Protest, Free Speech and the Workplace.

Listen to article here. 

 

Perhaps we could describe today’s world thus: it is the best of times, it is the worst of times.

Research suggests that the world we’re living in is safer than it has ever been before at any previous point in history. People are healthier and richer. We have fewer life-or-death concerns. And yet, at the same time, we are still seeing wars, poverty, prejudice, needless violence and preventable illness. People still seem to hate one another for reasons as seemingly minor as the colour of our skin, our spiritual beliefs, where we live, the foods we eat, the way we live and so on. Due to social media and the way it has shrunk the world and made it easy to be in constant contact, anger, pain and hatred are all amplified more than ever. Sometimes it seems like the most furious voices are the loudest, which makes it hard to remember that not everyone shares such virulent perspectives.

Since many of us are now “friends” on social media with colleagues, we sometimes see their opinions, which may differ from ours and even be unsavoury or offensive. It can feel really hard to see people by the water cooler and know that they posted a “humorous” meme about our ethnic group or that they attended a protest in favour of a policy we ourselves feel strongly against. This can ruin our relationship with them and make it challenging to have to collaborate with them or even communicate with them at work. So what can we do?

First, we need to acknowledge that life these days is very tense and that the UK – not to mention other nations – is a large country with a multitude of views. In the past few weeks alone, we’ve seen a protest in London on September 7th that was pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist and that led to a number of arrests, and then a protest the very next day against the increased antisemitism that is affecting the UK, partially in response to the multitude of pro-Palestine actions taking place in Jewish-heavy areas. In Norwich, meanwhile, there have been regular protests outside a hotel that is housing refugees; some of the protests have been agitating for the refugees to leave the UK, while the counter-protests have been arguing that refugees should be welcome here. And that’s just two locations in the UK; the fact is that protests and counter-protests are happening all around the world on a regular basis.

On the one hand, we could argue that it’s a brilliant thing that people are allowed and even encouraged to speak their minds (with the proviso being that this isn’t actually allowed in all countries or for all citizens; there have been news items about people getting arrested or expelled due to protesting). Free speech is incredibly important in order to preserve democracy. We should all be able to say what we think without worrying that we might get arrested, thrown out of a country, or even made to “disappear”. We should all fight for the right of people to say how they feel and think, even if we disagree with their thoughts and feelings. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in the early 20th century, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

 

 

On the other hand, perhaps we shouldn’t be quite so quick to say whatever we think at any time. We should remember that our words can hurt or offend others. People on the other side of an argument are still just that, i.e. people. We’re all human beings and we all deserve respect and dignity. You might think that political policy X is absolutely and self-evidently idiotic, but that very same policy could protect another human’s life and livelihood; it could just be that you haven’t yet spoken to such a person, so you haven’t learned about the policy’s impact on their life. What would you do if you met such a person and could talk to them about their perspective?

Or, as another example, you might belong to a particular ethnic group and cherish its customs, beliefs, foods and so on, but one of your coworkers might have been taught from their childhood a very stereotyped view of your group. Your coworker could make jokes about your group or even think people of your background don’t belong in this country. How would this make you feel? Would you feel able to say something directly to your coworker or to human resources at your workplace? Would you be willing to collaborate on a project with this colleague? These are just a couple of examples, but they show the importance for all of us in slowing down, trying to learn more about other people and other points of view (such as by meeting people who differ from us), and also in being careful about what we say and when we say it.

This is worth emphasising: even though we have free speech and technically can say what we want, when we want to, to whom we want, we should also try to be sensible and considerate with our free speech. Remember the acronym THINK – is what we are going to say truthful, is it helpful, is it inspiring/important (the “I” in “THINK” can stand for both), is it necessary and is it kind? If it isn’t those things, do we still feel we should say it? Do we really need to say it? Have we considered the potential impact of our words on other people and our relationships with them?

 

 

If we do still speak up, we have to also recall that free speech isn’t actually truly free. There are costs to free speech, including in regard to the larger political protests we’ve been seeing more often in recent times. Some costs are financial, such as extra police having to be on duty to watch over the protests and thus not being able to carry out other tasks. Some are practical, such as road closures, increased traffic, changing routes, lack of access to stores or offices and similar. Some are emotional, such as the aforementioned discomfort people might feel with friends, relatives or colleagues, who are attending protests on subjects they don’t share the same views on, or who are experiencing the stress or fear of having to walk past protestors. Some of the emotional or practical costs could also lead to physical ones, such as stress leading to an increased heart rate, which in turn makes someone have a panic attack, or someone having to take an unfamiliar route and being late to work or having a car accident because they don’t know those roads.

