Liverpool Supporters

[Mark S.]

Dear Fans of Liverpool FC,
Recently your fellow Liverpool supporters Connor Brennan and Mel Abshier decided to publish both a press release and a series of emails we exchanged. I am writing because, I understand the content of those emails out of context might make some think I am either insensitive to victims of Hillsborough or prejudiced against supporters of Liverpool FC.
Brennan promised me that should I choose to post on the RAWK I would be allowed just like anyone else to express myself. Since everything including my choices of suits has now been discussed (Alexandre of Saville Row) I really want to respond. Just to show that folks on the other side do understand the issue, we just don’t agree with you entirely. Being against the boycott does not mean you support Cohen’s views on Hillsborough. In fact, the boycott seems to me to now be the principle obstacle to a meaningful reconciliation and telling of the truth as the RAWK would see it.
I came to this issue as a result of Steven Cohen’s comments about the disaster on World Soccer Daily. I found Cohen’s comments tragic both in tone and substance. I think people were rightfully offended and I could not imagine hearing someone speak about the tragedy in the tone he used had I lost a relative. I also came to this from another perspective. Increasingly in forums, I saw that because of the boycott the Hillsborough tragedy was increasingly framed in partisan terms. That is it was Liverpool fans supporting the boycott and fans of World Soccer Daily and other clubs not supporting the boycott. It was also clear that for the most part listeners of WSD supported the show but did not agree with Cohen’s remarks on Hillsborough. However, this was beginning to change, as listeners grew angry and impatient from some of the excesses of boycotters including anti-American rhetoric and the essential argument that listeners could not think for themselves and were blindly following Cohen. I recall posts, like “Bubba’s for Cohen” etc. that really cast the listeners in a negative light and ignored the idea that one could listen to and support the show but disagree with Cohen’s views on a number of topics. Unfortunately, the support or non-support of the boycott began to be conflated for many with their view on the incident. And fans on both sides became more heated in public forums. So much so they New York Times had to shut down the comments section on the
Aside from that, it was clear that making Cohen the “target” had some negative consequences. As even Mel Abshier admits people took things too far, writing emails, calling. Public message boards contain threats to Cohen and there are both posts that attack his family and his faith. The conflict was escalating and I hoped to do some good. So let me answer some questions I have received in a myriad of emails from Liverpool supporters, some respectful, some not.

