On the 4th of February the European Parliament adopted (with a clear majority of 394 in favour versus 176 against) a recommendation for a future road-map against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. This seems to be a step in the direction AEGEE is pushing with the Policy Paper on Homophobia. But what does this road-map really mean? And how big can this ‘step’ be called? The AEGEEan decided to look at this subject with E.G. (AEGEE-Leiden) the previous Policy Officer on Homophobia. 

The recommendation is a non-binding way for the Parliament (which does not have the ability to initiate regulations) to push the European Commission to start developing regulations on a subject. This initiative was based on the fact that the European Union already stated that it disapproves of discrimination based on sexual orientation, becomes clear from international treaties[1] condemning discrimination as well as recommendations, resolutions and guidelines the European Commission and parliament previously developed on the matter.

Ulrike lunacek © EU

However as the recommendation stated, the 2013 EU LGBT survey showed that across the EU “one in two LGBT respondents felt discriminated against or harassed on grounds of sexual orientation, one in three were discriminated against when accessing goods or services, one in four were physically attacked, and one in five were discriminated against in employment or occupation”.

As Ulrike Lunacek (Austrian Member of the EP, author of the recommendation and Co-President of the LGBT Intergroup) states: “LGBTI people face serious problems in Europe today. Despite progress made in some countries, discrimination, violence and harassment continue to occur in all 28 Member States.”

Based on these numbers the European Parliament stated that it “believes that the European Union currently lacks a comprehensive policy to protect the fundamental rights of LGBTI people”.  So they decided to call upon the European Commission and Member states  “to work jointly on a comprehensive multi-annual policy to protect the fundamental rights of LGBTI people, i.e. a road-map”. Such strategies already exist in the field of Roma integration, discrimination on the basis of disability and gender equality.

Gay Pride Brussels 2011

The recommendation specifically looks at several specific places of discimination like employment, education (sharing of good practice throughout Member States’ youth), citizenship, families (all forms of families should be legally recognised), freedom of movement and freedom of assembly and expression (like pride events). So this recommendation is meant to get the European Commission to act.

E.G. (AEGEE-Leiden)

Something also E.G. (AEGEE-Leiden) would like to see: “The EU needs to do more than simply state that discrimination against LGBTI persons is unacceptable and must be addressed. It should, instead, come up with specific and practical solutions to overcome this practice.”

But the question remains whether this ‘road-map’ is a real practical solution. According to Eline “The proposed EU road-map is one more political step in the right direction when it comes to making an end to homophobia and discrimination based on one’s sexual preference. It is questionable, however, to what extent this ‘initiative from above’ will make an actual difference within EU societies.”

So although the Parliament is pushing the European Commission and Member States in the right direction with this road-map, a very long road remains ahead of us before we reach a European society free of discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The problem of discrimination calls for a more bottom-up approach from society. This also means that we as AEGEEans have a chance and maybe even an obligation to try and positively influence society around us, so it becomes more tolerant towards people with all sexual orientations.

One of the activities that the Sports Working Group arranged for Spring Agora Rhein-Neckar was hosting a workshop with the theme of bullying. Despite few participants, the workshop was a successful example on how an interesting topic can gather AEGEE people together.

For Agora Rhein-Neckar the Sports Working Group (SWG) invited Adam Wilde from the LGBT rugby team in Berlin to share his thoughts and experience on how sport is connected to bullying. As many may know the SWG is working on homophobia in sports and homophobia is just a smaller part of bullying.

The workshop, hosted by Adam Wilde together with SWG speaker Ángel Rodríguez, made AEGEE members open up about their personal experience of bullying and surprisingly many participants of the workshop have been affected about this vicious topic at one point or another in their life.

One of the methods used during the workshop was sharing information about homophobia in sports. Participants watched parts of the interesting BBC documentary about homophobia in sports together and afterwards listened to Adam Wilde’s personal experiences and projects to fight bullying.

What engaged the small group of participants the most was sitting in a circle and talking about personal experiences. When wondering what impact sports have on bullying the response was more positive. Sports can give people strength, it can bring a togetherness feeling amongst people, and it can help deal with anger. For one participant, sports have helped deal with bullying and been a tool to become stronger physically and mentally.

In regards of how bullying can be fought the ever-returning idea of visiting schools was brought up. Actually, it was difficult to come up with specific actions on how Adam Wilde together with his team can combat bullying, but it made the participants wonder about it and the workshop raised awareness about an important topic!

All participants of the workshop left the room in Mannheim very satisfied, and happy to have been part of the interesting talk. It was a pity that not more members were able to take part, especially since Adam had taken the journey from Berlin. However, it was motivating to see the general interest there is in the topic!

Written by Patricia Anthony, Secretary of the Sports Working Group

A few weeks ago, the football team AEK Athens won against Veria, which made Giorgos Katidis want to celebrate. He did this, using the Nazi salute. Katidis (20) says he had no idea what the gesture stands for. His coach Ewald Lienen states that Katidis is young and does not have any political views, so he absolutely did not mean any harm by doing it (BBC News). Now we are wondering, just as the rest of Europe, is it really possible? Are there people in Europe who do not have a clue about this?

The Human Rights Working Group, the International Politics Working Group and the Sports Working Group join their forces to take a closer look at the case.

It does not matter if the player knew what it meant. He used the sign, and the punishment is clear: Katidis is now banned from playing for the Greek national team for the rest of his life. It is a bit more complicated than it may seem at first sight though. Was he discriminating? Was he making a political statement? Sport players are role models, so how does this happening influence other people?

Maria Arends – Speaker of the HRWG

In Germany, the Nazi salute is illegal, but in other parts of Europe it is not. I would like to focus on the way this offends human rights, and also I want to share some thoughts on the difficult question whether the punishment is too harsh or not.

Stretching your right arm is a violation against human rights

To understand well what the Nazi salute stands for, we need to go back to the year 1926. Europe was in crisis, crying for change, and the Nazi Party made the Heil Hitler salute compulsory, because it showed commitment to the party and it functioned as a declaration to the outside world. Although it was compulsory, from 1933 on it became prohibited for inmates to use the salute, followed by Jews, Roma, and other ethnic groups, until it was only found acceptable for the Aryan race.

Even though nowadays most people see it as a very bad symbol, back then it represented some sort of privilege. One that many people were excluded from, which went from bad to worse.

As I said, people were excluded, and they were not allowed to do something because of their ethnic or religious background, when people from other backgrounds were allowed to do it. And because of that, it went from bad to worse. It went from quite small things to a holocaust Europe will not – and may never forget. As you see, stretching of your right arm to eye level is still very much related to this happening.

Nowadays, the salute is still used by neo-Nazis, who represent some elements of the Nazi regime back in the day, such as nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.

Katidis states that he did not know about all this. He did not know that the salute was used during WWII, nor that it is still associated with this and with the beliefs of neo-Nazis. But would he have used it anyway, if he had known? If it were illegal? Would he have done it if he had known the consequences?

The consequences for Katidis

Katidis can never play again for the national team. The punishment is loud and clear. Yet, it leaves us a lot to discuss. Do we agree with this decision?

He violated human rights, which, especially as a role model, is unforgivable. But what if he really did not know what he was doing? What if he realises how wrong this was? Wouldn’t it be enough then to suspend him from the team for a limited time?

The Italian player Paolo di Canio also used the salute as well in 2005, and he was banned for only one match. According to the article in The Guardian, he did this solely to greet his comrades, as the Roman salute (on which the Nazi salute is based) was used to serve for in the ancient Roman empire.

Personally I cannot give an honest answer to this question. My gut feeling tells me that it was totally wrong, a bad violation of human rights, and the punishment seems very valid seeing it from this point of view. Also, because it explains to young people who do not know a lot about the WWII how seriously we still take this. On the other hand, if he really did not know, then who are we to judge? If he really, really had no clue, did not have proper education, then shouldn’t we blame the institutions that were supposed to teach him?

Can it be possible?

Ivan Bielik, Speaker of the IPWG

In my post I will examine the two claims of the footballer which he uses to advocate his innocence in the case. First, he claimed he was not a fascist. Second, he told he did not know what that salutation means. After a step-by-step rebuttal, I will conclude the strength of these claims.

In the first claim, Katidis proclaimed that he was not a fascist. This excuse is quite common when your behavior becomes an object of media coverage. Appealing to the non-political nature of the Greek footballer is however weak. Even if he is into any other kind of political affiliation (Christian, Social democrat or whatever) this fact does not mitigate his real actions. Why? The problem of Katidis is that he did that salutation in a public space under media coverage and fans’ presence. That means his action (salutation) has a direct impact on others who could see it. In this case, your action becomes public, which means you have the moral duty to observe some rules which govern the society you live in. A fascist salutation is linked throughout the European continent with the ideology of race hatred and mass extermination. It definitely has a bad connotation in people’s minds. It ought not to be shown in the public space. Thus, such salutation is not appropriate in a public space such as football stadiums, even if you are not a supporter of the fascist movement. The first claim by Katidis is therefore weak.

The second statement is more interesting. Claiming that you do not know what such salutation means shows two fundamental flaws. Firstly, your level of education is very poor. Probably you felt behind in school or you are very reluctant to learn new things. Secondly, the level of social learning is even poorer in this case. Many actions we do publicly are learnt from our social context. For example, if you show your middle finger to someone, that person will not respond in a very friendly manner. He/she will insult you or fight you. Afterwards, you have learnt that showing your middle finger is inappropriate, because of others’ reaction (in other words, the social context). The same applies to the Nazi salutation. You could see such actions only in the atmosphere of hatred and violence when supporters of such movement gather together. They often insult ethnic minorities and offer solutions that are too simple for complex problems of society. People respond very strangely to such actions. Thus, this salutation occurs in very specific circumstances which any ordinary human is capable to comprehend (it is bad sign). Therefore, the value of this action is predestined by social context where it occurs. If the footballer claims that he does not know what it means, he is showing a lack of knowledge and intelligence. Moreover, such claim is not very strong, because it transcends your responsibility to other institutions (in this case education or family upbringing). Therefore, the punishment for Katidis is justified, because it emphasizes the personal responsibility of a person who is showing inappropriate signs in public. Without personal responsibility such problem will occur again and again.

Patricia Anthony, Secretary and founder of the SWG

Katidis’ case might be rare but cases of nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia are unfortunately too common in the world in and outside of sports. A case like Katidis’ raises the question of how to deal with such cases in sports. How is it avoided? How tough of a punishment is needed? What does it take to combat nationalism, racism, xenophobia and homophobia?

The answer is not black or white, and a large number of solutions are needed. On top of the list the SWG finds it important to take a stand and raise your voice in the fight against different causes. The SWG especially focuses on the fight against racism, xenophobia and homophobia in the world of sports, hoping that the actions will extend beyond the world of sports and especially the world of AEGEE.

Katidis’ case shows not only the importance and potential of AEGEE’s Working Groups and Project Teams to create different projects that can have high relevance of what happens around Europe on a daily basis. The European-level bodies are collaborating more and more, and all ideas are always welcome. What does Katidis’ case mean for you? What does it mean for AEGEE? What does it mean for Europe? Is it really possible to salute in such a harsh way without knowing the meaning of stretching your arm like that?

Written by  Maria Arends (AEGEE-Groningen), Patricia Anthony (AEGEE-København), & Ivan Bielik

Sources

1. BBC News. Who, what, why: Can you accidentally do a Nazi salute? Requested at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21829682 on 19-03-2013.

2. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Requested at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml on 20-03-2013.

This month the honour of Local of the Month goes to AEGEE-Ankara: an active local many interesting Projects and Working Groups and this article gives you an insight into the world of AEGEE-Ankara.

The AEGEEan: Congratulations on becoming Local of the Month, how does this honour make you feel?

AEGEE-Ankara: It directly makes you smile when you see an e-mail that was dropped to your inbox! Then, you understand that as whole local, we have been doing inspirational activities for a long time. It is a success that was achieved by many people in years.

