Apoyamos a Luis Suarez.

If there's a lesson to be learned from recent events in England, it's that the truth will always out.

In a nation that has enjoyed the luxury of relative freedom for decades, it sometimes takes the right people and events to come along to administer a jolt of reminder as to what the value of truth really is. The right to defend oneself is all the more precious to those that have been forced to live without that right.

It could be said of Uruguay that in the decades approaching 1985, its culture had been shaped by a torrid history. It's equally true to say that in the years since then, its history has been formed by the vibrant culture of its people.
When Alex Ferguson ranted about the Uruguayan people at the 1986 World Cup, barely twelve months had passed in which they had been free from the dictatorial rule that had gripped their society since 1973. As Ferguson slandered the nation, it was only just beginning to put behind it a government that regularly used torture to silence voices of dissent, and its current President had been free from captivity for just a few short months.


That President is José Mujica, and when your character is endorsed by Mujica, it's the endorsement of a head of state who is also an experienced and principled man.
He's a leader that first rose to notoriety as a member of the armed Tupamaros National Liberation Movement, of which he later became the head, and he was active as a guerrilla fighter during the 1960s.
Following the 1973 military coup in Uruguay, Mujica spent long periods incarcerated, escaping on several occasions. By the time democracy was finally restored to the country in 1985, Mujica had spent a total of 13 years in military prisons and he'd been shot six times. Two years of the captivity he endured were famously spent in solitary confinement - at the bottom of a disused well.

José Mujica


High office has not tamed the freedom fighter in Mujica. He donates almost 90% of his state salary to causes that include the promotion of democratic representation, and the provision of housing for homeless people.
The man who holds the power to declare war on behalf of the Uruguayan people has dedicated an often-risked life to the pursuit of principles of fairness. Upon his election in 2010, he was required to provide detailed accounts of his finances. The audit revealed that his only asset is a 1987 VW Beetle. Also at this time, he waived his right to the presidential palace and Mujica, a vegetarian, lives on his wife's farm on the outskirts of Montevideo.
When José Mujica speaks of injustice and comments on character, people should take note.

"There is solidarity with Suarez."
José Mujica, speaking to Uruguay's M24 Radio station yesterday.

Those words will no doubt be a comfort to the man that the president also referred to as "humble". Suarez has maintained his innocence at all times since the accusation by Patrice Evra and throughout the often manic media fallout.
But despite Mujica's undoubted credentials and reputation for maintaining his integrity at heights which so often corrupt others, I find it significant to hear echoed in his words, the same sentiments I've been hearing for weeks while running this blog, in the messages I've received from many other Uruguayans..
Not one that I've conversed with, has been able to reconcile the reality of Uruguayan Spanish, with the interpretation of the language-related evidence at the FA hearing. And its on language more than any other aspect, that the case should have hinged.

Suarez's National team captain, Diego Lugano, also stated his belief in Suarez's innocence yesterday.

"Keep in mind that England is a country historically colonial and racism is very delicate, but we know that has nothing to do with the relationship between Luis and the United player"
 "(Suárez) has gone through a few months he did not deserve".
"All of us in football know it's a big circus. For what he did on Saturday Luis must have balls. He followed his convictions"
"We live in a democracy and if you do not want to greet someone, do not greet them."

No matter how determined an individual may be to ignore the collective voice of Uruguay, surely it's impossible to believe that any head of state - never mind one who spent over a decade in prison and two years at the bottom of a well for his beliefs about fair representation - would put their reputation behind a man, unless after investigation, they believed the man to be innocent of the charge of which he was accused?

Lugano, Mujica and the many Uruguayans I've spoken with about the case, all seem to base their assertions that Suarez is innocent, on a perception that there's been a failure to acknowledge or to understand their language.
Suarez himself alluded to this after the accusation was first levelled at him. He referred to the term that he used as being "...something that Evra's own team mates call him". It's a term that Suarez has never denied using, that seemingly every Uruguayan on Earth, including the President, is telling us is not an offensive or demeaning term.

Earlier in this blog, I included a report in which a Liverpool supporting Language Professor gave his own opinions on the analysis of the language evidence during the hearing.
This is a link to that section of the earlier report.