In addition, sometimes when people speak freely, they say things that are inaccurate or downright untrue; they may or may not be aware of this and if they are aware, they may not care. This means that sometimes, free speech has the distinctly negative cost of spreading misinformation or falsehoods, and this can incite people to violence or other hurtful actions and can damage others, potentially even costing them their lives.

In short, there are clear advantages and also some potential disadvantages to free speech. So the question then is how this impacts the workplace. At work, we want to get along smoothly with people and do our best to accept them for who they are, not least so we can cooperate on work tasks, even if we aren’t even going to be good friends outside of work who like to go to the pub and celebrate special occasions together. That means we have to acknowledge that we will have differences of opinion and that we should be able to handle this like mature adults.

One way forward would be for a workplace to set a guideline that suggests that people avoid discussions about tricky subjects, such as religion, politics, money, whether to have children or remain childfree, views on sexuality and gender and much more. However, some of those topics may touch on the work you do and be unavoidable. Furthermore, it’s pretty hard, and possibly unfair, to try to restrict what people discuss, especially if it relates directly to their own lives, because then you are asking them not to be their full selves at work.

Instead, then, it could be better to offer guidelines for how people might talk about challenging or controversial subjects. You can remind people, as already noted, to THINK. You can also acknowledge that sometimes it can be anxiety-inducing to discuss certain subjects and that colleagues might want to carefully consider whether they need to cause this anxiety for themselves or others.

If they still do want to discuss a topic, suggest that people invite conversation rather than springing it on someone. It might be better to book a time and location for it, instead of raising it while waiting for the kettle to boil during a brief coffee break. Also, certain conversations could take place in private rather than in the staff canteen or hallway. Additionally, consider whether a neutral party – another colleague or even an ombudsman or therapist – could be there.

 

 

Remind people to have an open mind in such conversations. No one knows everything and they certainly don’t know others’ experiences, beliefs, thoughts or feelings. There’s no point in trying to have a discussion if you aren’t going to listen and learn. When you listen, don’t spend the time deciding what you’ll say next and try not to react emotionally to their words, because then you aren’t focusing on their perspective. If you find you are getting too worked up to listen, take a break. Additionally, people should try to use “I” statements, rather than accusing or blaming. A comment such as “I feel offended and upset when I hear people make jokes about X group. I don’t think this is appropriate for the workplace.” works better than “You’re such a jerk because you tell racist jokes at work.”

It’s okay if no resolution is obvious by the end of the conversation. People can agree to disagree, and yet they can still have a slightly better understanding of the other person and their viewpoint after having had an open discussion. A slightly improved comprehension is better than nothing. People can always return to the conversation another time, if all parties would like to.

Also, of course, free speech extends not only to larger societal concerns but also to people talking about specific issues within the workplace, such as complaints about how something is done or worries about a colleague. So make sure all staff know who to talk to if they have concerns about a particular subject, i.e. “Please see X in human resources if you feel you’ve heard a racist/sexist comment.” Or “Please speak to your manager directly if you would like to suggest a new approach.” Don’t leave staff moaning about something in private because they don’t know who to talk to, as this will cause a bad atmosphere for everyone. Let them know a clear chain of command.

In sum, these are in many ways unprecedented times. People are often quite divided and we all feel things very strongly. Free speech is wonderful in theory but can sometimes be challenging in practice and can have real costs. There are steps we can take to minimise these costs, such as by setting time and space aside for having harder conversations and by trying to learn from one another. This is possible both in the workplace and in greater society and we should all strive towards it.

 

 

Top tips:

  • Free speech is an important thing and should be protected.
  • That doesn’t mean that it’s okay to say and do anything you want.
  • Remember to THINK before speaking or before clicking “post” or “like” on a message on social media.
  • Go directly to people to talk calmly with them rather than complaining about them. Listen to others’ perspectives.
  • Make sure staff know who to talk to in the case of concerns or difficulties.

 

Written by Dr B.J. Woodstein (Research Associate, PILAA)

For help with supporting your teams with facilitating difficult conversations, self-censorship and free speech whether with workshop training, working on policies and guidance, or even mediations, please get in touch with our team. We’re here to listen and not to judge.