What is the story behind AEGEE-Ankara?

AEGEE-Ankara was founded in 1993 by a group of young people from the Middle East Technical University and accepted to AEGEE Network during Fall Agora Budapest in 1995. Later on, AEGEE-Ankara became one of the most active locals of AEGEE-Europe. Integration of Ankara into AEGEE is perceived as a revolution because AEGEE decided to break dogmas about modern European borders and brought a new conception to “Europe of values”. Currently, AEGEE-Ankara has more than 250 members and many projects running.

Can you tell a little about your exchange project with AEGEE-Utrecht? 

This exchange aims to discuss where LGBT is standing in a society within the framework of biphobia, homophobia and transphobia and whether they are given a ‘place’ in a society or not. The thematic part of the project is intended to be handled considering every aspect of LGBT Rights via presentations, panels and workshops in both Turkey and the Netherlands. The project has been in works since EBM İzmir and now, both antennae completed their thematic works and project documents. In the meantime, both antennae have been searching for possible funds and also are in contact with each other, aiming to realise the project this summer called “Meet me with me Under the Rainbow”, with exchanges to take place both in Ankara and Utrecht.

What project and working groups do you have in your local?

Currently, there are three projects group and two working group in AEGEE-Ankara.

We have one Project Group Under the name of “SUNSET: SUstainable Nature, Sustainable EntertainmenT”, Summer University Project Group of AEGEE-Ankara which is working hard on our TSU taking place this summer. Another Project Group concerns “EURENSSA” which has been organised every summer since 2006. It’s a project organised by students for students. The main aims are to create a meeting place for students with a background of studies in environmental sciences and sustainable development. It is an open-air event lasting usually 7-10 days, and AEGEE-Ankara is planning to organise EURENSSA on the coast of Aegean Sea in the summer of 2013. Participants from different countries and culture will together with the organisers take part in thematic trainings and workshops on sustainable environment and organic agriculture while enjoying Aegean Sea and natural beauties of Aegean region.

Regarding the Working Groups there are three: One of them is dealing with the exchange with AEGEE-Utrecht, another is involved with the Turkish-Armenian work that AEGEE-Ankara does and the third is an International Political Working Group which since 2000, has been actively working on political issues around the world. The group especially is focusing on European Union and its structure, Turkey –EU relations and Visa freedom. IPWG of AEGEE-Ankara is also trying to keep in touch with IPWG of AEGEE-Europe frequently.

What is the Turkish-Armenian Civic Dialogue project with AEGEE-Yerevan?

It began with the project “Two Sides of a Mountain” which was implemented in 2009 in Hatay with participants from Armenia. Recently, the Turkish-Armenian Working Group has been writing a project document for Turkish-Armenian Civil Dialogue The project group started to work on a new project under the name of ‘Neighbourhood of Under the Roots (NOUR)’ which will take place in Yerevan. NOUR Project aims to reveal the common cultural heritage and how we are willing to live together. Cooperating with AEGEE-Yerevan, we truly want to put this exciting project in practise. Just like last year, the group is trying to manage a trip to Yerevan this spring in order to organise NOUR closely with AEGEE-Yerevan.  Till the end of the year, the group will manage to organize panel discussions, trainings on hate speech and conflict resolution, and Turkish-Armenian Peace Nights. According to Peace and Stability field, we are going to continue to work on this topic.

You have also had the Turkish-Greek dialogue in the past. What was it about, is it something that will continue?

