thinking only gay people should be offended by homophobia or misogyny is only offensive to women, or that racism is only offensive to people of colour is 1950's thinking.

Discrimination and abuse based on discrimination is disgusting in all its forms and when you see it you should criticise and fight against it, not just when it affects you.

Should i not have been offended by Apartheid, im not a black south african, doesnt affect me.
The Holocaust? Im not a jew, doesnt affect me.
Racism? im not of colour, am I supposed to be ok with it?


Are the only forms of discrimination and abuse i should be against be those targeted at me?

The player said it to another player. Had that player being homosexual, then it was abuse. You having your ears pricked up from a distance and the player not knowing you from adam, can not in anyway be described as abuse to you.

That is the fundamental difference.

What a pile of patronising, victim mentality perpetuating tosh.

So abuse based on a player's children is ok?

Are players allowed to make comments about an opponents girlfriend? If it is allowed to make comments about an opponents girlfriend is it also okay to make a comment about an opponents boyfriend, or is that homophobic?

Calling a Welsh player a sheep botherer will be subject to a 5 match ban? What about poms and convicts, jocks, frogs?

Is there anything in the rules about threatening violence towards another player, or is that okay?

Nonsense. Hardaker used a homophobic word. That word is a word used to discriminate against and abuse gay people. That is the meaning of the word. (Some may try to reclaim its power, thats another debate, nobody is arguing Hardaker used it solidarity with homosexuals)

When you use a word like 'faggot' to insult someone, even someone who isnt gay, the implication of it is that gay people are lesser, to be compared to a homosexual is an insult. That is discrimination and abuse and it isnt difficult to understand.

Maybe if as many people were prepared to go in to bat for a gay person's right to be involved in RL and not have to hear casual homophobia as it seems are prepared to stand tall for a straight person's right to use a homophobic slur as an insult we might have more than a grand total of 0 openly gay players.

what do any of these things have to do with homophobia? whataboutery isnt a great debating technique.

Rubbish. You were the one who quoted the rules. Abuse can only be abuse if you are the victim. Hardaker did not aim that comment at you, at his team mate, at a fan, at the tv, or anyone else except the opposition player who is not homosexual. Just hearing something can not be abuse of you. You saying you were affected by it, says more about you than the player saying it.

Abuse is abuse is abuse. Whether i am the victim or not.

The fact you argue so vehemently that Hardaker should be allowed to use homophobic slurs, and that no-one is allowed to criticise or be offended by it, says quite a lot about you. Nothing we didnt already know, but still quite a lot.

I want to know where you stand on other forms of abuse.

Evading questions because you can't answer them is an even worse debating technique.

The Definition of abuse is:

"Abuse is defined as any action that intentionally harms or injures another person".

As said Hardaker aimed his comment at a player, that player is not homosexual, and at no time has he come out and said he was hurt by it. The only intention of Hardaker was to comment at that player.

I repeat, you were not a victim. You are completely irrelevant as far as the player is concerned. He did not intentionally in anyway look to harm you. So why do you feel abused by the comment?

I am not just arguing that Hardaker should be allowed to use those comments against a player who is not homosexual. My view is there is a right for all. Unless those comments are made to abuse someone because of who they are, then I do not see the problem, and nor should they be a problem. That is not homophobic, racist, or sexist. The point is not abusing someone.

Homophobic abuse hurts gay people even when it's not directed at them.

When I see Zak use the F word as a pejorative, I see my sexuality turned into something negative that other people should be ashamed or upset to share. It's that attitude, that being other than heterosexual is somehow lesser than being straight, that is homophobic. Not 'offensive' - I'm not upset in the same way someone would be if they called me an or a prick (as these are terms for 'generally not nice person') - this form of language says ('you are someone who shares characteristic X, and characteristic X is something to be ashamed of').

It's that that makes it different from mere offence. You aren't saying 'I think you're a person that behaves in an unpleasant way', you're saying 'there is a part of you, a part which cannot change that is disgusting and wrong'.

