Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

So making the sign of the cross is automatically "provocative" is it?

101 replies

FluffyCharlotteCorday · 26/08/2006 13:06

Or is it just when you're in the presence of bigoted Scottish football fans?

Can't quite believe this story

OP posts:
SherlockLGJ · 26/08/2006 13:15

Unbelievable isn't it.?

fattiemumma · 26/08/2006 13:21

how utterly ridiculous.

rabbitrabbit · 26/08/2006 13:23

Completely ridiculous

tissy · 26/08/2006 13:25

BBC news just now implied that it was not the only thing he did...

I don't think it's unbelievable at all- West of Scotland is pretty sectarian, and an old firm match a highly charged atmosphere. He could have crossed himself in the dressing room, or in the tunnel, if it was that important to him.

purplemonkeydishwasher · 26/08/2006 13:29

I was going to start a thread about this. HOw utterly unbelievable is this?
The guy is Polish by the way, so it's not as if he was doing it for the sake of being 'provocative'. What a loads of balls.
So, tissy - why do you think he should do it in private?
Because being Catholic is 'provocative'? What if he was coloured in front of a racist crowd? would that be being 'provocative' too?
Just because it's happened here for hundreds of years doesn't make bigotry right!

Aimsmum · 26/08/2006 13:31

Message withdrawn

Aimsmum · 26/08/2006 13:34

Message withdrawn

purplemonkeydishwasher · 26/08/2006 13:36

aimsmum - i would agree with you if he was a scottish player, but he's not from here. Speaking as someone who isn't from here (but has lived here for 5 years) this whole sectarianism thingy is so ridiculous. So i'm sure he wasn't doing it to provoke.

saltire · 26/08/2006 13:36

I don't think it's unbelievable either, and IMO, he should have been aware of the implications of doing such a thing in front of such a crowd, if it happened against, say Dundee United, or Caley Thistle, then it wouldn't have had the same effect. Everyone should have the right to their religion, without getting into trouble for observing it. However, as i said, Boruc would probably know full well the effect crossing himself would have, especially if he did it in front of Rangers fans. it could have caused riots in Glasgow.
It sadeens me as a Scot that there is still this horrible bigotry in the West Coast, we're not all like that you know.

tissy · 26/08/2006 13:36

I didn't mean that he intended to inflame the crowd by making the sign of the cross, but given the sectarian tensions bound to be present at such a game, it was perhaps not the most well-chosen moment.

And, it works both ways, someone wearing a bowler hat and white gloves wouldn't go down well at the Celtic End.

Yes, the man was Polish, and, therefore, likely to be Catholic, but that doesn't make him ignorant of the background of the club he was joining.

BYW, I believe use of the word "coloured" could be considered inflammatory as well

purplemonkeydishwasher · 26/08/2006 13:38

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. THe sign he did was for himself and his god. It had nothing to do with the crowd the team or anything. HOw many players crossed themselves during the world cup?
If he had give the finger to the crowd or yelled something at them then i would understand. But FGS this guy has now got a criminal record for showing his faith. doesn't that seem at all wrong to you?

tissy · 26/08/2006 13:39

purplemonkey- just because YOU think sectarianism is ridiculous, it doesn't mean that everyone else does! Huge numbers of people around here fall well into one camp or the other.

I, however, am a lapsed Anglo-Catholic, so somewhere roughly in the middle!

purplemonkeydishwasher · 26/08/2006 13:40

HOw about a visible minority then?
(as opposed to us invisible minorities...)

purplemonkeydishwasher · 26/08/2006 13:42

Yeah i think sectarianism is ridiculous, just like i think racism is ridiculous and any kind of bigotry is ridiculous.
I hate lots of people but cause of who they are not for what they are...

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 13:44

this is very tricky. I have spent a lot of time in Glasgow and experienced first hand the violence, bitterness and hatred of sectarianism. which is one of the reasons that the idea and practice of religious separatism/discrimination in schools makes me feel so ill. the next generation must learnt o live together otherwise the whole destructive cycle will just continue).
BUT no one should be penalised for observing their religion in a private and personal way. to get a caution for crossing yourself just goes against the grain of exercising religious freedom in this country.

Aimsmum · 26/08/2006 13:46

Message withdrawn

Aimsmum · 26/08/2006 13:49

Message withdrawn

Aimsmum · 26/08/2006 13:50

Message withdrawn

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 13:51

hmm, yes but aimsmum notwithstanding that some people would take offence, should he be penalised for that? isn't it fairer and more just to look at whether the reaction is reasonable or not?
to make a flippant analogy, is it maybe like the argument that women should not dress provocatively otherwise they are to blame for men attacking them? (slightly tasteless to compare wearing a short skirt with crossing yourself I know )
of course the right to religious observance is vital for us to protect, whether or not that practice offends other people.

saltire · 26/08/2006 13:52

aimsmum i agree with you. harpsi, he didn't do it in a private way though did he? he did it in front of a crowd of football fans, and he plays for one of the two worst teams in Scotland for having sectarinism going on between fans. Hopefully the new plans to eradicate it will work, but i for one am not holding my breath.

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 13:54

yes, I know how it could have been seen as provocative. I do understand. but observant Catholics do cross themselves. and I think a situation where they are told they can't for fear of provoking non Catholics is abhorrent and a slippery bloody slope.
crossing yourself is not offensive, end of story.

purplemonkeydishwasher · 26/08/2006 13:55

eradicate what, saltire? religious signs or sectarianism?

saltire · 26/08/2006 13:56

er sectarianism purple monkey, what did you think i meant?

aDAdOnMumsnet · 26/08/2006 13:58

I guess one important question is does this player cross himself every game in that same situation, in which case his actions were probably not meant to inflame, although maybe he should have known better.

I dont know the player and didn't see the footage myself.

saltire · 26/08/2006 14:01

you're right harpsi, it is a slippery slope, and unfortunately its also a slope that is going to have be slid down by Scottish football before it can go back up again. I would never take offence at anyone crossing themselves, and i just don't get this religious hatred between football fans - they are supposed to be watching a match FGS.
( Where i'm from Rangers and Celtic fans share buses to glasgow, they sit next to each other in pubs etc). However, when someone crosses theirselves in a way that could cause major problems for other fans, the Police and the people living around Celtic Park or Ibrox, then, in my opinion only, they shouldn't do it. I'm not saying they should be banned from doing it, but they are professional footballers who get paid a hell of a lot more money than most people, and are heros to lots of little kids. They should know what knock on effect that would have.