Common Goals and Differences of Opinion: The Bibby Stockholm

“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” – Assata Shakur

Bibby Stockholm, the name of the UK Government’s controversial “floating prison”, as some have called it, shows us an example of differing opinions, yet common goals, in the race to prevent what has largely been seen as a controversial plan to house illegal immigrants. The Bibby Stockholm is an engineless barge used for accommodation since 1992, previously being utilised to house asylum seekers in Germany and the Netherlands, the homeless and construction teams, working off the Scottish coast. Whilst the government has stood steadfast with pursuing this course of action, the arrival of the barge on the 17th of July of this year, has and continues to face steep opposition from Dorset Council and from the locals of the Isle of Portland themselves, the town where the barge is to be docked in. On the day that the barge was set to arrive, we saw protestors waving their placards and shouting against its arrival. Whilst there was a unanimous view in opposition to the government on why the barge should not be there, the reasons underpinning them were split amongst rival protestors.

The first camp of protestors were campaigning against the barge residing at Portland, for the adverse effects it would have on the services in the community, with placards saying “Portland Port Betrays Portland” and “Dorset Council ‘Barged Up’ with Portland Port”. In this camp, were voices, from locals who were highlighting their safety, by questioning why 500 men were only to be kept onboard. In the other camp, you had protestors who were against the barge, due to the immoral principles of housing illegal immigrants on it, with even the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) raising concerns with its health and safety. It was not so much then, that the immigrants should not come to Portland, but rather it was the means in which they were doing so, taking offence with the barge itself being used. Placards from the anti-racist campaign group Stand up to Racism, stating “Refugees and Migrants Welcome Here. No to Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism. Black Lives Matter” and “Refugees Welcome: Stop The Far Right”. Perhaps the one placard that traversed both camps and viewpoints, was one held by a protestor, declaring “Care for Refugees and care for Portland too.” (1)

This article in some ways leads on from last month’s story, Protest: When the Dust Has Settled, where we discussed the theme of protest, and its nature, from marches on the street, to seeing how it can be utilised in the workplace. Our aim here is not so much to look at the protests in themselves, but rather to look at what can be learnt from the differing opinions on the Bibby Stockholm from the perspective of the protestors who were in unity with each other, whilst being in opposition to the Government. Further, how then do you close the gulf in differences in opinions, and how do you convey your message of protest, with those in positions of power, like the Government, who you are trying to convince to change their views.

To read the full article, “Protest: When the Dust Has Settled”, you must be a PILAA Member.

Review – Trade Union Conference: Fighting for anti-racist workplaces

Photo by Y K

On Saturday the 4th of February Stand Up to Racism an anti-racist mobilisation action group, alongside the Trades Union Congress (TUC), hosted the one-day Trade Union Conference, “Fighting for anti-racist workplaces”, at SOAS University. The conference took place against the current back drop of national strikes across multiple sectors that have gripped the nation, including those by Teachers, Ambulance workers, Nurses, Rail workers, university staff and at the end of this month, Junior Doctors.

The timing of this conference was therefore well placed. This reflective review has been written, with the hope of addressing the key themes, as they emerged throughout the day, and as we have understood them. The article is structured in a way, that addresses three broad themes, and then uses them to give tips as to how you can go about fighting for an anti-racist workplace or to tackle other forms of social injustices.

 

Terminology - Black

Four Screen, 2008

The first place we start, which may be a contentious point, is in reference to how the term Black was being used during the opening of the conference. Whilst it is important to address the experience of racism faced by black union members, the focus solely on this group, at a conference positioned as fighting for an anti-racism workplace, did two things. The first suggests that racism, was only experienced by and about black bodies and reinforces a black and white colour divide, with black people and those of African and Caribbean descent, at the eternal bottom of the rung, and other minority racialised groups, above in the hierarchy of race.

Focusing on black workers in itself would not have been problematic, if the conference stated that it was addressing anti-black racism. This term can be referenced, especially when taking into account the nuances of racism by different communities. However, under the present conference title and the way in which racism was referenced only in relation to black workers, by default, it omitted other racialised minority groups from the discussion. Indeed, it seemed slightly at odds, for two panellists in the opening plenary session, Kudsia Batool, the Chair of TUC Head of Equalities and Riz Hussein, a member of the TUC Anti Racist Taskforce, to speak about black workers, with no reference to their experience, as members of other minority racialised groups. In some ways, this harked back to the use of political blackness as an umbrella term ethnic minorities from both Black African and Caribbean descent and Asian communities in the 80s, used in solidarity to fight against racism.

