If what you mean is that there should be different rules for how different groups are 'protected' then I disagree with you.

No special cases for anybody.

I'm not sure referring to Nazis is appropriate in this case.

Antisemitism was far more prevalent throughout society for several reasons, mostly religious early last century. The Nazis didn't come to power because of their views against jews. It was about a strong man promising food and work amid a country broken to pieces with people starving in the streets.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I get that you are waffling yes.

I know what, 'people get away with murder on these boards' means. Still, you have your right to reply and that's how it should be.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

'willfully twisting a post'? You brought up Nazis and how freedom of speech should be observed in some way or other to stop some kind of repeat. I'm not trying to twist anything. I just think the point is inappropriate to the subject at hand, that's all.

It's definitely true that racial hierarchy was a part of Nazi philosophy.... but the Nazis came to power...just...mostly because they offered a solution to poverty not because free speech had somehow gotten out of hand.

I disagree that minorities need to be protected over rules for everyone. I think that's precisely why we are currently now so divided with PC culture now.

Everybody should be treated the same under the law. This dividing into 'majority' and 'minority' is problematical. It suggests that people can be treated differently because of blah blah blah.
Orwell warned about the 'some are more equal than others' mindset decades ago.

If some group is being treated unfairly within society then that is breaking rules that should apply to everybody.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Presumably you have a problem with equal opportunities legislation then. Silly international governments, what do they know eh?

Just watched the documentary on iplayer and thought GT did a reasonable job at assessing homophobia in British football. Sadly it didn't teach me anything new in regards to how hopeless professional bodies in the domestic game are at tackling important issues. His interview with the "equalities director" at the PFA was perhaps the most frustrating - a person with 17 years experience in the field yet had no ideas or strategies on how to protect gay players from abuse. What's more apparently "big strides" had been taken to alleviate homophobia, even though there still isn't one openly gay player in the EPL or football league!!

In regards to the hol I admit to being slightly embarrassed. I glanced at the GT thread a few weeks back and noticed some offensive posts but these were indeed outbalanced by fans uncomfortable with the idiotic chanting we make when we play Brighton. Those banned who made these vile statements deserve the bans given whether it was made then or now, surely we can differentiate between freedom of speech and bigotry?

As a final point what about the global game and homophobia? There's a World Cup in Russia next year where (correct me if I'm wrong) being gay is a crime. What sort of message does that give about football and equality? Not to mention the issues they also have with racism in their domestic league. It beggars belief.

Has anyone ever considered that there may be no openly gay footballers in the Premier league because, well...... non of them are actually gay?

Or maybe if they are gay they don't considerate anyone else's business?

Statistically, there should be a number of gay players, but statistics are no more than that - average expected figures.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers