A different perspective on the 'One Love' Armband

There has been a lot of controversy over the World cup that kicked off this week in Qatar about human rights in that country, FIFA’s alleged corruption, and yes, the ‘One Love’ armband.

Right up until Monday, the English Football Association (FA) were adamant that they supported Harry Kane in wearing the captain’s armband with a heart-shaped rainbow with the words ‘One Love’ across it.

The FA was prepared to pay any fines the association received for wearing the armband. Still, FIFA announced that teams, and even individual players, would receive sporting sanctions like yellow cards and game bans for wearing the armbands in World Cup matches. Since then, the FA have U-turned on their position, recommending that Harry not wear the armband in their first match against Iran.

In a Sky Sports article, writer Rob Harris writes, “While not directly referencing anti-LGBT laws, the armband is intended to promote inclusivity” [1]. So what is the big problem, and why is there so much controversy?

First up, let's establish that this message is not just about inclusivity. There is a clear motive and agenda behind it for two reasons. Firstly, the rainbow is the flag of the LGBTQ+ movement, so inclusivity in this context is more about the acceptance of persons who are part of that community. Secondly, the slogan 'One Love' is not a pithy catch-all; it holds the opinion that love is love, whoever that love may be between. Both of these opinions (if we can call them that) are not universally supported, even in the UK and US.

The Pride movement and LGBT+ inclusion agenda have made great strides in the ‘Western’ world, particularly in Britain and the USA, and is reflected by the laws in those countries allowing for such things as same-sex marriage. As a result, acceptance of the LGBT+ community is increasing, and discrimination against groups, while not eradicated, is being reduced.

Qatar, where the World Cup is being hosted this year, is a Muslim country with very conservative views on sexuality. People who are homosexual face years in prison for instigating or seducing someone of the same sex to engage in sexual acts.

I want to help us to think objectively about this situation. So I’d like to start by presenting some analogies that might help us think about this.

Firstly, let’s say you’re a Monopoly purist, and you play the rules as they read in the rulebook, but you go to a friend’s house, and their family has ‘house rules’. What do you do? You might suggest playfully, “Why don’t we play by the rulebook today?” but they respond, “Nooo, don’t be silly, we play by our rules; they’re much better.” What do you do? Refuse? Complain the whole game that the rules aren’t right? Or would you respect the house rules because, after all, you’re at their house?

Now think about a business wanting to trade with another, one in France and one in the US. Whose law do you use? A decision would need to be made with several factors considered, but a specific reason would generally dictate. For example, perhaps the data protection law is more robust in one jurisdiction than another, or maybe the commerce and transitions laws are better in one than another.

Now, if I were invited to a friend’s family home for dinner, and they happened to be Sikh or Hindu (for the sake of argument). Before dinner, they asked if I would join them to pray before dinner. Would I protest? Would I ask if I could be momentarily excused? Would I join them in prayer to the deity that they prayed to? No, no, and no. In this hypothetical situation, I would accept their request and listen respectfully, maybe even saying a short prayer to my own God. I would certainly not refuse. This would be highly disrespectful.

By now, you’ve probably worked out what I’m getting at; in the issue at hand, we are in Qatar, partaking in an event they have invited the rest of the world to, have funded, and are hosting. As a sovereign country, they have laws that that nation abides by. The rest of the world are visitors in someone else’s house, and to me, it looks as though many are trying to force their house rules, beliefs, and laws onto a sovereign state.

This is colonialism.

I can almost feel through my screen the angry glare of readers thinking, “yes, but what about the atrocious human rights and working conditions, and money from oil, and corruption within FIFA and corruption in the Qatari government… etc., etc., etc.” And I agree with you. So many things appear wrong, and in my own context, culture, and beliefs, I can very safely say while I’m sitting here at my desk writing this, I feel like I’m right. But we must all remember that there are many, many different contexts, cultures, beliefs, and worldviews that people think are right. So, to a certain extent, we must respect others’ views.

Even in England, it continues to surprise me that there are those who want to promote diversity and inclusivity but that others must conform to this way of thinking or else they are bigoted, backward, or archaic.

This doesn’t sound like accepting or even tolerating diversity of views and inclusivity of all people to me.

I applaud the Qatari government for sticking to its position on this issue. It shows that someone has put enough thought and reasoning into these laws and views that they are unwilling to back down from them, no matter where the pressures come from and who is applying them. I do not, however, commend many of the practices that I have read about when it comes to the treatment of migrant workers in the country, especially in the construction of the World Cup stadiums.

Suppose we want to change someone’s view on something. In that case, we should do this respectfully, with some strength and commitment in some cases, especially where there is a strong belief in conflict. But until this happens, we in the ‘west’ are not really in a position to dictate to others in a different culture how to live their lives.

I am a Christian and hold views and beliefs that do not fit our culture and society, but I know what I believe, and I know why. I would like to think that I would stand up for my beliefs and not compromise, no matter what pressure was applied or what threats were made. My view is based on reason and truth and is backed up by faith and experience. I am not willing, without being convinced otherwise, to back down because belief in truth is worth standing up for.

I am not so naive as to say I am right about everything. In fact, I am probably wrong about many things, but that is where conversation, debate, and critical thinking become so valuable to us as individuals and as a society, both nationally and worldwide. We need to learn to reason and debate better with each other, and we need to learn to stand up for ourselves better.

Regarding my views on LGBT+ and inclusivity, I need more space than just a few sentences to elaborate on this. You might have picked up clues just by this blog. One day I will write more fully about that.

[1] England prepared to be fined for Harry Kane wearing One Love armband in Qatar | World News | Sky News