THE FA SHOULD NOT BE JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER

JOHN TERRY'S REMOVAL as Captain of the England football team over allegations of racial abuse has raised many significant questions.  Until the facts of the case are fully examined under a court of law, the truth of the racial allegations will remain subject to conjecture.  

     Mr Terry had already courted controversy prior to losing the Captaincy.  Last year it is alleged he may have had an illicit affair with the wife of a fellow England team-mate.  However, the nature in which his current Captaincy was revoked has raised questions whether individuals in society really are innocent until proven guilty.  As Mr Terry vociferously denies the allegations, the move instigated by England football's governing body seems to reinforce this point.

     

John Terry: Thrown to the wolves? (pic courtesy of Trendportal.net)

Even if Mr Terry is exonerated, the FA's recent decision has impacted damagingly on his already tarnished reputation.  No doubt the English Football Association will offer Mr Terry the olive branch of reinstatement, should he be cleared of the charges.  However, if he is cleared, why should he accept this?  Furthermore, if current reports are to be believed and Mr Terry is set to face Poland and the Ukraine in the Euro 2012 qualifiers, why should he even consider wearing the England shirt in light of the FA's lack of faith?

     John Terry has stated unequivocally that the allegations levelled against him are untrue.  As he held the Captaincy of England's football team, surely common sense dictates that the FA should have supported their beleaguered representative, instead of throwing him to the wolves.

     Many people, including senior government politicians, believe that these allegations preclude Mr Terry from maintaining his team position citing that, if exonerated, he should then resume the position.  This, however, further confirms that Mr Terry has already been effectively judged before court proceedings have begun.

     In a parliamentary democracy (especially one which prides itself on the way civil liberties are promoted) how can such action be justified?  Many cite the fact that the position of England Captain carries with it onerous moral responsibilities, and that impeccable conduct is expected of its holder.  This point will not have been lost on Mr Terry, whom I am sure is more aware of this than anybody else.  Therefore, logic would dictate that if Mr Terry was in fact guilty of racially abusing Queen's Park Ranger's Anton Ferdinand, he would have immediately recognised the precariousness of his position and resigned forthwith.

     By choosing the exact opposite course of action, John Terry was sending a clear message to his supporters and superiors that they should place unqualified faith in the belief that he is telling the truth.  Their subsequent response may now prejudice forthcoming legal proceedings, by implicitly suggesting that they do not actually believe the words of their chosen representative.

     In our progressive, multi-cultural and democratic society, racism is an anachronism that should have dissolved with the passing of Empire.  Today, racism bears no relevance or relation to the smooth functioning of society.  Therefore, the courts are right to investigate all racist allegations in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

 

     

Has the FA potentially prejudiced Terry's case? (pic courtesy of Epltalk.com)

However, the law is a prerequisite of a liberal democracy and must only be enforced in court.  Outside interests must not infringe upon this, and all those who are charged with a crime must, if the crime is contested, be allowed to state their case clearly in court.  Only this body can then determine the veracity of the facts and make a judgement.

     Should John Terry be found guilty of these charges then the court should impose the maximum penalty - for he will not only have brought English football into disrepute, he will also have purposely misled a court of law.  He should also be barred in-perpetuity from every representing England again.  However, if Mr Terry is indeed exonerated of the charges levelled against him, the English Football Association should offer him compensation for wilful damage to his reputation.  Moreover, the individual who was responsible for sanctioning Mr Terry's dismissal should have their position reviewed, as their actions will have directly prejudiced the case of a potentially innocent man.