CJ Banned?

[Stephen Ormerod]

This unfortunate event could have been handled within the Pond Forge environment and kept 'in-house'.

Firstly, this was a chess event. It was not a chess event supporting gay equality.
CJ could have worn something a little less controversial - does he wear his Stonewall t-shirt on Eggheads? Maybe he has but I've never seen him wear it....maybe because it has nothing to do with the show perhaps?

I 'm 100% sure most of us don't care who plays this great game - gender, race, religion, sexuality, politics, geographical location, financial backing, disability - they don't matter - and that is the great thing about it. Its inclusive of everyone and the only thing that does matter is your ability over the board. I think there is a no better sight in a tournament room, than one of our more elderly chess playing competitors, with years & years of experience, playing a young junior just starting out in the game. Where else could that happen?

You can argue the rights and wrongs of this event today and everyone has an opinion, but I am disappointed that our President has decided to tweet Jeremy Vine asking him 'anything interesting for you from my recent tweets', has an interview with the Sunday Times lined up and its already in The Guardian....not very professional if you ask me.

Some might say it has given him just the platform he has needed to use our game & this tournament to further promote the gay equality cause. I have no doubt discrimination exists in this world and there is no place for it anywhere. I support him 100% in that. But he should keep the issues he wishes to promote to the right place at the right time....and consider other peoples views aswell as his own.

Interesting debate though....

[JustinHorton]

It's just a T-shirt though, and it had been worn the day before without any problems.

I've often worn T-shirts with political messages when playing chess, and so have many other people, often with messages than I wouldn't agree with (any more than they'd agree with mine).

It's really not a big deal, and for people to go into a tiz because children might see this T-shirt is really a little unnecessary in the year 2011.

[Alex Holowczak]

There is no way that will happen because the television company wouldn't allow it

Eh?

What makes you think so?

Do you think there are no openly gay people on television?

I would have thought it wouldn't be allowed on the BBC purely because they're not allowed to advertise anything. They'd have to wear plain clothes. They're not even allowed clothes that advertise the names of the people who make them. So things with Adidas and Nike on them wouldn't be allowed.

[Simon Ansell]

There is no way that will happen because the television company wouldn't allow it

Eh?

What makes you think so?

Do you think there are no openly gay people on television?

I have no idea whether CJ would be allowed to wear the t-shirt on Eggheads. But if he wasn't, it would be because there is a written dress-code in his contract. There is no dress-code in force for the prize-giving at the British Chess championships, as far as I'm aware, therefore he can wear what he likes so long as it is not offensive.

I do have some sympathy to the view that at a formal prize-giving, one should dress the part. But that's not the point.

[JustinHorton]

I'm sure I've seen people wearing all sorts of T-shirts on certain quiz shows (and I'm not thinking of Eggheads, which I've never seen).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Actually the amount of money that CJ put in is irrelevant to the issue. Don't get me wrong, he made this tournament and he has done a great job as President. But he was representing the ECF - maybe it was handled badly but I wouldn't want, for example, my 9 year old receiving his trophy from a huge beaming man with a t-shirt saying that.

I was just making it clear, as you can see from the quote in my post and as Jonathan deduced, that it was not the t-shirt per se that was the issue. It was the wording on the t-shirt that is the 'problem'.

You don't want your son to know that some people are gay?

Not to speak for any parents, but it might not be so much the first part of the statement, but the second part. It is actually quite a complex message being transmitted. It's not a simple "Support Stonewall", nor is it a simple "Some people are gay". It is the "Get over it" part of the statement that is complex and has several layers of meaning. Adults are able to work out what this message is saying, but not (IMO) young children.

It is not just telling you personally to get over the fact that some people are gay, as that would be a gross assumption to make about the general public, but it is reminding the reader that some people still need to be told to get over it and that homophobia and prejudice are still around and need to be actively combated (hence Stonewall). But I wouldn't expect young children to understand that message - if anything, I would expect it to confuse them. Which is not the same as saying that CJ should have worn a different T-shirt, but pointing out that a different slogan, or different T-shirt on the same issues might have caused less angst.

At the end of the day, though, I agree with what Justin just said: "It's just a T-shirt though, and it had been worn the day before without any problems." I think those who had concerns were right to speak up (you can't censor that either), but should have done so sooner. And then CJ should have just presented the prizes anyway, and then things should have been sorted out afterwards. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[David Robertson]

the arbiter who objected to CJ's 'T' shirt, well good for you. I fully agree and support you. If CJ has done wonders for chess over the last year then I congratulate him and thank him for his efforts, but that doesn't mean he is right on this

Didn't think it would take long before the homophobic hate-mongers emerged to tap out their bile. The reason the 'Christian couple' were prosecuted was because they were breaking the law. If your notional Muslim equivalent took the same position, they would be breaking the law too. It's very very simple.

