Adam Lovejoy writes from London: As living football legend, John Terry, of Chelsea FC, appears in court, for the second day in a row, on charges of allegedly (love this word ‘allegedly’) racially abusing a lesser football legend, Anton Ferdinand, of QPR, linguists and people, who have nothing much better to do, are locked in a passionate discussion about whether the phrase ‘f..king black c..t’ that Terry was supposed to have uttered during a tense match back in October last year constitutes a racial slur or whether it was just an example of sarcasm expressed in a very colourful way. (That was a pretty long sentence, so if you lost its meaning, please, feel free to go back and read the whole thing again. And again. And again.)
Those of you, who have caught the essence of the opening scene, feel free to continue reading.
Sources, who say they would reveal anything for money, tell Stirring Trouble that the magistrate judge has twice nearly choked from laughter, listening to the defendant and the victim giving their side of the story. Hacks present at the hearing have been noticed to laugh without making any noise, finding the proceedings hilarious and very serious at the same time. (It’s f..king racism put under the spotlight, innit, as one broadsheet hack – or broadshit, as they are known now – said off the record.) Both sides in the case were dressed as sissies, trying to woo the judge and the public opinion, hoping to get some sort of publicity out of the whole thing.
People, who feel that the word ‘black’ is offensive in itself and consider that telling someone who is black that he is black is pure unadulterated racism, stress that Terry is guilty of abuse. They insist that had he called Anton ‘f..king c..t’ it would passed unnoticed, even if he repeated it dozens of times during the match. Some of these people even say that if Terry said ‘f..king non-white c..t’, he could have gotten away with it. But inserting ‘black’ into a tirade targeted at a defenceless black man, they say, was unacceptable and deeply offensive. Some even add that calling a black person black is one of the most abusive racial slurs that could be imagined. But they accept that the phrase ‘f..king white c..t’ carries no offence whatsoever and could be used in a casual conversation, even with children present.
The second day of Terry’s trial was filled with even less suspense than the first one, as the former Chelsea captain and an adulterer accepted in hindsight that he would not have called Ferdinand a f..king black c..t, as he’s not really black. He insisted that it was sarcastic but not offensive. Ferdinand, who always thought of himself as white bordering on black, said that he was very hurt when he was told after the incident itself that he was called ‘black’. With the court trying to keep a collective straight face both living football legends stuck to their guns. Whatever that means.
People, who feel strongly about the word ‘black’ used in a derogatory sort of way, have been showing serious anger for the second day in a row, doing a collective outrage outside the court, throwing verbal abuse at everyone who passed them by and had the nerve to be uninterested in the case. These honest but not very intelligent individuals – thank God for the education system that produces these sorts of people – are saying that if the court find that racist thug Terry not guilty they will protest, like, a lot and skip a couple of hours watching the ‘telly’ as a sign of anger.
Progressive people, who constitute a small minority of the population in Britain but feel that they are a majority, are saying that Terry should pay the price for calling a black man ‘black’. Millions of others, who don’t really give a damn about the whole thing, feel likewise. But in a good way.
Meanwhile, people in Syria think that British imperialism sucks. And they are probably right.