The current controversy as to whether the Maccabi fans should be allowed to attend this football
match raises some interesting questions about the way Britain is governed, and
perhaps some (not very) unconscious British attitudes.
Firstly, there are perfectly competent and accountable bodies “on the ground” – West Midlands Police, Birmingham Council, representatives of Aston Villa - who have together made a reasoned decision. Some people may think it is the wrong one, but that’s what the local “authorities” think is best for the local people.
Why does the central government feel the need to over-rule them? We see this time and time again, particularly
in relation to planning, housing and miniscule tax-raising powers. Britain is one of the most over-centralised developed
countries and this one of the major reasons why our democracy functions so badly.
Secondly, given
that even a former Archbishop of Canterbury has conceded that football is more
than a matter of life and death, if the right of visitors to attend this match
is an issue of national importance, why does the Prime Minister himself need to intervene
(along with other national party leaders,
including, to our shame, Sir Ed Davey)
We have a Home Secretary, responsible for Law and Order, we have a Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport,
there’s also a Secretary of State for Local Government. Why not leave it to them
to sort the matter out? If they can’t
what are they for?
In the previous post I have singled out
Clement Attlee as the most successful post-war prime minister. Chief among his gifts was the ability to act
as chairman and arbiter, but them to let his ministers get on with the job,
and, if successful, take the credit. Hence
we all acknowledge his vey effective Foreign Secretary, the wonderful Ernest
Bevin, and the glorious founder of the
NHS, Aneurin Bevan. Whizzing around the
world taking part in President Trump’s show-pieces, affecting to coordinate
Europe’s response to the invasion Ukraine, popping home occasionally to
discipline recalcitrant members of his
party, stirring-up inter-racial anxiety and then retracting - it is almost impossible for him to “keep his eye
on the ball.” Hence the gaffes.
Finally, the
local officials claim that the reason
for banning the Maccabi fans from the match is one of public safety: they do, after
all, have well documented reputation for hooliganism and racism. Others suspect, however, that there is an Anti-Semitic
undercurrent to the ban. But if there
are any grounds for such a view, they raise the question of why the match is takin place at all. After all, Russian teams are banned from
taking part in international sporting events in protest against their country’s
invasion of Ukraine. So why is there no
equivalent ban on Israeli teams in protest
against their country’s bombardment of Gaza?
Why the one and not the other?
but that’s what the local “authorities” think is best for the local people
ReplyDeleteI thought Liberals were supposed to be against authorities thinking they know what's best for people?
Of course that's real Liberals, not Liberal Democrats, who are in favour of neither liberty nor democracy.
Finally, the local officials claim that the reason for banning the Maccabi fans from the match is one of public safety: they do, after all, have well documented reputation for hooliganism and racism. Others suspect, however, that there is an Anti-Semitic undercurrent to the ban.
The real reason is of course obvious: it is because the local police force is unable to protect the safety of the Israeli fans, who would be in danger of violence from the locals (not the local fans, but the residents of the local area). Which is itself a damning indictment of the state of the country, that our police forces cannot even do the bare minimum of protecting guests to our country from violence.
The police force doesn't want its inability to keep order to be exposed, so it wants to avoid the situation arising where it would have to try to keep order and, very publicly, fail. Hence the ban.
"I thought Liberals were supposed to be against authorities thinking they know what's best for people?"
DeleteHow would you suggest these decisions be made?
"Russian teams are banned from taking part in international sporting events in protest against their country’s invasion of Ukraine. So why is there no equivalent ban on Israeli teams in protest against their country’s bombardment of Gaza?
Any answer to this?
How would you suggest these decisions be made?
DeleteBy people who have to directly face the electorate.
Any answer to this?
Several. Firstly, I am not in favour of Russians being banned from international competition because of Ukraine (I think Russians should be banned from international competitions because they are all cheaters who are pumped full of performance-enhancing drugs, but nobody agrees with me on that because they were allowed to compete in, eg, the Rio Olympics even after the scale of Russian state-sponsored doping has become clear).
Secondly Israel’s actions in Gaza are a legitimate prosecution of a war which was not started by Israel in order to eliminate a real and present threat to Israeli citizens.
Thirdly the fact that everyone who welcomed the decision to ban the fans immediately followed it up with ‘and now we should ban the team too!’ proves that it was never about public safety: it has always been driven by people who want to punish Israel for defending itself and its citizens.
Would you like me to go on?
An article by Vikram Dodd in today's Guardian:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/21/police-intelligence-on-extreme-maccabi-fans-with-history-of-violence-led-to-villa-park-ban
sets out the basic facts of the situation. It seems to me to be fairly even handed and nothing in it makes me feel the need to change anything in the original post.
Thanks for your questions, Peter Martin. I'd be interested to see your views on tee Anonymous answers.
I’ve told you before that The Guardian, due to its anti-Israel bias, is not reliable on these matters.
DeleteSpecifically in this case, the article is not compatible (indeed claims the opposite to) the Dutch report into the violence in Amsterdam, which found that there were organised anti-Israel demonstrations which targeted both Israeli fans and Dutch Jews: https://nltimes.nl/2025/06/16/dutch-watchdog-rules-police-lost-control-ajax-maccabi-violence-november
Perhaps the Israeli fans would have shouted offensive slogans. Football fans often do. But shouting offensive slogans is not against the law and should not be against the law, and the appropriate response to an offensive slogan is never violence, and the response of the police should be to stop those who are violent, not those merely shouting offensive slogans.
I judge Dodd's article to be "even handed", you claim the Guardian has an anti-Israel bias. As I've quoted to you before:
ReplyDelete" 'Tis with our judgement as our watches, none
Go just alike, but each believes his own." (Alexander Pope)
From the article you quote:
“The illusion that risks can be fully eliminated is dangerous,” Halsema wrote. “No authority can guarantee that disorder or crime will be completely prevented.”
Seems the Birmingham "authorities" acted wisely.
Seems the Birmingham "authorities" acted wisely.
DeleteSo you think all football matches should be banned? Because that is the logical conclusion of banning a football match because you cannot guarantee crime or disorder will be prevented, when that can never be guaranteed.
But if you are not going to ban all football matches you have to justify why you are picking on this football match in particular; and given that everyone who has welcomed the ban has gone on to say, ‘And now we’ve banned the fans we should ban the team’ it seems clear that it was never about order or safety, and was always about trying to smuggle a boycott of Israel in through the back door.