisions on such stuff, and is aiming for something close to a blanket ban.
And again given the opprobrium that would be thrown at any players who didn't wear the poppy, then I think there is a strong argument for it being political.
-
A poem attributed to a member of the 1st Shankhill Somme Association
The Poppy
I am not a badge of honour
I am not a racist smear
I am not a fshion statement
To be worn but once a year
I am not a glorification
Of conflict or of war.
I am not a paper ornament
A token
I m more.
I am a loving memory
Of a father or a son
A permanent reminder
Of each and every one.
I am paper or enamel
I'm old or shining new
I'm a way of saying thank you
To everyone of you.
I am a simple poppy
A reminder to you all
That courage faith and honour
Will stand where heroes fall.
I note their Facebook page has plenty of politicak statements about Ulster.
-
As I wrote in reply to Anchorman, I suspect there is precious little interpreting being done by them, and this is more seeking to avoid having to make decisions on such stuff, and is aiming for something close to a blanket ban.
And again given the opprobrium that would be thrown at any players who didn't wear the poppy, then I think there is a strong argument for it being political.
James McClean has consistently refused to wear a poppy, and he regularly gets flak in the tabloids, and also received death threats. He's from Derry, and argues that the British army is not seen benignly there. (West Brom player?)
It's the conformism that irritates me. BBC staff en masse start wearing them, and football teams actually have them printed on shirts. That would make me refuse.
-
I note their Facebook page has plenty of political statements about Ulster.
I do not think many wear the poppy for Ulster!
-
I do not think many wear the poppy for Ulster!
Didn't say they did, but you mentioned the organisation, and a quick scan of their Facebook page illustrates the entwined cultural aspects of the Poppy and anti-Republicanism for them. As both Anchorman and wigginhall have covered the refusal to wear a poppy by James McClean has been motivated from the other side of the sad divide.
-
McClean shows to me that it's not really an individual decision, since when he does decide against wearing a poppy, he gets pilloried. There is a bullying atmosphere about poppies today that makes me puke. I remember my grandad used to rant and rave about it, no poppies in this house, sunshine.
-
Poppies are apparently banned over the next few home nations games. http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/01/fifa-bans-poppies-during-match-because-they-are-political-statements-6226627/?ito=facebook
It is not political or religious.
FIFA are pathetic and if the world told them so the players could wear poppies. Why not have the poppy printed into their club logos.
FIFA Could do nothing about having a flower in your shirt logo. Every football club could have a shirt with a small poppy on the right sleeve permanently.
-
And what if, through choice, a player did not wish to display a poppy, Sass? A compulsory poppy on a shirt negates the purpose of personal rememberance, I'm afraid.
-
And what if, through choice, a player did not wish to display a poppy, Sass? A compulsory poppy on a shirt negates the purpose of personal rememberance, I'm afraid.
A poppy is a flower and it is simply a flower. What we attach to that flower is simply personal to each person.
Are you saying a poppy was created solely for remembrance? You never really had a point did you Anchorman?
You need to get rid of your problem with me. It is clear in the bible, if you can love those here you cannot love God whom you do not see. Sight not being the problem but the way you love others reflects how we love God or not.
-
You need to get rid of your problem with me.
...says the woman who asks God directly, to act on Anchorman's life...
Almighty, and most merciful heavenly Father, please put an end to the work he does till he stops mocking the truth of Genesis and that every word from your mouth is reliable and truth. In Jesus Name. Amen.
Hmmmm........
-
Sass: Had you read this thread, you will note that I have stated that I will most definately wear a poppy (two if I can get a white one as well). But you know as well as I do that a poppy is a symbol of rememberance - and I wholeheartedly support this (though the name "Earl Haig" still causes contention, especially amongst veterans). However to impose the symbol as part of a uniform or sporting strip would cheapen the meaning of that rememberance. It must always be a matter of private reflection and personal choice whether to wear one or not. A nieghbour who served in the Navy was disciplined for refusing to wear one at Rememberance parade - because he remembered his father breaking down every time he saw the poppy (His dad was a D-Day veteran and refused to wear it). Out of respect for his dad, he would not wear it. Was he wrong in refusing to toe the line, Sass?
-
And what if, through choice, a player did not wish to display a poppy, Sass? A compulsory poppy on a shirt negates the purpose of personal rememberance, I'm afraid.
Yes, a printed poppy on a football shirt is really bizarre. It means that the individual's decision is being taken for him, by the club, I suppose.
I had to laugh yesterday when I saw Theresa May pontificating about it, making it certainly political.