That's why it's akin to racism, to sexism and to sectarian abuse and not 'your usual sledging'.

If Zak, thinking an opposition player was simulating an injury to draw a penalty, had said 'stop acting like a f*****g n****r' nobody on here would be questioning his ban on the grounds that 'he was saying it to a white guy'.

Interestingly, if it's only homophobic abuse if the person is gay, what about homophobic abuse towards Gareth Thomas? Was it homophobic both when players did and didn't know he was gay? It was homophobic when they knew he was gay but not when they didn't? Or did abuse that happened 5 years ago become homophobic when they found out he was gay?

As for 'but isn't other sledging bad too?' of course it is. There's no need for it in the game and it should be punished, those punishments should reflect that 'you have ugly children' is less serious and impacts fewer people than the homophobic abuse Zak used.

I repeat.

"Abuse is defined as any action that intentionally harms or injures another person".

That is what abuse is.

Why? its just simply whataboutery

You can repeat it. You will still be wrong.

According to the oxforddictionaries.com, there are three definitions of abuse (as a noun)

1.The improper use of something:

2.and violent treatment of a person or animal:

3.Insulting and offensive language:

according to the freedictionary. there are 5

1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or co language: verbal abuse.

according to dictionary.com

1.wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
2.harshly or coly insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
3.bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
4.a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
5.rape or sexual assault.

no mention of specific intent to harm specifically and only the listener.

Get a grip.

It's a combative sport, what do you want them to say each other?

People are are forgeting the context. this is rugby, the most physically testing of all (probably). One where they are competing and trying to hurt each other. If this stuff happened down at the queue for the post office eye lids would be raised. it's all about the context of the environment you are in.

Should be punished? How the hell are you going to police that?

This is where you further trip yourself up.

Who's to judge what offends? it's a subjective thing.

The example you gave works the other way round for me. I would be far more insulted if someone declared my toddler to be ugly over any insult someone could throw at me.

But, you say that from a position of privilege. As someone not a victim subjected to that form of discrimination and abuse.

You arent discriminated against for having an ugly child, people dont get beaten up or murdered for having ugly children. Ugly children's parents can get married, they can adopt, they can foster without discrimination. You dont have religious types telling you your ugly child is an affront to God and you will rot in hell because of it. You dont suffer the same injustices for having that ugly child.

They can say anything to each other other than to discriminate and abuse on the basis of race, ethnic or national origin, colour, gender or sexual preference. Its hardly a really long list and its not really a burden is it.

Those analogies are extreme are no-one would argue with them. As that is abuse in its purest form.

But back on topic in rugby terms, i dont see that occurring.

You missed my point. Worlds Apart was talking about outlawing slurs in general, on any topic. good luck policing that.

And yet we dont have any openly gay players. None at all. Or coaches.

The last time we did, he was abused by fans.

Maybe there are people who would like to be involved or more involved in our game but are put off because of the casual attitude to things like this.

Maybe the abuse and discrimination we see is a little more insidious, doesnt mean its not there.

id agree, you can't police that. Im not really sure its necessary. A personal insult is different.

Maybe you would be offended if someone insulted your wife or kids or something like that. But no rules or laws will stop some people being not very nice

Well i always thought 1/10 sounded a bit high

The underlying assumptions on here are also worryingly homophobic.

'It's a rough and tough game, so you can't be so sensitive as to worry about homophobia'

Seems to indicate an assumption that non-straight people (men especially) are (for some reason) particularly sensitive.

I'll say it again, if anyone came on here and said 'it's a rough and tough game so obviously it's ok for players to scream racist terms at each other' they'd get banned.

Just to be clear on this, and I say this only to test for consistency using similar situations, if cameras had picked up a player shouting "F**king n****r" at Monaghan, it would be fine because Monaghan isn't black and wouldn't be offended?