Football and Human Rights

The right way to advance a social cause and address conflicts with religion. It's time to take The Sniff Test.

Back to Business

I am back from ten days away during which several topics surfaced that are of interest to The Sniff Test. The struggles of the UK government are laid bare in a Christmas song, Europe’s leading powers lack cohesive leadership and Trump’s team may take revenge for Labour’s electoral meddling. But there is a pressing issue that throws light on my contention that there are no innate human rights.

For the last year or so, travel has provided me the opportunity to thumb through my copy of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity. It is a book that rewards re-reading and this trip I focused on his chapter about the evolution of culture. The West remains in the transition state that Deutsch describes between static and dynamic societies and in many areas has regressed since the book was published in 2011.

Over the last two weeks, politics has played out in the world of football. This is not the ideal arena in which to debate political concepts, but the vacuum in government pushes debate to other forums. Football is similar to politics in that its storylines update frequently, it is widely covered and it reaches every corner of the globe. It is a meeting point for strong opinions and big business and one where principles clash with financial interests all the time.

At the beginning of December there was a furore about footballers in England wearing armbands in support of Rainbow Laces. This is a joint initiative between the charity Stonewall and the Premier League. This has run since 2013, and sees two match weeks a season in which players and teams show their support for diversity and inclusion. The captains of two teams caused controversy when one refused to wear the armband and another wrote on his, while at least one other team abandoned a show of support in solidarity with a Muslim player.

This controversy was superseded by the award of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia. While this is of grave concern to the LGBTQ+ community, the Saudi issue goes beyond sexuality and gender identity, to cover the role of money in football and broader questions of human rights. For today however, I want to concentrate on the clash between religion and LGBTQ+ and how it sheds light on the age old problem of how a tolerant society embraces intolerant cultures.

The West in transition

Deutsch reminds us that culture consists of memes, which are either rational or anti-rational. This divide separates his thinking from most other work in this space. Rational memes are subject to criticism and correction and are the hallmark of dynamic societies. Anti-rational memes support static societies and are designed to disable the critical capacity of recipients, who perpetuate the meme without thinking.

Politics, economics and science are dynamic environments in which criticism is used to progress knowledge. Different explanations for how the world works compete for attention and the prevailing view becomes our latest knowledge. The degree to which educational campuses suppress argument through cancel culture and book burning, reminds us there is nothing automatic about dynamic societies, even in the West.

There are elements of Western culture that remain static, which is why we are still in transition. Deutsch gives the example of masculine and feminine stereotypes in popular culture, but could as easily have cited male-only golf clubs, or the refusal of football players to support inclusivity. While our culture respects individual identity and the right to privacy, it has yet to reconcile the presentation of conflicting views in public. Put another way, we do not have a ranking of rights that allows us to agree which issues are more important than others.

Marketing of football and politics focuses on the inclusion of all. It is, however, much easier to stand against something than coordinate policy when in authority. Disparate groups unite against bigotry, the Tories, or the Assad regime, but once these foes are vanquished chaos often ensues. I’ve noted before that Labour is an ideological movement best suited to shaping the political agenda, rather than implementing policies that have second and third order consequences. Football’s governing authorities like to make noise about supporting progressive issues, but would prefer their behind the scenes dealings to remain in the dark.

Criticise every idea

No ideas are above the law. England broke with the Catholic Church during the reign of Henry VIII to avoid being subject to foreign oversight. This principle persists in the argument for Brexit and having complete control over our laws. Many countries operate this way, which is why international laws and rights must be negotiated and accepted nation by nation. Even if there were a philosophical reason why, for example, the right to life was sacred, it would still need to be enforced by every government.

The argument that your religion prevents you from upholding the law is not an acceptable defence. While there is a right to private opinions there are limits, as for example we do not allow so-called honour killings that are prevalent in other cultures. If the law and religious beliefs come into conflict then it is the law that triumphs.

This is the argument pushed by the LGBTQ+ community about its rights. It argues that its members have universal rights, and that not respecting them is at best contravening social norms and at worst a crime. This necessitates the support of the relevant authorities. The implicit assumption is that the right to be LGBTQ+ is superior to the right to observe religion.

Western society respects individual’s rights to behave as they choose, provided this does not impinge on other people’s ability to do the same. When the Muslim captain of Ipswich Town refuses to wear a Rainbow armband, or the Christian captain of Crystal Palace writes I ♥ Jesus on his, they should be reprimanded because public profiles take precedence over individual opinions. This is the argument, but is it correct?

There have been several cop outs presented that we can dismiss. Some argue that the decision to wear armbands was last minute, giving individuals little time to react. As noted, Rainbow Laces has run since 2013 and any club appointing a captain with strong religious beliefs was aware this issue would arise. There are suggestions that captains could stand down for the day, but while practical, this does not help us understand the issue. What do we do when individual beliefs conflict with rights?

As a supporter of free markets, I believe in the rule of law, the right to property and the necessity of being subject to state power. As a social liberal, I believe in the right to believe and say as one sees fit. I reconcile these two by recognising that there are a small number of social norms that are widely accepted – that are part of the culture of the UK – that overwrite the individual’s ability to do as they please.

In other words, the overriding authority is the culture of the UK as expressed in its laws and social norms. Both evolve through time, which is one reason why rights are not absolute and require constant debate and continuing approval. In the same way that scientific knowledge is our best available explanation of the facts and changes through time, our culture evolves by updating what we know and accept.

Argue every day

A religion need not be bound by ancient scriptures, but if it is, it reflects a static society and is therefore subservient to the outcomes of dynamic discussion. If an individual subjects themselves to public criticism of their principles, then they are more likely to receive a sympathetic hearing. If Sam Morsey, the Ipswich captain, is prepared to debate his beliefs rather than hide behind them, I would be accepting of his right to refuse to support LGBTQ+ in public. Ideally it would not be necessary for football players to have this political profile, but our leaders refuse to address the issue of cultural conflicts.

While Morsey is born and bred in the UK, there are other players from countries where there are no LGBTQ+ rights. The argument is that forcing these players to support such rights would put their families in jeopardy. While I am sympathetic at the individual level, the culture of the UK is not subservient to that of overseas, and these individuals need to factor any risks into their decision to work here.

So should we force football players to wear rainbow colours? Here I have a problem with the collation of LGBTQ+ rights into a single entity. Grouping together makes sense to defeat bigotry, but it does not work when in authority and determining public behaviours.

If members of a religious community should defend their decision to resist social norms, then members of other communities should explain why their beliefs should be such norms. Gay marriage is supported by three-quarters of the UK population, according to a 2022 YouGov survey. A smaller majority support the right of individuals to determine their gender, but fewer than half support the right to legally change gender. Open-ended support for transgender rights was one of the three issues that undid Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

Knowledge and culture evolve in a dynamic society. We should have no truck with fixed ways of thinking and beliefs that cannot be changed. But we must also recognise that not every right that communities claim is automatically granted. If you believe in something you must be prepared to argue for it every day. Or every week, as is the case of The Sniff Test.