I think FIFA have an interesting argument also that many countries have gone through terrible wars and revolutions, so presumably, they should be able to commemorate these things on their shirts. I suppose FIFA are just saying no to any.
-
Having said that, I think FIFA did allow a symbol on Irish players' shirts, to commemorate the Easter Rising, so this seems inconsistent.
http://cdn-04.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/article34506230.ece/a4fb1/AUTOCROP/w620/2016-03-03_new_17351365_I3.JPG
No, correction again, I don't think that was a decision by FIFA, as it was a friendly.
-
Having said that, I think FIFA did allow a symbol on Irish players' shirts, to commemorate the Easter Rising, so this seems inconsistent.
http://cdn-04.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/article34506230.ece/a4fb1/AUTOCROP/w620/2016-03-03_new_17351365_I3.JPG
Given that they have said they are evaluating this, it isn't clear that they allowed it.
-
Yes, the Irish symbols were worn in friendly matches, so possibly FIFA were not involved.
-
Of course, it is that time of year when mascots remember too
http://www.anorak.co.uk/374834/sports/football-mascots-observe-the-minutes-silences-photos.html/
-
Maybe a comparison
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37867436
-
...says the woman who asks God directly, to act on Anchorman's life...
Hmmmm........
That was me DEALING with a problem, not having one with Anchorman.
Now you have it corrected move along nothing to see.
-
Sass: Had you read this thread, you will note that I have stated that I will most definately wear a poppy (two if I can get a white one as well). But you know as well as I do that a poppy is a symbol of rememberance - and I wholeheartedly support this (though the name "Earl Haig" still causes contention, especially amongst veterans). However to impose the symbol as part of a uniform or sporting strip would cheapen the meaning of that rememberance.
Where do you get the crap from? No one imposing anything but FIFA trying to ban players WHO WANT to wear their poppies from doing so. You and what you would like to do or not do, do not figure at all in this discussion. Having a poppy on the shirt would be a continual rememberance rather than a one day year. What is it about you centreing everything around yourself? You didn't fight in the wars and you certainly didn't die.
It must always be a matter of private reflection and personal choice whether to wear one or not.
Oh! and FIFA is actually allowing that.. Do you ever read anything without it being about YOU?
A nieghbour who served in the Navy was disciplined for refusing to wear one at Rememberance parade - because he remembered his father breaking down every time he saw the poppy (His dad was a D-Day veteran and refused to wear it). Out of respect for his dad, he would not wear it. Was he wrong in refusing to toe the line, Sass?
Well his dad came back. But the poppy is about those who didn't who paid the highest price of service to their country and mankind with their lives. Tell me who figures most important in this for a reason the poppy should be worn. The man who came back and his Son or the families of/ the men who never came back who the poppies being sold support the families and soldiers today?
It is a no brainer the poppy and wearing it, is not about those who returned and their families who suffered no loss. It is about the families and the soldiers who lost their lives.Who lie beneath those field of poppies so to speak. No one should have to explain why those poppies need to be worn, NO ONE.
-
Yes, a printed poppy on a football shirt is really bizarre. It means that the individual's decision is being taken for him, by the club, I suppose.
I had to laugh yesterday when I saw Theresa May pontificating about it, making it certainly political.
I think FIFA have an interesting argument also that many countries have gone through terrible wars and revolutions, so presumably, they should be able to commemorate these things on their shirts. I suppose FIFA are just saying no to any.
it would be a small embroidered poppy not a cheap print.
-
That was me DEALING with a problem, not having one with Anchorman.
Now you have it corrected move along nothing to see.
If you say so....... ::)
-
As has already been said an embroidered poppy would mean everyone has to wear one so takes away choice and I don't like the idea of that though I see it wouldn't be practical for footballers to have an ordinary poppy pinned onto their clothes while they are playing.
Footballers can wear a poppy when they are not on the field, why don't FIFA just leave it at that? It should be sufficient. If we went swimming I don't think we'd have one pinned to our bathing costume.
I approve of poppies and will try to get a white one as well as a red but seeing everyone wearing one on TV (& there has been criticism in the past if someone has appeared without one, which is bizarre), when not every person we encounter in the street wears one seems a bit false to me.
-
As has already been said an embroidered poppy would mean everyone has to wear one so takes away choice and I don't like the idea of that though I see it wouldn't be practical for footballers to have an ordinary poppy pinned onto their clothes while they are playing.
Footballers can wear a poppy when they are not on the field, why don't FIFA just leave it at that? It should be sufficient. If we went swimming I don't think we'd have one pinned to our bathing costume.