Turkish-Greek Civic Dialogue project has been one of the large-scale and long-term projects of AEGEE marking one of our main pillar Peace & Stability for three years. The project was not the only initiative in AEGEE focusing on establishing dialogue between Greek and Turkish young people, and luckily it was not be the last one. After establishment of AEGEE locals in Turkey in the 90s, AEGEE realised the necessity of establishing such a dialogue thanks to its own experience and relations between Turkish and Greek AEGEE members those days. Expansion to the East and accepting a local branch of Turkey has been a largely discussed issue within the AEGEE network. Once AEGEE-İstanbul was accepted to AEGEE network in the early 90s, there have been a lot of discussions in AGORA-Kos. Later on, when AEGEE-Ankara was accepted to the network in 1995 in AGORA-Budapest, there were still tensions between Greek and Turkish members of AEGEE. AEGEE experienced the negative consequences of Turkish-Greek conflict itself and focused its activities on peace-building between two countries as an organisation acting for peace and stability. In the end, the idea of “Turkish-Greek Civic Dialogue” project raised from this conflict and tension that we all experienced. It aimed exactly to help young people to know each other better within and without AEGEE, lasted 3 years and hosted conferences, workshops, festivals and warm relations between young people of both countries.

Recently Burcu Becermen became honoury member of AEGEE, how does this make you feel?

Burcu Becermen was the project manager of Turkish-Greek Civic Dialogue, projects director and president of AEGEE-Europe. She was also honorary member of AEGEE-Ankara with other other members. When she was nominated for honorary member of AEGEE-Europe by Comité Directeur, we were proud of her one more time. She was a great inspiration to almost every member of AEGEE-Ankara. When we are telling about AEGEE and AEGEE-Ankara to new members, we always mention her and Turkish Greek Civic Dialogue project.

Do you promote the European Level of AEGEE to your members in order to make them become more active in AEGEE?

As AEGEE-Ankara, we promote the European Level of AEGEE to our members in order to make them become more active in AEGEE as much as possible. For example, Gizem Karslı from AEGEE-Ankara was part of the Comité Directeur last year. Recently, one of our members is currently working in EuroArab Project as HR and another one is working in AEGEE-Europe Events Committee as PR. Additionally, we always mention AEGEE-Europe, its structures, working and project groups during our local Agorae, local trainings and acquaintance meetings of AEGEE-Ankara to newbies. Hence, we are regularly sharing all the announcements of European Level Events, AGORAe, EBMs and NWMs with our members via social media and informing them the content of these events. We encourage especially our new members to attend Agorae and EBMs as visitors in order to help them gain AEGEE experience and spirit.

What lies in the future of AEGEE-Ankara? Are you organising more thematic events?

We are sure that every successful and inspirational project idea needs a thematic background in order to raise our member’s knowledge and gain more awareness. Since we are specifically paying attention to thematic achievements in AEGEE-Ankara, our events have been developed from thematic backgrounds. Besides our motivated members,  we tend to have partners on our projects from any areas that we are working on. Help of other organisations on our projects as partners are always welcome and we believe that it increased success of our projects.

It is great to see thematic forming an important part of local work in AEGEE and it will be interesting to follow the outcomes of whatever AEGEE-Ankara has planned in the future.  

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København

Idaho might remind the geography brains about some place in the United States of America, but it is obviously not the Idaho that the Sports Working Group (SWG) will bring to AEGEE.

Lately, the SWG has been working with two policy officers on two different, but yet a bit similar subjects; organising events combating homophobia and racism in AEGEE. Recently, the SWG were the leaders in the project and Skype meeting with the aim of gathering the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG), SWG members and Policy officer E.G. The topic of the meeting and project is to create an easy concept that antennae all across the AEGEE Network can adapt to and organise events in connection with the international day against homophobia which takes place yearly on May 17^th. The day is also referred as IDAHO, and after a fruitful Skype meeting the possibilities to create a lot of awareness about a great cause and at the same time make AEGEE reach beyond where it has reached before are looking very good.

Are you yellow, blue or violet?

“What rainbow color are you?” was the question recently on the SWG Facebook page which made has created confusion amongst many people, but it is linked to the IDAHO campaign. A campaign that the SWG will continue working on together with Eline with the aim of getting as many antennae across Europe to join the rainbow flash mobs dancing and raising awareness about the fight against homophobia together with other national movements. This way youth participation and inclusion of minorities are both involved in the event.

Dancing is a sports activity that is easy to organise and furthermore sport is considered a universal language that brings people together. The aim with our involvement in IDAHO is to create awareness about the fight against homophobia and raise the interest in AEGEE and beyond, hopefully raising an even greater interest in organising many more events against homophobia in AEGEE both in and outside of the SWG after May 17^th as well.