Indeed, contrary to seemingly popular belief, the experts used during the FA hearing didn't contradict the opinions of Uruguayans either. Below is the part of their reported findings that deal with Suarez's own testimony of the language he used on the day.

190. Given paragraphs 188 and 189, Mr Suarez would not have needed any further sense of familiarity to use the word "negro", which is to say how well Mr Suarez knew Mr Evra is not of particular importance; in Rioplatense Spanish the use of "negro" as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport (see 175 above).  

191. The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right linguistically and culturally and is in line with the use set out by Mr Suarez when referring to Glen Johnson; Mr Suarez was also correct in highlighting that "negro de mierda" would be a clear racial slur. 

194. The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally; it is being used along the lines of paragraphs 172, 173 and 175 above.

In a case where there existed an unfeasible lack of any camera footage of what Evra claimed had been a sustained and prolonged abuse, the lower burden of proof required in FA hearings enabled the panel to reach a verdict, that was based only on one man's word against another's. For this reason, the FA asked the language experts to prepare two separate opinions; one based on each player's testimony.

In reaching their final judgement, the panel opted to accept the version that corresponded to the testimony of Evra. They made this decision, despite the FA experts telling them that the language that Evra attributed to Suarez did not match the Spanish used by people in Uruguay, and despite Evra relying on his own interpretation of a language foreign to him, which as a Frenchman, his limited knowledge of is based on the version of Spanish used in Europe.

Many Uruguayans, and all of the football supporters that have bothered to look beyond the FA report and the superficial media interpretations of it, are bothered by what's perceived as hypocrisy on the part of the FA, the press and the various other organisations that have waged a campaign against Luis Suarez in the name of eradicating intolerance. What seems to irk football supporters in Uruguay, apart from the technical shortcomings of the case, is that the FA embarked on a quest against intolerance, whilst making a conscious decision to ignore Suarez's own cultural origin.
It's the ramifications of that hypocrisy which make me ashamed of our Football Association. Once again, an insular, xenophobic attitude to cultural diversity is costing us dear. In a grandstanded effort to appear to be more anti-racist than Sepp Blatter, the FA have ended up portraying this country as an arrogant, objectionable island full of spoiled cretins, to nations overseas.

The fight against intolerance in English football currently looks a hollow one from where I'm standing.
The FA, in the process of hearing a case of alleged racism, denied a man the right to reference his ethnicity and cultural background for the purposes of defending himself, purely because he was on English soil. They sent out a message to the world that as far as the governance of English football is concerned, what's foreign is irrelevant.
They rubbished the concept of multiculturalism, and in doing so they terminally undermined confidence in their ability to conduct the fight in the future using similar systems, personnel and structures.

What further unsettles those that have cast a critical eye over the proceedings and the resulting report, is the way that the unfair condemnation of the original verdict has been amplified by large sections of the domestic media.

There seems little doubt that if the player had been afforded the consideration that his nationality, and national language deserved, then a competent press would have been crawling all over things, asking questions on behalf of a public that needs effective methods of dealing with racism in every branch of society, including sport.

In pushing a politically correct ideal, for the purposes of a commercially obsessed agenda, the tabloid media have gotten things terribly wrong. In terms of how we're perceived as a nation, and how we exist as a nation. We're far worse off for that. 

Maybe it's too much to expect from the sensationalist elements of the press, and it's probably going too far to dream about a day when TalkSport gets off of its lobotomised high horse of headlines for long enough to do some actual journalism , but is it too much to ask that more than the very few that did, examine what's an extremely shaky FA system for discipline, and one that's definitely not fit for the purpose of dealing with serious issues?

The FA, the media and the organisations tasked with the eradication of racism from sport need to sort themselves, their systems and their targets out, because the public criticisms of a foreign head of state are infinitely more embarrassing and damaging to the image the UK, and to the image of football within the UK, than a fairer FA process and a measured, informed media response ever would have been.

Nacional supporters. The use of the word eggs, equates in slang terms, to the use of the English word "balls"


That's really where the axe fell. The verdict was based on the fact that the panel, in deciding to take Evra's word over Suarez, ignored the fact that in Uruguay and ergo in Suarez's dialect, what he said wasn't offensive.
It's primarily why the people of Uruguay don't accept the verdict, and why they believe that Suarez is not guilty.