Margaret Greer, the Unison National Equality Officer, then spoke about the challenges of achieving race equality, especially where support had fell short, even for members within the unions themselves. This was an interesting point made by Greer, in a speech that was reminiscent of the sentiment shared by anti-slavery and women’s rights campaigner, Sojourner Truth’s in “Ain’t I a Woman?” delivered at the 1851 Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio. Greer reminds us that unions are made for the workers and that if their needs were not being met, members had the right to hold the unions to account. Racism as we learnt, can seep through all aspects of the workplace, even inside the very support systems for workers, that unions have been built on.

Key advice 1:

1. Be clear on terminology. If the focus is on specific identity groups and the impact of racism, then state it as such. For example, “black anti-racism”, would be different to, ‘Asian anti-racism”, or from “indigenous anti-racism.”

2. Whilst it may be true that black people experience disproportionate levels of racism in certain contexts more than other minority groups, and there will be other times, when this will not be the case, you should also consider the impact of absorbing and being positioned at the bottom of the rung, or of others being sympathetic to one’s situation, as if outside such systems of oppression. We are reminded here, of two instances of liberational thinking. The first is from Reverend Jesse Jackson, the civil rights activist, when he said in 2013, that “you need to abandon your minority complex and adopt a majority complex.” The second is from what race educator, Dr Joy DeGruy describes as ‘post-traumatic slave syndrome’, and the challenge to undo the impact of the legacies of slavery, and its effect on the mental health and well-being of the African American subject, and White Americans too.

 

To read the full article, “Every Statement Needs a Platform: Guidance For When to Make a Statement”, you must be a PILAA Member.

Booing at the FA Cup – Eye Don’t See Colour

“What is at issue here is not simply that different readers produce contradictory readings of the same cultural texts or that an ethnically diverse society throws up conflicting ideological viewpoints. More fundamentally, this critical exchange highlights the way image-making has become an important arena of cultural contestation – contestation over what it means to be British today; contestation over what Britishness itself means as a national or cultural identity; and contestation over the values that underpin the Britishness of British cinema as a national film-culture.” – (Kobena Mercer, 1988)

 

 

 

It’s been close to 4 weeks since the controversy that marred the opening ceremony of the 150th FA Cup between Liverpool and Chelsea on Saturday the 14th of May. For those football supporters who watched the events either as live spectators or on the screen as it was broadcast, what was witnessed and then spoken about on countless news media platforms, was the booing of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge. Multiple TV debates on the incident and caption headings, sang to the tune of; “Booing Prince William shows the monarchy’s days are numbered, says GRAHAM SMITH” (1), “You’ve got to be a special brand of moron to boo the national anthem’ – Simon Jordan criticises Liverpool fans who jeered Prince William and God Save The Queen ahead of FA Cup final” (2), as well as references to the Liverpool Manager and his response to the events, “Jurgen Klopp defends Liverpool fans booing national anthem.” (3)

 

What was noticeable however, was that in most of these accounts, Prince William and the royal establishment, became the sole reason behind the booing. In one article for example, written by Graham Smith, it opens with, ‘You might not like it, it might make some people uncomfortable, but that’s tough,’ (4) and then goes into the reasons why this was all about the royal family, what they stood for and why fans were disillusioned by them, given historical and recent controversies that have graced our screens in recent years. It is not surprising Smith’s stance, given that he is the Chief Executive Officer at Republic, the campaign group set up to abolish the monarchy. With such a promising opening statement, this article offers other reasons why there was booing and indeed suggests that Prince William wasn’t the sole target. This might make some uncomfortable, yet at the same time, this insight offering will make us more conscious to facing up to what is ultimately a difficult conversation. One that needs to be recognised, especially when not all of us will see in the same way.

 

“What I could see”: A view from the stands when watching Liverpool verses Fulham in 2013

And so, this is where we must begin, with that very notion of seeing. As part of the seminal Black Film British Cinema conference, at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in 1988, cultural theorist Kobena Mercer stated that as ethnically diverse groups of people, we will not only see things differently, but we will also contest the meanings attached to looking at the same image. In this instance it would be looking at the same event. Watching the opening on live TV, I was already apprehensive of what was to come, when I saw that the predominantly all-black group, B Positive Choir and the singer Raye of mixed heritage, were to open the ceremony, by singing “Abide With Me” and the British national anthem – “God Save the Queen”, respectively. As a black female viewer, it was the same trepidation as what I remembered feeling growing up and watching films where I was all too aware of the tragic demise of black characters, especially in mainstream films, where they were either the first to die or would die in the most dramatic way. It was the same feeling then that was felt as this group and solo singer walked into the stadium and the booing began. As with most of the articles, they fail to address this point, that the booing began before Prince William carried out his duty.

