What is unlikely is that anyone, regardless of political stripe, was offended by the banner. After all, the message has been commonplace throughout soccer stadiums around the world (including BMO Field at the Canada v Belize game) for the last couple weeks.
Only by the strictest definition of the word is the message political (and It’s certainly not partisan). Rather, the message is one of compassion and humanitarian concern. Sure, it’s reasonable to assume that most that display it favour looser immigration laws, but on its surface the message is not directly calling for any political party or politician to make policy change. It’s a personal message expressing the displayer’s viewpoint that, to them, refugees would be welcome.
That’s likely why so many clubs around the world have embraced the message and, in Germany’s case, have even displayed it in official capacities.
None of this mattered to BMO Field security. According to Breen they were asked to remove the banner. At first because they were (incorrectly) told that they weren’t in a supporter’s section. Then, when corrected, it was admitted that the message was considered political and no political messages were permitted.
That was later backed up by MLSE in the Post story. There they also said the league was behind the policy.
I reached out to MLS yesterday to get clarification on their policy regarding Refugees Welcome banners. They did not respond to my request.
There is an argument for making sports stadiums agnostic spaces, even when the message is positive. The slippery slope says if you allow “Refugees Welcome” to be displayed, it then becomes impossible to permit “Refugees Stay Home” from also being displayed. So, it’s best to simply say that the space should be a sports only one.
The problem with that is that stadiums aren’t politically agnostic spaces. Political causes are promoted and supported all the time.
I mean, the opposing team Saturday was called the Revolution. The irony would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tone deaf.
In fairness, no one is still upset about a 228 year old political fight, but there are all kinds of displays of nationalism (which is by its nature political) and militarism (quite obviously political) on display all the time.
If you’re claiming that you want a neutral space, fighter jet fly-bys, military family reunions, camouflage uniforms and even the playing of national anthems have to go. Even if you support these things, you must be able to see how they are political.
Many people would resist the idea that we shouldn’t have military appreciation days, like TFC has held for several years now, and is again this coming Saturday. They support the troops and feel that it is important that they be recognized.
As someone that is leery of military engagement outside of extreme situations (i.e. World War II), I can live with that. As the lesson goes, supporting the troops isn’t necessarily supporting the military action they were involved in.
However, I can’t live with a double standard. If MLS and TFC are going to allow a fan to wear a camouflage uniform in support of the troops then another fan should be allowed to say that refugees are welcome.
To donate to Syrian refugee relief click here.