James McClean

Try and what, make the humble suggestion that a piece of clothing cannot be considered "evil" in and of itself?

There is a more serious point at play however; you believe James deserves the abuse he gets because he has worn a "symbol" related to a group of people responsible for around 1500/1600 deaths, yet it is perfectly societally acceptable in Britain to openly wear a symbol related to a group who have been responsible for the deaths of literal millions over the past few centuries. James doesn't even vilify people for wearing that symbol like they do him for wearing his, he simply doesn't want to be forced to wear it himself. There's a beautiful irony in that.

Is whataboutery what they're calling hypocrisy these days? Fair enough.

Other Ireland players, who are equally in most cases Irish and Catholic, don't wade in on McClean's side precisely because they know he is going out of his way to antagonise people with the minimum amount of discretion possible. At least Matic doesn't seem intend on launching himself in to the Serb political arena as the new Slobodan Milosevic, he just follows his choices with as little fuss as possible but that is not the McClean way.

If you have to put caveats on your respect for other groups, and you can't accept them when they express themselves in a way that is relevant to their own heritage, then you aren't really in favour of equality. You are essentially saying to these people "I'll put up with you, but only to the extent that you keep your head down and remain invisible". That is unequivocally racist.

What a ridiculous comment..  How has he ever declared war on Britain? And if not racist, its xenophobic. Or does that word only work when its against someone from isreal?

You sound like the typical unionist on twitter with an English flag after your name  with comments such as "dont play and get paid your british sterling with the queens head on it, you'll take our money, bla bla bla"

If anything when it comes to not wearing a poppy he puts out a well written statement expressing his reasons not to, and also offering his support for those who fought in the world wars.  But still he is abused for simply not wearing it and being of a nationalist back ground 

I've been back keeping an eye after Jack's death, but the problem with this place is that unbelievable stupidity seems attracted to it, which would explain why I am replying!

For the absolute simpleton who made the original post: race doesn't exist, racism does. It's very f**king simple. The latter was created to make the former acceptable. The fact that almost a century after any decent scientist has removed the debate around race science, we still have to explain this to f**king ignorant ****s is why there's a Black Lives Matter. No doubt you believe in 'All Lives Matter' and other such ignorance. For clarity, you are the same race as Genghis Khan, Muhammad Ali, Albert Einstein, Yasser Arafat, Nelson Mandela and the Healy Raes, you just have more in common with the latter. There are some tremendous books on the subject, I strongly recommend you pick up one or two. Angela Saini's 'Superior' would be an excellent modern starting point.

As for the 'sectarianism' he receives... this is also nonsense. As someone who has been an atheist since I was eight years of age, I can assure you that I have also, when I lived in London at least, been a victim to it. It isn't sectarianism: it's anti- Irish racism. McClean stands up more to it and thus gets more of it. Nobody is obliged to wear a Poppy, indeed my argument has always been that it is insulting to those who have survived the British Army that charity should be required to help them return to society,  when that should be the responsibility of the state they served, but not wearing one isn't an acceptable reason for abuse. I also don't think holding republicanism as a belief isn't enough for abuse, certainly not the levels he receives. 

Sometimes though, it must be said, that McClean doesn't help himself. The timing, more than the wording, although the latter could have been ran past someone with a bit more sensitivity in these issues, doesn't help his cause. Many, if not all, will get his frustration, but trying to hijack and, it will seem, if unintentionally, to use racism other people have received to express his own injustices comes across badly. He has every right to be frustrated, but there are ways and means. It came across as crass to someone who strongly agrees with his basic points; it may come across as worse to those who don't understand them.

People may also say that the 'balaclava' thing was a joke, and it was funny, to a point, but it was incredibly stupid given his employment situation. That doesn't make the abuse acceptable. I'm sure there's an argument that he could make, if he thought about it rationally and psychologically, that the reaction was a result of the initial reactions: that the 'joke' would never have been made without the need to show his defiance of his background.  Nevertheless, it was ill-advised, as was the timing and wording of this.