As mentioned, the SWG will continue the work together with the HRWG and Eline on the topic in order to specify the project even more. However, any member with an idea about how AEGEE can become visible in the flash mobs is more than welcome to contact the SWG.

Combating racism as well

The policy officers have before been introduced in The AEGEEan, but it can still be a confusing reading about what exactly the policy officers are doing, so while in contact with policy officer Stephanie Müller, the SWG had the time to ask a few questions about her work so far.

SWG:  What have you been working on as a policy officer so far?

Stephanie: The topic I work on is “Racism and Xenophobia”, so far I have collected information on the topic, about its relevance for Europe and how racism & xenophobia is experienced in different countries in Europe. Therefore, at the beginning of December I send a questionnaire to the Network and got very interesting answers, which I will share with the Network soon.

It is very sad to see in how many European countries nationalists are raising and turning against foreigners, mostly immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. Particularly, in Southern European countries strong national and sometimes racist parties are raising and gaining more and more supporters.

SWG: What are your upcoming projects as a policy officer?

Stephanie: Like the other Policy Officers I will write a position paper against racism and xenophobia, for which I like to involve the Network as much as possible. I hope the Skype meeting about the international day against racism is just the beginning. I hope to be able to motive some locals to organise some events which are raising awareness of the fact that many people in Europe are discriminated because of their country of birth, religion, nationality or appearance. This is a very important topic we should not close our eyes to. Furthermore, I hope to raise the topic during the Agora Rhein-Neckar in a progress meeting and talk to some people of what could come next.

The Skype meeting that Stephanie is talking about is a project between the SWG and Stephanie aiming to gather AEGEE members and ask the question “What would you do in the International Day United against Racism?” If you want to join the discussion, then contact the SWG.

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København

The question asking what your personal opinion on homophobia is was the main focus of the first online consultation by policy officer E.G. that took place this week. The topic was not kept so much on personal opinions but did open up for many interesting areas in which AEGEE can progress on the topic of homophobia.

A mentioned before, combating homophobia in sports is a topic on the agenda of the Sports Working Group and therefore it took me only a few seconds to forward the invitation for the online consultation on homophobia by policy officer E.G. Unfortunately, the invitation was issued to ANNOUNCE-L on the day of the meeting making it quite difficult for members to plan ahead to attend it which also could be seen in the participation in the actual meeting. Nonetheless, it was still very interesting and granted knowledge about the situation of homophobia in the Netherlands, Greece, Spain and Denmark that Eline can move forward with.

Big city equals big minds and small city equals small minds?

First of all, the members of the meeting discussed the situation of homophobia in the different countries. On one side you would find countries quite religious such as Greece and Spain and less progressed in the terms of acknowledging homosexuals and on the other side there would be countries more open towards homosexuals celebrating gay parades, allowing gay marriage, adoption and more such as Denmark and the Netherlands. In one country it can be completely normal for straight people to go to parties at gay bars with their homosexual friends without friends and strangers questioning your sexuality whereas in other countries entering such a club will put a label on you in 30 seconds or less. Why do homosexual people go to parties at clubs filled with heterosexual people all the time, but if the tables were turned the frequency of club visits is much lower? This topic is not only something that has been discussed in this online consultation but has also been a suggestion that came forward when the Action Agenda Committee brainstormed on ideas for Activities for Summer University (SU) organisers to add to their preliminary program: take the participants of the SU to a gay club/bar, and it will be interesting to see if this will actually happen this summer.

Back to the online consultation, the talk went on, and the topic of big cities versus smaller cities did occur and it was discussed whether people in larger cities such as the capitals would be more open-minded than people from smaller cities. It was a pity that not more members could add information about the topic since we have members in AEGEE of a large range of different sizes. Hopefully that will happen in the next online consultation on this subject.

Are we more open-minded in AEGEE?

Question number one: Do you stop and stare in if two people of different genders kiss in public? Question number two: Do you stop and stare if two people of the same gender kiss in public?