Nacional players in Uruguay last night 


What the visual support in Uruguay seems to illustrate, is that its citizens feel that the language that Evra attributed to Suarez, was not the language a Uruguayan would ever use. The experts from the FA panel, and our own Uruguayan professor reinforce that view.
It seems to follow, that the solidarity declared by the President of Uruguay is also based on this rejection of Evra's testimony, and rooted in a belief in the legitimacy of Suarez's account.
Whilst the president stopped short of calling Evra a liar, or suggesting that his account might be fake, he did mention exaggeration and it's difficult for anyone to be able to believe, in finding Suarez's testimony to be the only one that makes sense, that Evra could have been accurate. That in turn leads a person to conclude that he either lied, or misunderstood and refused to retract his claim when that became apparent.

Nacional supporters at last night's match "Uruguay is with you, Suarez"

"Nacional is always with Luis"

The supporters of Nacional last night, amid full-blown displays of their belief that Suarez is innocent, appeared to offer none of that presidential pulling of punches. They clearly believe that Evra's account represents a very unlikely scenario. The message in many of the banners is that Manchester United, at the hands of Alex Ferguson and Evra, has reaped as much benefit from what are believed to be lies about a Uruguayan, as it possibly could.

Nacional supporters wearing Suarez masks, last night.

"Mr Ferguson, wash your mouth out before talking of Suarez"



The Uruguayan nation and the Uruguayan president, put the gravity of their support behind Luis Suarez this week.
Uruguayans know Uruguayan Spanish best. Presidents don't often commit in such plain terms without prior analysis.
Even for an FA panel so arrogant that it saw fit to discard the opinion of experts in South American Spanish and use one man's word against another for the purpose of forcing a politically pleasing verdict, that is one loud, collective Uruguayan voice and it must be hard to ignore.

(Lee)

Beyond Doubt, Beyond Divides.

The December of 2011 and the January of 2012 have turned into a bonafide Winter of footballing discontent. Allegation upon allegation and unsavoury events have overshadowed what's turning out to be a decent three-way battle at the top of the Premier League.
Amid fevered finger pointing and the constant, distracting hum of hundreds of holier-than-thou-hounds in every form of media, one thing has become painfully obvious - that the organisations that fight daily to rid the game of racially motivated abuse and discrimination are being let down by a weak FA.

To tackle racism in any form, you first need a clear, indisputable system for the implementation of carefully designed law and appropriately conceived regulation. When a footballer is accused of racism it's vital that the player is tried in a consistent way that affords them every right and process due, and that any subsequent verdict of guilt or of innocence is defined and reached by such terms. Otherwise, as we've seen in recent weeks, the underlying cause and the primary objective in the design and the execution of those laws will be undermined.
It will become an objective cheapened by ongoing debate and often baseless condemnation of the wrong parties, weakened by distractions and drawn out by arguments. Anything that falls short of clearly identifying culprits compromises a quest that if left unaddressed, or implemented badly, threatens to damage the game of football in this country.

When the FA choose, against good advice, to persist with a system reliant on process that employs methods open to the ravages of conjecture. When they continue to opt to convict without definitive proof, then the message they send out cannot convey a prioritisation of fairness or project values that judge only on merit, irrespective of a person's cultural background or appearance, and regardless of their reputation.
Ridding the game of the blight of racial and cultural bigotry is deserving of the same unquestionable systems for prosecuting offenders, as ridding the wider nation of racism is. Only when you start with a system where judgements are beyond reasonable doubt, and handed down only after proper process has been observed, will you end up with a situation where sanction is imposed within a climate where the ongoing primary objective and talking point will remain to be the fight against intolerance and the eradication of discrimination. Only when judgement is made to the best possible degree of accuracy will you banish the arguments and debates that so distract from the real task at hand.

It's not realistic to expect a club or a support to unite behind condemnation of a player that hasn't been proven to impede the pursuit of a tolerant game, and in turn, it's not fair or reasonable to expect unwavering and universal approval of a press that joins in that condemning, based on the same results of systematic failing. If from the outset, the process is tainted by doubt, then contamination is irreversible and the end product can only ever be one of confusion and confrontation. Only the concise is completely productive in the fight against racism, only a quest that is free from doubt from the start will result in a universal acceptance of decisions founded in its legislation, no matter how admirable the intentions behind that legislation are.