What you seek is a sanitised version of CJ de Mooi. That is, he'd be a really nice bloke if he just wasn't gay. This cut-down version, trimmed to meet the conditions of bigotry you'd like to impose, isn't available.

[JustinHorton]

Finally I have to say there are still generations of people in our country who have not signed up to the dumbed down anything goes society activists want us to live in.

Are you using a random phrase generator there Ernie? Try this one.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the end of the day, though, I agree with what Justin just said: "It's just a T-shirt though, and it had been worn the day before without any problems." I think those who had concerns were right to speak up (you can't censor that either), but should have done so sooner. And then CJ should have just presented the prizes anyway, and then things should have been sorted out afterwards. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I don't think it is the same as the previous day. The day before, CJ was just a spectator and if he was photographed, it would just be as background.

Last year at Canterbury, there were photos of CJ with most of the prize winners, not least a picture with Mickey Adams which made the front cover of Chess. So assuming that pictures were to be taken this year, there would be pictures on the website including the junior winners with the non-celebrity being associated with one of the celebrity's pet causes. As mentioned above, not everyone is sympathetic to the methods of the organisation in question.

[JustinHorton]

Yes, but people may be able to work out that if person A is wearing a T-shirt, then person B in the same photo does not necessarily endorse that T-shirt.

[Paul Cooksey]

As mentioned above, not everyone is sympathetic to the methods of the organisation in question.

Just on the specific factual point, I'm not aware of any direct involvement by Stonewall in creating pressure on that guest house. As David Robertson said previously, Stonewall is seen as a moderate organisation.

I suspect Paul Talbot is painting with a very broad brush.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, but people may be able to work out that if person A is wearing a T-shirt, then person B in the same photo does not necessarily endorse that T-shirt.

Adults perhaps, but does that apply to children as well?

[JustinHorton]

Who knows? It's part of the process of education that kids will sometimes get the wrong idea. That's the risk of giving them things like books, computers and so on. (For what it's worth, I work in primary and infant schools, selling books and doing stories, and so this is part of my working life.) Essentially in contemporary life it's quite difficult to deal with the genuine difficulties of this process by shielding children, because it doesn't work - what they don't find out in one place on one day, they'll find out in another place the next.

It's complicated, and unsatisfactory in all sorts of respects. But that's the way it is.

[William Metcalfe]

I am not sure how to reply to this thread i really should declare a intrest my oldest son is openly gay and has been since his early teens so i have seen at first hand just how much predjudice there is out there his secondary school days were ruined my constant bullying both physical and verbal the school would do nothing to protect him.This led to his younger brothers secondary school days being ruined also the thugs that bullied his brother turned there attention to him only prob he was 6 foot tall at 12 year old so faught back this led to 3/4 years of schooling in the isolation unit.So for the bigots posting on this thread try thinking of the innocent victims of your and others predujice.
As to the main point of the thread it was a tee shirt for gods sake nothing more nothing less

[Andrew Camp]

Surely the idea is that an arbiter might want to prevent someone from advertising a gambling website, to take one not particularly random example - but which sane arbiter/Congress manager would want to prevent anyone from giving some relatively inconsequential support to a charity (which almost by definition is accepted to be a good cause)?

Stonewall may have charitable status but they are actually a pressure group; and I personally wouldn't support them for a gold pig. They are also a bunch of bullies and cowards. They 'picked on' and 'set up' a Christian couple running a guest house because they had a policy of not allowing non married couples to share a double room. This wasn't an 'anti-gay' policy; it applied equally to any man and woman who weren't married, but stonewall had to make an issue of it and take them to court. I'd bet a pound to a penny stonewall wouldn't pick on a muslim hotel and take a muslim couple to court. Go on stonewall, prove me wrong, I dare you!

Re the arbiter who objected to CJ's 'T' shirt, well good for you. I fully agree and support you. If CJ has done wonders for chess over the last year then I congratulate him and thank him for his efforts, but that doesn't mean he is right on this; and if he thinks he is right then I challenge him to wear the shirt on Eggheads. There is no way that will happen because the television company wouldn't allow it, and if it's wrong for television then it's wrong for the ECF. So there you are CJ, if there is nothing wrong with what you were going to do then wear the shirt on Eggheads.

At the risk of being shot down, I agree with this post 100%.