More disappointing is the foolish and insensitive actions of Celtic’s representatives at SPL level, apparently waving through this decision with as much resistance as is met by teenaged neds encroaching on the pitch on Champions League nights.
Predictably, and understandably, Irish supporters have expressed their concern. The Association of Irish Celtic Supporters' Clubs was quoted as saying in their statement:
“While respectful of the symbolism of the poppy in Britain and keeping in mind those Celtic players, employees and supporters who either lost their lives or those of family members and friends in war, we are disappointed at this decision (apparently taken without consultation with supporters' groups) in light of the fact that the poppy is seen as a more divisive symbol in Ireland where many Celtic supporters are based and from where many others claim their heritage.
“Many supporters in general and members of the AICSC in particular will have wholly negative views of the British army's operations in Ireland and, indeed, have also lost their lives or those of family members and friends as a result. We feel that they too should be remembered at this time and regret the potentially divisive nature of this weekend's planned initiative.”
The AICSC statement was measured and appropriate, not least in recognising that players and fans fought in those wars, a practice that was supported by no less than Willie Maley.
However, with respect to the club’s thousands of Irish supporters, Peter Lawwell and John Reid might have focussed on other interests of even more direct relevance to their responsibilities. That is to Celtic players themselves.
It is quite conceivable that Celtic could have four Irish nationals, a German, an Italian and a Japanese player featuring in this weekend’s match against Motherwell.
Even given the disdain with which the sensitivities of the Irish are routinely dismissed in Scotland, did Celtic officials consider the dilemmas posed to players like Massimo Donati, Andreas Hinkel or Shunsuke Nakamura to be forced to wear a symbol in remembrance only of those who were engaged in war against their ancestors and countrymen?
How, one wonders, would it be received if Nakamura was to instead prefer to wear a chrysanthemum or any player wear a white poppy as a symbol of peace?
It is every nation’s right to remember those who died in its armed forces, whether in defence of the nation or in blindly pursuing the political aims of its government. For that reason, audible or visual protests are not appropriate on these occasions.
However, questions must be asked of the Celtic hierarchy – not to mention those of other clubs. Did anyone ask Andrius Velicka or any of the other Lithuanian players in Scotland how they feel about the poppy, given that their country fought against the Russians during WWI?
What about Andis Shala, a Kosovar German playing for Dundee Utd?
Does anyone care about the feelings of the many Irish internationals at Dundee Utd and elsewhere, instructed to honour men who became Black & Tans or who were serving when Lloyd George threatened “an immediate and terrible war” in 1921, not to mention those who took part in the summary executions of the 1916 rebels?
Only those with Britain’s famed insularity could fail to recognise that wearing a poppy – while quite acceptable for those who choose to do so – has oppressive political connotations for those whose national loyalties and familial interest in the wars lie elsewhere.
That Celtic – and every other club – should fail to defend the interests of their own employees in such a matter is a disgrace.
The Scottish Poppy Appeal does a great deal of fine work for men and women who are deserving of the support of their nation.
That does not mean that anyone should be required to wear a symbol that, above all, celebrates victory in this the most obsessed of nations with its wartime past “glories”.
One need only witness the abuse directed at those who choose not to wear a poppy – or to wear a white poppy symbolising a commitment to peace – to understand that this is an intrinsically political statement
Is it really so much worse to sing The Boys of the Old Brigade (a song your writer would deprecate in any Celtic context)?
Given that our chairman, according to George Galloway, was once known to make it his business to educate new old Labour recruits in the Irish Republican songbook before going on to be an enthusiastic protagonist in Britain’s illegal wars, it is perhaps unsurprising that Celtic officials display a split personality disorder on this issue – even to the extent of neglecting the interests of their own employees.
The Celtic supporters, who better understand the identity of the club are likely to be less negligent, even if this is one occasion for silent dissent.
 |
--
No comments:
Post a Comment