I approve of poppies and will try to get a white one as well as a red but seeing everyone wearing one on TV (& there has been criticism in the past if someone has appeared without one, which is bizarre), when not every person we encounter in the street wears one seems a bit false to me.
FIFA are the ones saying there should not be poppies, Brownie. It is the individual Football Associations looking to have them. The poppies don't have to be on the shirt but can be worn as armbands.
-
FIFA's position seems quite consistent to me, as presumably they don't want lots of countries putting various symbols on their shirts. Plenty of countries have had wars and other events, that they might want to commemorate, and the whole thing could become a mess, and could also become inflammatory.
However, I suspect that the British teams will wear arm-bands, and FIFA will object, and that will be that, until next year.
-
FIFA taking action against the Republic
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37872020
-
It's all becoming ridiculous. Tit for tat.
-
The irony is that the FA presumably voted for these restrictions. Very sensible too, as otherwise every country in the world might want some slogan or image. Well, you could go that way, I suppose. A Palestinian football team could have 'death to Zionism' on their shirts, and the Israeli team could have 'Arabs stink'.
-
It's all becoming ridiculous. Tit for tat.
How is it tit for tat? FIFA are against all political symbols, it's in the rules
-
Depends whether or not you see the poppy as a political symbol. I know some do, we discussed this earlier in the thread, but many don't. I might have felt that way at one time, certainly when I was young, but I've thought a lot about where the money raised from poppy sales goes and approve of it. My personal feelings about war and the military are irrelevant, there are people in need who will be helped as well as remembering those who died. When I think of those who were conscripted in WW1 and had no control over their lives, I want to wear a white poppy as a statement of commitment to peace.
Just found this: http://www.edu.pe.ca/southernkings/poppyanswers.htm
This one is about white poppies: http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/white_faq.html
I see no conflict between wearing both.
Commemorating the Irish uprising is more of a political statement imo and as someone said earlier, if a team had anti-zionist emblems that certainly would be so. So FIFAs argument for banning of anything that even hints at a political statement is understandable even if some feel it is misunderstood and unfair in some cases, like me and poppies :).
-
The irony is that the FA presumably voted for these restrictions. Very sensible too, as otherwise every country in the world might want some slogan or image. Well, you could go that way, I suppose. A Palestinian football team could have 'death to Zionism' on their shirts, and the Israeli team could have 'Arabs stink'.
It isn't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
There is NOTHING insulting to any Country or person remembering the brave soldiers who gave their lives in war to defend their Countries.
There is NOTHING political or even just religious in remembering fallen heroes who paid the highest cost to protect their loved ones. However do you compare this with the above to represent the same thing?
Not a sensible idea by any account to suggest they are one and the same thing. Clearly they are not. ???
-
FIFA taking action against the Republic
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37872020
So, FIFA take pre-emptive action on a symbol that is barely political, religious or commercial, yet seem to have ignored a blatantly political slogan in the poast. Double-standards is what I call that. They have (potentially) acted retrospectively simply because those double-standards have been highlighted by the poppy story.
-
This might be of interest:
https://leftfootforward.org/2016/11/what-if-a-british-footballer-wanted-to-wear-a-white-poppy/
(What happened today, or rather, yesterday? Did footballers wear armbands?)
-
This might be of interest:
https://leftfootforward.org/2016/11/what-if-a-british-footballer-wanted-to-wear-a-white-poppy/
(What happened today, or rather, yesterday? Did footballers wear armbands?)
Nothing as the matches that are part of the discussion are next week.
-
I received a Facebook message the other day. It showed a "poster" from an organisation called Leave.EU. It showed a large Union Flag and carried a message deprecating FIFA's statement.
I thought that this was inappropriate and sickening. Using the pretext that FIFA were implying that poppies are a political symbol, it politicised the problem itself in a most egregious manner. The clear implication was that FIFA was somehow connected to the EU - ignoring the fact that FIFA is based in Switzerland.
The individual that produced this scummy message is either malicious or lobotomised. I think I know which ....
-
Nothing as the matches that are part of the discussion are next week.
OIC.
I got that afterwards.
On Saturday night I caught the end of the news and there was a bit about football players showing their respect for the war casualties that day, and I thought it might be something to do with this subject. I suppose it is, if not actually wearing of poppies.
HH, I think I know which too.
-
And fines imposed for this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38368144
-
I still don't understand why FIFA thinks the poppy is a political symbol.
-
I still don't understand why FIFA thinks the poppy is a political symbol.
Probably because they can't think of anything else to get concerned asbout - like simulation, player abuse of officials or the proper application of gola-line technology (to name but 3)