When you remove independent, measured governance and process, and introduce argument, you head down a road that is counter-productive and there's no turning back once that wrong turn is made.
Combine this with the tribalism and the one-upmanship present in football support, and the doubt in that authority becomes completely detrimental to its purpose. To forsake proper and indisputable governance, especially when fierce football rivalries are involved, is to banish the aim of racial equality in football to a wilderness of circular argument. One that sees the underlying message lost, the task hindered and that principle of equality cheapened.
No club will accept incomplete process in judgement on such damaging terms, and no football rival will settle for anything short of going for the throat. The Suarez issue hasn't been about racism for weeks; it's been a downward spiral of disrepute. The case and the way it was conducted has certainly not proven to be conducive to the eradication of racism from football, with seemingly more apparent instances of abuse being reported in the weeks following the judgement, than are evident in most full seasons in the top flight.

The fight against racism in the domestic leagues deserves more than a casual backing. It's not enough to talk the talk, it's important that in governance the FA also walks the walk in their implementing of policy and the enforcing of laws that are aimed at freeing football from racism in any form. The impassioned individuals that work solely to this end would do well to demand that no repeat of recent events takes place. The clear stance of those that fight so hard and so clearly for the cause of tolerance should be mirrored by those trusted with the enforcement of rule over the game.
Gone should be a system that brings judgement on fuzzy terms, and in its place should be a concise, final method of enforcement, free from the detrimental rot of second guessing, recrimination and doubts caused by conflicts of interest. And the system should be supported by proper avenues for defence and appeal on behalf of the accused.

This is a football league and a country enriched by varied cultural influences,  and so much brighter for the passions and flair of a myriad of influences that it encompasses.
Where there's a will to embrace those improvements on their own terms and see football as a world game, where barriers don't amount to devaluing difference and borders don't present impenetrable barriers to talent, dealing with anything that compromises that should be swift, final and unquestionable.

The way forward should be clear. It's only when you provide a fit for purpose system for the supporters of every football club to unite behind, that you'll succeed in conveying the right message. When your commitment to the fight is defined publicly by your freely choosing to leave your judgement more open to argument than it need be, then you weaken your hand, you weaken your authority and your perceived enthusiasm, and you leave the game susceptible to the damage and the influence that the racists wish to inflict - because you fail to present a united front.

There's an unsavoury element in society that seeks to exploit weaknesses in governance so that it can spread a message of hate. The last couple of weeks have seen a game that's turned on itself, dropped its guard and left exposed the front line in a constant battle to maintain a welcoming environment for all, and an arena that prizes talent without prejudice. Indecisive, watered down governance has led to instances of arrest at football grounds up and down the country, from London, to Liverpool and again today in Manchester. The infighting needs to stop. The inadequate mechanics of the current FA system and our reliance on it to protect the game against racism needs to go. Methods that drive football supporters apart are obviously not suitable. Collective focus needs to be restored or the cracks in our lines of defence will be exploited, and the problems of the past will return.
Not only do we need to continue to show that we will not abide by racial discrimination, we need to reinforce that commitment with a new system for its implementation. One that's beyond question, beyond argument and beyond reasonable doubt.

Currently it's as if we've lost sight as a collective, of the ultimate goal. The press and the organisations supporting change are working against the clubs, the supporters are working against the press and indignant about unfair criticism from the organisations. Yet the fact remains that the war won't ever be won, unless we're all fighting the spectre of racism - not against ourselves.
It matters not whether the reason for the divides are political, territorial or even editorial - It's all counter productive to the cause, and the cause should take priority.

If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it's that the threat of racism in football is still a very real one, that ignorance's ghouls and thugs never really went completely away. That any form of weakness in the stand against them will be exploited to the detriment of the game.
That if we forget the fight, people and football are at risk.
So let's use the second decade of the new century to take the fight to the racists with systems worthy of the aim, with processes mindful of the fact that we started the fight in the first place, for very good reason.
Unity, behind fair, consistent and balanced governance is the only path to the game we nearly all want, and the FA aren't currently providing that facility.

Policy alone isn't enough.
Be it in the courts or under a new FA system for discipline; swift, just and immaculately executed action, beyond even the slightest dispute, is also required.

(Lee)