What then happened reminded me of two key texts, by Malian writer, filmmaker, and cultural theorist, Manthia Diawara and bell hooks, the US black feminist and cultural and film theorist, who sadly passed away last year, when they both wrote about spectatorship: essentially on the looking practices within film. It is those same looking practices that can be applied to the realm of spectator sports or any instance, where there are spectators. Reminding ourselves on what they have written, will prove useful in understanding what took place.

 

English Man, 2008 Ope Lori

For Diawara in Black Spectatorship: Problems of Identification and Resistance, written in 1997, he coins a term called the ‘resisting spectator’, described as any person who resists making racial identifications with the dominant readings of race in representations, as a term which is inclusive of black and white viewers. We resist in different ways, in accordance with the concept of difference, which intersects across race, sex, class and other identity categories. It is difference that enables different readings of the same text, and it is difference that makes our looking experiences as individual to the person doing the looking. As a black man, this is the perspective in which Diawara is doing the looking and this becomes a point of departure for hooks, when she writes in The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators in 1996, that black men and women resist images differently. Black women not only resist in terms of the patriarchal system that they are implicated in, but also resist in regards to white supremacist notions of racialized others.

It is with this, that we return to unravelling what happened at the 150th FA Cup opening ceremony. The aim is not to suggest that distain for the royal family was not a factor in why some supporters booed, and Prince William was not the sole focus, but I would suggest that he was one of many. Indeed, those who have commented in the media, have predominantly been white men, either those in the football and sports arena or who are in the political arena and are spokespersons for the royal family, or as one male caller stated on White & Jordan on Talksport, from the working-class community. (5) Focusing on Prince William and thereby the royal family, set in front of the backdrop of two national songs, communicates that part of this discussion relates to ideas around notions of Britishness and belonging, as well as class:

“And there’s good reason to boo royals, because they represent something that a lot of people object to. Not Britain, but elitism, unearned wealth, limits on democracy and hereditary privilege. At a time when millions are suffering from the cost-of-living crisis, they also represent a deeply unequal and unfair society.” (6)

It is then, hardly surprising that mention of B Positive Choir and of Raye have been abysmal, for reasons related to who in fact is giving the commentary. The B Positive Choir actually performed “Abide With Me” last year in the 2021 FA Cup opening ceremony, when Chelsea played Leicester City. The national anthem then, was sung by the white British artist, Becky Hill. Prince William as with tradition, was there carrying out his duties, by greeting the players, however given that the nation was still within the woes of the pandemic, he was unable to physically handshake any of them. On this occasion, as a viewer reflecting on the social media uploads of the event, there was chanting, but it was indistinguishable, unlike the obvious booing in this year’s ceremony. However, the booing was not completely absent, it emerged in full force, when the players from both sides took a knee just before kick-off.

Football Chant, 2008, Ope Lori

Booing whilst taking the knee, which is an anti-racism gesture that has become customary in all Premiership football matches, since it was evoked shortly after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020 and as a result of the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, has in the early days, often been met with booing. In an article written in The Athletic, the journalist Ryan Conway, speaks to former English Premier League striker Marvin Sordell, the black player who has spoken extensively about his battles with depression, on the reasons why some supporters show distain for taking the knee. By replying to these responders on social media and on their app, he tries to offer them some reasoning behind their resistance. The reasons varied from a respondent who believed that Black Lives Matter was a ‘Marxist, racist and violent movement’, to another who felt that football should just be about football, without including the element of protest and finally, with one responder questioning how taking a knee would affect racism. (7)

All points are therefore valid, in the sense that, this is what these fans had suggested were ‘their’ reasons for such gestures. This was their way of seeing. For me, as a black viewer of the same anti-racist gesture, it is perhaps the latter point in which there is a shared way of seeing where the premise of the resisting spectator comes to the fore. For example, since the practice of taking the knee has become customary, there have been individual footballers and clubs who have stopped doing so, because they feel it has lost meaning. As Crystal Palace striker and Ivorian player Wilfred Zaha stated last year, “there is no right or wrong decision, but, personally, I feel kneeling has just become a part of the pre-match routine. At the moment it doesn’t matter whether we kneel or stand, some of us still continue to receive abuse.” (8). Perhaps it is the same resistance that is felt by some, when seeing a group of black bodies, patriotically singing “Abide With Me”, not because of their blackness, but because of the empty gesture that their presence invokes.

