Sport, Fascism, UEFA, Nationalisms, Independences (A Spaniards view)
On July 20, the news is that "UEFA is investigating Rodri and Morata for chanting 'Gibraltar español'". It is important to consider that the last sanction imposed by UEFA for a violation of the Disciplinary Regulations was applied to a Turkish player for celebrating a goal against the Austrian team in the Euro Cup round of 16 by making the "Grey Wolves" gesture, a far-right paramilitary group banned in several countries such as France.
First, it is important to analyze: this punishable act occurred on the field, during a sporting competition where people come to watch football. Secondly, the content is directly related to terrorism. Does what was sanctioned have anything to do with Rodri, Morata, and tens of thousands of people chanting "Gibraltar español" during the Euro Cup celebration? The context is entirely unrelated to the sporting competition, and the content is a political thought, coinciding with historical truth, freely expressed. Does asserting the historical reality that GIBRALTAR is SPAIN have any terrorist connotation? It does not seem that UEFA is in good shape when it says it is initiating an investigation into the two Spanish players at the behest of a clearly fascist request from those who claim to govern the Rock, who, by the way, are not even an interested party.
The first question: Can UEFA penalize a person's opinions, whether they are a football player or not? The second: Can UEFA decide whether a person's conduct outside the competition it organizes is correct? The third: Will UEFA be able to enter into the Gibraltar dispute debate? "Charcos tengas y te mojes!"
From here on, attempting to "discipline" someone for freely expressing a message is PURE FASCISM. It seems that within the so-called "Government of Gibraltar," there is a trend to persecute anyone who thinks contrary to their interests. Be careful with this behavior because there are people born in Gibraltar who think GIBRALTAR IS SPANISH. And not because they are anti-Gibraltarians, but because they know the history and understand that the Treaty of Utrecht states the following: "The Catholic King, for himself and his heirs and successors, cedes by this Treaty to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire property of the city and castle of Gibraltar, together with its port, defenses, and fortifications that belong to it, giving said property absolutely for it to be had and enjoyed with full right and forever, without exception or impediment. But to avoid any abuses and frauds in the introduction of goods, the Catholic King wants, and assumes it should be understood, that said property is ceded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication with the surrounding country by land."
No matter how much Mr. Picardo and his ilk pretend that nothing was signed in Utrecht, or that what was signed is meaningless, the truth is that Gibraltar is Spanish territory, and the terms under which it was ceded in usufruct have been violated by arrogant Great Britain since it was illegally occupied in 1704. Scholars have debated this, but no one can doubt that what was ceded in Utrecht is USUFRUCT, plain and simple. So, Great Britain can only cede Gibraltar to Spain if it decides to abandon the Rock. The occupation of the Isthmus (airport and buildings constructed on it) is a matter of squatters that can be resolved with a lease or a court order.
Those who do not respect treaties will not enjoy any credit. And if any Gibraltarian person is aware that we are in the 21st century and that it is essential to unite wills, how can they not be disturbed by those who seek to persecute an opinion? What would happen if they publicly stated in Gibraltar that belief? Burning at the stake? Do British laws, even if they lack jurisdiction on the Rock, allow the persecution of people's free opinion? What happened with the "GIBRALTAR ESPAÑOL" chants from Irish fans at a football match on the Rock itself? Nothing. Because people have the right to freely express their thoughts, as long as it does not seek to prevent others from enjoying that right. Furthermore, except for the glorification of terrorism, there are no limits to freedom of expression in the civilized world. Two weeks ago, La Vanguardia echoed Nil Codina's analysis explaining "Why the British far-right only gets four seats with 14% of the vote," warning that despite polls predicting less support, Eurosceptics represented by Nigel Farage managed to become the third force in number of votes.
History should not repeat itself because people are supposed to learn from it and not repeat the mistakes of the past. The first major mistake of the 20th century was accepting fascist behaviors as normal. And the first alarm against fascism is the intolerance of anyone expressing their thoughts. The fascist claims the power to decide what is correct or incorrect and, if they have power, burns those who are not on the true path of the only possible truth "Theirs" at the stake. This happened to General Franco, repeatedly cited by Mr. Picardo. Let Mr. Fabian know that his manner of expression has similarities with this way of conducting oneself. He does not like the idea of GIBRALTAR ESPAÑOL. He does not have to like it. No anti-fascist will reproach him for saying or manifesting the opposite. He has the legitimate right as a person to freely and openly express his thoughts, as long as he accepts that others can do the same.
Hindering free expression is a sign that fascism is nesting in those who attempt it. The Spanish government is also not very sharp when it timidly "excuses" itself, speaking of the context of celebration, in the face of clearly fascist behavior trying to curtail free opinion. Because it is not true that the shout "GIBRALTAR ESPAÑOL!" belongs to the category of "rancid comments about Gibraltar," as Mr. Picardo qualifies it. Nor is the "GIBRALTAR ESPAÑOL" chanted in Madrid's Plaza de la Cibeles "a totally unnecessary mix of a great sporting success with discriminatory political statements that are enormously offensive," as the Government of Gibraltar's statement denounces.
In plain language: "He who eats garlic, reeks of it!" Mr. Fabian waves the flag of independence, and no one reproaches him for it. Does Mr. Picardo think that his independence bothers anyone? Surely yes, but he does not hold back and says what he thinks because he has the right to do so, as long as he does not try to silence dissenting voices. The press in the area and the one subsidized by the Gibraltar government should be attentive to advise Mr. Picardo not to so blatantly expose his authoritarian way of thinking. A local newspaper conducted a survey in Gibraltar, and someone asked this question: "Can you imagine how Spaniards would feel if two Moroccan national team footballers sang 'They are from Morocco, Ceuta and Melilla are from Morocco, they are from Morocco, lolololo...' in the middle of a celebration in Rabat after winning the Africa Cup? Think about it." What is there to think about? Any intelligent person knows that the Alawite Kingdom, since Morocco's independence, has fostered the sentiment that Ceuta and Melilla, like IFNI and the Sahara (formerly Spanish), are Moroccan territories. Does it bother that someone thinks differently? The foundation of coexistence is RESPECT. A lot of respect, not for opinions, but for the right of people to have and express them. That is the key to any AREA OF SHARED PROSPERITY.
Signed, Rafael Fenoy
Gibraltar British or Spanish?