What do the red cards for US player Folarin Balogun and England right back Quansah, the penalty awarded against Harry Kane in the Mexico game and Nigel Farage’s attempt to seek a by-election in Clapton have in common? I would suggest that the common thread is our interesting relationship to justice as human beings.
In the England v Mexico game, it was obvious that Mexican players and fans were united in their belief that a sending off and then a penalty were just. The immediate reaction of England fans was to contest, believing a great injustice had been done. We all had our own interpretation of both events and rules. However, though we would struggle to concede the point, the rules, especially in relation to red cards are not to do with intent. Quansah may have intended to win the ball and indeed may have done so but he led with a high foot and his studs made contact. The strict liability rule meant as soon as that became clear, he was going to have to make the long walk back for an early bath. Again, we may not like such a strict rule but begrudgingly we may recognise that it has helped mitigate against career ending injuries from reckless behaviour on the pitch. However, still there was a bit of grievance that this went to VAR as a result of home crowd pressure. England might otherwise have finished with 11 men and won 3-1 or even by a greater margin. We would have preferred different rules and a different jury.
In the case of Balogun, it is impossible to appeal red cards in major tournaments. However, Americans felt that his red card amounted to a great injustice. The team could not appeal through normal channels, so instead Donald Trump went to FIFA and a workaround was found. Different rules and a different jury were provided.
Then a few days later, controversy switched to politics. The media have been discussing Nigel Farage’s finances, especially provision of security and accommodation arrangements and an undeclared £5,000,000 gift. Nigel Farage believes that he has been treated unfairly, unjustly and that he is being hounded by the media. So, he has sought to resign his seat and fight a by-election. However, the rules are clear, gifts that either do result in influence on you, could give that appearance or where you are uncertain should be declared from within the year leading up to your election. Similarly, there is a clear process of investigation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standers rules on whether there has been a breach of rules and then the standards committee decide on the penalty. A lengthy suspension can lead to a recall ballot and a by-election.
Nigel Farage is adamant that he has done nothing wrong. However, he has decided not to wait around the for the commission and committee to deliberate. He’s sought to go early to the electorate in his constituency and let them decide. Once again, it seems that different rules/.processes and different jury members are sought.
We may have strong opinions about each of those cases. However, we would do well to remember that this reflects human nature. We don’t like decisions that go against us. We also would prefer to choose the ones who make the judgement, people we trust. However, we don’t get to determine the rules of life or hand pick the judge and jury. We cannot avoid accountability to the Lord.
Faithroots 