Do I understand Hillsborough?
As best I can, not having lived through it. I understand that the issue was crowd control. That it was not overcrowding or hooliganism. Supporters were corralled into a tiny space that caused the crush by authorities. The best available evidence indicates that the area was well below capacity and fans were crowded into a small area causing the crush.
I also understand the emotion surrounding this man made disaster. The cause of the Hillsborough tragedy was the public safety officer’s negligence and disregard for life. This criminal neglect was mirrored by the Thatcher the government’s lack of regard for the declining industrial economy in cities like Liverpool. The disaster and reactions by right wing rags like the Sun only dramatized the way the Thatcher government and their media lackeys saw the working class people of Liverpool, as subhuman. This dynamic is compounded by the fact that the success of the club during that period was one bit of solace for the fans of the club who were suffering so much economically and socially at that time. To have even that intruded upon by a criminal act of disregard for human life added insult to injury.
As an African American and a person who grew up on the South Side of Chicago as I watched steel mills shuttered, and also an African American who witnessed Hurricane Katrina in the United States, I understand this dynamic all too well. I understand it is why the club, the response and the incident transcend each other in many ways.
At the same time, I am very aware at how that kind of passion and anger can turn into blind and unfocused rage. In fact, it is predictable, regrettable but understandable response. That hurt turns easily into justification for bad behavior on the part of some. In some sense the dynamics around Hillsborough are ripe for this and many supporters of the boycott who are reflective know that all too well. I have been stunned by descriptions of Cohen’s initial remarks as “dangerous”. Dangerous to whom? Why? Are opinions no matter how daft “dangerous”? Clearly people and the organizers are aware that the response to Cohen might get out of control and it did.
How I got involved?
I approached both Cohen and Abshier after being involved in Internet chat debates about the issue. I also kept in contact with some really good people on all sides of the debate. Some of us began to tire of the back and forth as it migrated from site to site with the same old arguments presented by the same old people. One guy “Nigel” as he is called presented some ideas about what would resolve the issue and deal with the concerns of both sides of this conflict. I want to make something clear, the first time I have personally met Cohen was this past Tuesday. I have never before that day met him, despite claims we are “lovers” and “friends”. Though I had been at the same venue twice. A notable occasion was at the Fox & Hounds in Studio City for the Liverpool/Chelsea match where Cohen claimed he sang “Murderers”. It was early on the West Coast but I heard no such thing. In fact, the venue for all is a friendly place and there are never problems or even anything vaguely nasty exchanged between supporters. Completely tasteless and indefensible joke, but the underlying act I am pretty certain never occurred. But I digress.
I contacted both Cohen and Mel Abshier. My first goal was to see if there was any give. I argued with Cohen about the incident, discussion the Taylor Report and we reached a new understanding about what he had said that was wrong. My hope was a process of real reconciliation could begin. Reconciliation that would ultimately bring American fans of the game into supporting the HJC campaign rather than turning away from it as hopelessly partisan or conflating it with the hatred and anti-Semitism directed at Cohen.
To be honest, I also am generally negatively pre-disposed to boycotts. My training at the Martin Luther King Jr. Institute for Non-Violent Social change and my study of social movements, has consistently held that boycotts are aggressive tactics that are divisive, hurt innocents and only should be engaged when targeted at the source of the injustice. In this case even if the boycott is successful Cohen has no ability to rectify the underlying injustice, the failure to prosecute the authorities. Also, I was guided by another and connected idea, it is always best and most prudent to target injustice and not people. That is to say, I have often in public been outspoken against the boycott, not because I thought Cohen was right, but because I saw a real negative dynamic emerging that did not seem to serve the broader interests of either side and was turning nasty.
What was proposed?
What was offered to Mel Abshier was a full-throated apology. One that went over the details of the incident and in Cohen’s own words discussed where he was in error. Steven still has some sincerely held beliefs about that day but you will now find those beliefs are now reconciled with the facts available about the incident. It also included language specifically addressed the victim’s families and addressing Cohen’s harsh statements about Liverpool fans on air more generally in the past and how unhelpful that had been.
I also proposed a series of steps and guarantees that would prevent Steven from backsliding on what he’d said including publishing the new more comprehensive apology. In fact, the boycott current does not to my knowledge, acknowledge the fact that he took that step on his own and has since issued a more comprehensive apology (http://www.worldsoccerdaily.com/messi-shirt). He did so, because he came to the conclusion it was the right thing to do with full knowledge it would do nothing to end the boycott. The boycott was more of a impediment to a more contrite statement to the victims. However, the communication by Connor Brennan on this site and targeting to sponsors clubs etc. does not even acknowledge Cohen’s apology this Spring or the recent press release that amplifies it (http://www.worldsoccerdaily.com/messi-shirt) . Cohen’s harmful words about the incident are not his last statements about it. Why continue to open the wound by not making it clear his view has evolved?
I also included in the proposed agreement that Cohen would also ask Liverpool Fan Clubs and sites or at least the organizers of the boycott to assist authorities in any prosecution. I received an update today that the Los Angeles Field Office of the FBI has decided to pursue a hate crimes investigation. That investigation is in full swing at the moment to my understanding.

