Thumping an englishman is NOT racially aggravated assault

When Erik Lloyd, a 48 year old welsh self-employed electrician and former rugby player attacked Graham Whitehouse, a 54 year old english rugby fan following a humiliating 30-17 defeat, he was guilty of appalling thuggery and moronic behaviour unsuitable for a man of his age.

What he wasn't guilty of is racially aggravated assault. Yet that is exactly what he has been found guilty of by a Prestatyn court.

Acts of aggression between rival supporters is nothing new in sport. In many ways it is an unfortunate and undesirable tradition. Whether it's verbal barracking on the terraces, or street battles between English and Turkish fans, it's as much a part of the history and culture of sport as cheating. But rarely is it ever truly a racist act.

The definition of race has evolved since the concept first emerged in the 17th century as a way of identifying and defining differences between people and establishing clear categories. Today the western european idea of race has little or no basis in science since the late 20th Century when researchers abandoned the concept of race for the concept of the cline, a graded series of differences occurring along a line of environmental or geographical transition.

But just as the men and women in white coats were giving up the challenge as a lost cause, the political, legal and legislative bods were swooping in to take ownership of 'race' as a powerful new catch-all concept on which to base a raft of laws. With no tedious and inconvenient scientific definition of race, the word could mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

Today, the european understanding of race tends to equate to a simple recognition of nationality, while elsewhere in the world it can be based on religion or even language.

There is a glaring weakness in such feeble definitions of race. If race is based on nationality, then a person can theoretically change their race by applying for nationality in another country. And by gaining dual nationality a person effectively becomes mixed race. In societies where religion or language define race, then religious conversion effectively means a change of race, while a course in French for Beginners results in the person becoming mixed race.

Ridiculous? Yes, but within the modern definitions of race the above propositions hold water.

There is also a real danger to society in such feeble definitions of race. As the sentencing of Erik Lloyd illustrates, something as innocuous as petty national rivalry between countrymen of two nations which share geography, language, economy, culture, government and just about everything else, is now illegal.

Consider the following 'ridiculous' but possible scenario...

Identical twins, conceived of the same egg and genetically identical, are separated at birth. One twin is raised in Bristol, the other is raised in Cardiff. Under the current legal definition of race, these two would be classed as being different races. Identical twins different races? Now that truly is ridiculous, but in law it's possible.

The danger lies in the potential for the law to tighten up further on what it considers to be racial motivation. If the definition of race is based on concepts as weak as nationality (remember, in the case or Erik Lloyd, he holds the same British passport as his victim), how far could the law take it?

Another legal understanding of race is 'culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics'. In this case, Manchester and Liverpool could be considered racially different, so what next? Manchester United supporters being charged with racial aggravation for chanting at Liverpool supporters?

There are two obvious solutions to this problem which would put the brakes on creeping misuse of the race card. We either need the scientists to get off their backsides and to once again take up the challenge of defining race, or we need to drop the idea of race altogether. The word clearly isn't safe in the hands of politicians and lawyers.

Erik Lloyd is guilty of assault. That's not up for debate. That his sentencing should include the words 'racially aggravated' shows just how urgent it is that this issue is sorted out.