This was an interesting topic of discussion that continued the meeting because it is not a rare case that people tend to look twice if they see something they are not used to. They might not mean harm, whereas in some cases they will try to be funny which ends up hurting other people but the reality is that when one thinks twice about the situation we might not be as open-minded as we think in AEGEE. This meeting made me wonder if we are open to inclusion of minorities in every single way in AEGEE or if the situation could be better.

In the end everybody agreed that the state of this subject differs very much from country to country and this raises the matter if it is even possible to achieve something within this area or if it is too delicate to discuss. Some people think that gay people do not exist, others use disgraceful taunts at homosexual people, and others welcome them with open arms (and hearts). Does this differentiation make it too difficult to work with homophobia in AEGEE? The Sports Working Group does it and Eline is not afraid either to take on the subject because as she said “if we don’t try then we don’t know if we can succeed!”

The session was one of many online consultations that will take place, and hopefully more people will join the discussion next time.

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København

Did you see the survey? Did you answer the questions? Did it make you stop and think about how homophobia affects the world? It is not only the Policy Officers of Social Inclusion who work on homophobia, the Sports Working Group touches upon the area as well in the first Activity Plan of the Sports Working Group (SWG).

When discussing the Activity Plan (AP) of the SWG, it was not easy to reach agreement on certain areas. High ambitions and eagerness to impress the Network and Europe were challenges when piecing together the AP of the SWG. One of the difficult areas was the idea of discussing about homophobia in football. This is an area that is rarely touched upon. However, that was one of the reasons why the secretary Patricia Anthony was so eager to make this discussion part of at least the next year’s plan of the Sports Working Group.

Seeing the e-mail to the Network from the Policy Officer last week about the topic of homophobia, added even more inspiration to try to achieve something in this topic, and homophobia in the masculine sport of football is also in the attention of the media these days.

Danish national football goalkeeper and player for Manchester United Anders Lindegaard blogged about this topic last month and reveals that according to numbers 12 percent of the male Danish population is gay, however, none of the approximately 1000 guys associated with Danish professional football have declared themselves as homosexual. Lindegaard  has the impression that the problem is not to be found within the football teams but more to be found amongst the fan culture based around football. He then goes on to say that a recent published study from the “British Journal of Sociology” shows that 93 percent of the British football fans would support homosexual football players. This surprises him, as well as Patricia Anthony, but then again, it might be easy to agree upon supporting such minority, but it takes no genius to understand that any minority or person who stands out from the “normal” will be an obvious victim for physical terror, so the actual outplay of any situation will not be known before it actually happens. However, what can be surprising is that in some places the fans are openly admitting that they do not support the club having players representing sexual minorities, such as in the Russian football club of Zenit Moskva.

The Danish Football Federation (DBU) is being pushed by many people to create a campaign, in order to be the front leader in the campaign of accepting homosexual people, hopefully leading to some players coming forward with the truth about their sexuality. However, DBU argues that they are not interested in getting involved with people’s sexualities by making such a campaign. Lindegaard then argues that such a campaign will not encourage people to become gay, but rather promote that any hatred created because of homophobia is unacceptable in the game of football, just as is the case with the fight against racism. Not doing anything indicates that there is no problem, which is far from the truth. However, doing something will be a step towards making the boys that quit playing football feel accepted by the society, and it will be an inclusion of minorities. Homophobia is not only an issue in football, since football is far from the only masculine sport with history of either macho men or popular Beckhams or Ronaldos with their stunning wives and girlfriends on their side. However, being such a popular sport with so much media attention and federations involved with the game, football has the opportunity to be the front leaders of this topic, the question is simply, where does it start?

Tackling this issue is not easy, and that is also why it almost did not make the Activity Plan of the SWG. However, seeing the development of discussion in the media about it, and following policy officers trying to dig in research material about homophobia have assured the SWG board that this interesting discussion is of high relevance of the SWG and AEGEE. This is definitely not the last that you have heard about it.

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-Kobenhavn and Secretary of the Sports Working Group