Another dimension to this question on spectatorship, is also related to what and whom the B Positive Choir represent. They are in fact ‘a choir made up of people from across the UK, some of whom have Sickle Cell or family and friends with it,’ as is their description given on their Facebook page. Therefore, this is also about disability and access. Even though Sickle Cell Disease/Sickle Cell Disorder (SCD) is not automatically classed as a disability, based on The Equality Act 2010, it does meet several of its requirements, where a person may be described as having a disability (9). Unless spectators were aware of this hidden factor related to the B Positive Choir, then the prospect of the booing being related to it, would be hardly likely, but possible, depending on who’s looking. Regardless however, whether it was about any of these identity constructs, race or disability, the question then comes back to optics. Optics in the sense of, what must have it looked like and felt like for the members of the B Positive Choir and Raye the singer to be hearing the booing, when it “allegedly” was not directed at them but at the Prince?

When the common adage “I don’t see colour’ is used, it normally references living in a colour-blind world, where race and skin colour is not a factor. As Lewis Gordon, the Afro-Jewish American philosopher writes in his recently published Fear of Black Consciousness (2022) under the paradoxical heading “Erased; Or, “I Don’t See Race”, I don’t see colour often translates as:

“I cannot be racist, because I would first have to see race.” And another: “Because I don’t see color, I cannot see race; therefore, I am incapable of being racist.” There is more: “I can see beyond what others see. I see that they see color and race; I’m better than them, because I see that what they see is wrong. And since racism relies on believing what is false, my seeing the true form of my fellow human being – no color, no race – means that I am beyond racism. I am good.” (10)

So here in lies the problem and the issue with optics and how we see. Is it possible to live in a world without colour and if so, who then does it best serve? On the one hand it suggests that we are all equal and that race and skin colour difference should not be factors in how we operate in the world. On the other hand, it is by investing in this colour-blind aesthetic, that these inequalities go under the radar and as I have written about in this article, that it was possible for the colour of the choir, the singer and of those fans who booed, to have been eradicated from the discussion. How can you tackle a problem, if that problem hasn’t been recognised, or seen as such, given the identities of those doing the looking and then making value judgments? This essentially is the paradox of race and racism, and until we start asking other questions, by acknowledging multiple ways of seeing, from a range of differences and vantage points, we will forever be in confusion, and be unable to see the wood for the trees.

 

 

 

Footnotes:
(1) Smith, Graham (2022) ‘Booing Prince William shows the monarchy’s days are numbered, says GRAHAM SMITH.’ Express, https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1610938/Prince-william-boos-booed-cup-final-wembley-queen-stepping-down-royal-news
(2) talkSPORT (2022) Simon Jordan: ‘You’ve got to be a special brand of moron to boo the national anthem’. https://talksport.com/football/fa-cup/1110540/simon-jordan-liverpool-fans-boo-national-anthem/
(3) Sports Mole (2022) Jurgen Klopp defends Liverpool fans booing national anthem. https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/liverpool/fa-cup/news/jurgen-klopp-defends-liverpool-fans-booing-national-anthem_485960.html
(4) Mercer, K, Carter, E & Appignanesi, L (1988) Black Film British Cinema, ICA documents, Institute of Contemporary Arts, London.
(5) ibid 2.
(6) Ibid 1.
(7) Conway, Ryan (2021) ‘Why should I support violence?’ Busting myths on taking a knee. The Athletic. https://theathletic.com/2244447/2021/06/03/taking-knee-football-racism-violence-marxism-blm/
(8) Mcevoy, Sam (2022), Fans BOO Leicester and Chelsea players taking the knee before kick-off. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9582443/FA-Cup-Final-Fans-BOO-Leicester-Chelsea-players-taking-knee-moments-kick-off.html
(9) See Sickle Cell Work and Employment a research informed policy document by OSCAR Sandwell – https://sicklecellwork.dmu.ac.uk
(10) Gordon, Lewis (2022) The Fear of Black Consciousness. Penguin Random House, UK.

 

References:

(1) Baker, Jr. H.A., Diawara, M. and Lindeborg R.H. 1996. Black British Cultural Studies: A Reader, Chicago; London: The University Of Chicago Press.

(2) hooks, b. 1996. Reel to Real: Race, Sex, and Class at the Movies, New York: Routledge.

*All images in this article are reserved to PILAA.