What was Mel’s response?
Mel responded to the offer that I spent days crafting by stating one he would not review it because it was not proposed by a fan of Liverpool FC and two there contained errors but he would not tell me what they were.
Mel then further, demanded that Cohen provide proof that the anti-Semitic emails came from members of the official supporters group. I found this demand curious because it is difficult to authenticate email. Cohen did have a good faith basis to believe that some of the nastiest emails were at least sent by Liverpool fans motivated by the boycott. Does it really make a difference to him if those individuals had paid their dues or not? I really have never got this other than you don’t like the fact that some have taken this tact and you want to discredit any connection between these folks and the boycott. I find the denial stunning. I also indicated to Mel that if Steven were fabricating the claim he would be dealt with by authorities. He would be guilty of perjury and filing a false report punishable by time in Federal Prison in the United States. No joke obviously. If Cohen is lying he has bigger problems than the scorn of supporters of Liverpool FC.
Mel continued on this track. I also challenged him to remove and investigate things placed on public message boards of Liverpool fan sites that were available to anyone. Mel never responded to these requests. I concluded that Mel was more interested in embarrassing Cohen and playing “gotcha” than actually addressing the issue of racism. I think that was a fair assessment. Hence the press release by Brennan with me “stipulating” I could not prove the nastiest stuff came from card-carrying members. What was excluded was my challenge to them to clean up things posted by known members and that it is impossible for anyone to “prove” where the email came from without highly sophisticated equipment. Neither I nor Cohen has access to the membership roles of these groups, so It was clear this demand for proof was a red herring and was an attempt to discredit the idea that some supporters had made threats and had lodged racist threats. This made me angry. It is one thing to dislike Cohen it is another not to recognize that there are nuts out there and perhaps even dangerous ones. At one point, given the temperature of the discourse I asked Abshier how would he feel if harm came to Cohen. He stated it would not be his responsibility and he could not concern himself with hypotheticals. I challenged him, so which is it? Do you care the boycott remains respectful, not violent and non-racist or are you not responsible for what your followers do?
Further, while Mel still refused to respond to what was “in error” he also made a few chilling arguments. I suggested that just as Cohen’s comments had hurt families of Hillsborough survivors the anti-Semitic rants were hurtful to not only Cohen but also holocaust survivors and other victims of anti-Semitism. Abshier suggested that Cohen should hit delete and that the racism was not that serious of an issue, all the while claiming he needed to do a full investigation.
I honestly was outraged. The callous response about how those words etc. might affect holocaust victims was ugly to me. It was the worst kind of myopia in that the injustice at Hillsborough blinded him to any other injustice or even considering that someone else might have been hurt in a similar fashion. I tried to explain to him that Hillsborough is not the only such incident in football and certainly not the only incident of this kind. Hillsborough victims are not the only victims of injustice.
I also tried to assess his demands. Mel continually cited his demand that Cohen accept a lifetime ban from broadcasting and perhaps change careers. I discussed with him how impractical such a ban would be both in theoretical terms and in practice. I could explain but one might imagine that the wording of such a ban could be so overly broad as it might preclude someone from making a living. I asked him to provide me with language I could approach Cohen with that would outline such a ban. There was no substantive response to that query.
I concluded that Mel Abshier was intent on maintaining boycott and not serving the broader issue of justice. The goal is to simply punish Cohen and de facto his sponsors and listeners. My proposal dealt with most concerns but did not have a virtual death sentence for Cohen written into it. Further he was tone deaf as to how both the approach of the boycott, its tactics and the response of the substantial WSD community was likely to harm the cause for some time into the future if things continued on their current course.
What I meant in the final email?
So by the time the email that is now circulating was sent. I was fed up with Mel. He was conducting himself as if these were nuclear arms negotiations. Wasting my time and being non-responsive. He engaged in a bunch of acts of brinksmanship and made some statements about the holocaust and anti-Semitism that honestly disgusted me. He was not interested in reconciliation that was offered. He was not interested in a full and unequivocal apology to the families of the victims that was offered. He was not even interested in developing language that represented a clear articulation of demands.
There was a sincere and real offer on the table that would have gone a long way towards changing Cohen’s public stance in a way he could not retreat from, ending this stand off and moving the World Soccer Daily community into a position behind the issue of justice. Mel rejected that flat out.
My work on this ended when I urged Cohen to at least make available a more detailed apology that both in tone and in substance recognized some of the most inflammatory statements. He did that, and I am glad. The families have a better apology now. If that’s all I accomplished, I’m happy with the outcome.
So my question is, what are the goals currently of the boycott? What is gained if WSD goes off the air? Is it practical to ask for a lifetime ban of Cohen? Haven’t enough innocent people been hurt on all sides of this at this point?
Cohen is a stubborn guy and Mel hates him to be honest, maybe at this point most Liverpool fans do. But hate really just drives more hate and in the end solves nothing. It certainly at least in my estimation does not serve the worthy cause of justice or help move the issue beyond partisan bickering and the tribalism that seems to sadly dog the English game.

Maybe you will win. The US football community will lose its only daily show discussing the game, fans will see it as a win of fans of Liverpool FC over fans of other clubs and leagues, and Hillsborough will sadly be seen as a partisan issue. I would call that a pyrrhic victory, but that’s just my opinion.
So what is the state of affairs? As I understand Mel there is a planned escalation of the conflict. WSD is muddling along and seeking to build off the US success in the Confederations Cup and the upcoming World Cup. Sponsors and football fans in the US are caught in the middle and there is no end in sight. Both sides make outrageous claims about the other and most importantly is the debate is characterized by unfair caricatures of one another. Mel contends Cohen is a liar. Cohen contends Mel is blinded by hatred. There is no chance they can work together for a solution.
A lifetime ban seems an unreasonable demand. While in the end if successful in killing the show fans of Liverpool FC and most important the victims of Hillsborough may gain more enemies than friends.
Honest attempts at mediation and strong offers to resolve the conflict have been rejected. And people like myself have been trashed by the likes of Mel and Connor and the RAWK- but most of what’s said is pretty funny to me honestly. I get hate mail everyday about this, some pretty nasty. But I am a public person and I also grew up with a fair amount of hate. It’s nothing new to me. Just sad it continues. Please if you’d like contact UCLA, I have tenure. I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong here.
I have begun a dialogue with Professor Phil Scranton who contacted me based upon information sent to me by Liverpool supporters. While I am sure we will ultimately reach some reasonable conclusions, I worry the sides will continue to attack one another.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my statements and make sure the families of the victims are aware of where I stand. Also, please do not misrepresent my role. Some of us worked hard to educate Cohen and to convince him that despite his anger with the boycott the families deserved better.
By the way, I appreciate Professor Scranton getting in contact with me. I admire his work. If any of you have any concerns, I am happy to address them. I don’t make idle threats, and I am happy to defend or explain my point of view. I doubt it will do much good though.
Sincerely,

Mark Q. Sawyer