22 November 2011

"I hate Huguenots..."

To say that the SNP Government's Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill introduces two new criminal offences is superficially correct but practically misleading. It is better to think of both as little clusters of criminalisation - with several limbs - entangling conduct of a great range of severity by the bonds of a section and ties of a clause. With the addition of a public order element, the first new offence proposed - offensive behaviour at football - criminalises (a) expressing hatred, (b) stirring up hatred, (c) behaviour motivated by hatred, (d) threatening behaviour and (e) any other behaviour that a reasonable person would find offensive. Try to get your head around the gigantic range of conduct encompassed in that, particularly by ideas of expressing hatred and things the Reasonable Man would get disgruntled by, whatever the devil that might be. 

As one academic who submitted evidence on the Bill noted, holding all of the elements of the offences in one's head, and coming to some understanding of what sort of conduct is caught by them, can be a rather bamboozling enterprise. It is also an enterprise which has long been deferred in the parliament, which has thus far preferred to engage in a rather airy debate about the necessity of the new law and general condemnation of sectarian recrimination.  No longer, with any luck. Today in Holyrood, the Justice Committee is considering stage two amendments to the Bill. These have been forthcoming from Roseanna Cunningham, David McLetchie and Patrick Harvie. Depressingly, however, on a quick look through them, the proposed changed are all rather superficial, and don't invite SNP members and ministers to justify their proposals in detail in a way they have not been challenged to do thus far - and I fear - likely won't be before this Bill is enshrined in law.

From the government side, Cunningham proposes to introduce a mandatory reporting mechanism on how the law operates in practice, empower ministers to change the list of things-it-is-illegal-to-express-hatred of-in-relation-to-regulated-football-matches, and an additional clause on the protection of the freedom of speech (which significantly, only attaches to the threatening communications offences, rather than the offensive behaviour at football-specific provisions). As Christine Grahame noted in the stage two debate in Holyrood, it is unfortunate that this second plank of the proposed legislation has largely been ignored. In order to weigh this post by the kilogram rather than the tonne, that is a matter for another day.

For today, I wanted to focus in a little more detail on the first offence, by way of a wee scenario. When questioned about the breadth of the provisions criminalising offensive behaviour at football, Minister's have often rebutted: public order's the thing, and conduct which doesn't threaten public disorder won't be criminalised. But soft, what about section 1(5)?

1(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii), behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that—
(a) measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or
(b) persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in
sufficient numbers.

Think this through. Say I am a raging anti-Huguenot bigot, and have raging bigoted, anti-Huguenot friends. We congregate in a local pub, which is discreetly showing the mighty Kinlochbervie Rangers thrashing Partick Thistle on the telly.  "Aren't Huguenots bastards?", I ask my friend, who promptly sums up his choice catalogue of poisonous sentiments about French Protestants, saying "I hate Huguenots". It is at this point that the police happen to chance in, scoping out a suitable spot for a post-shift tipple. Overhearing my hating crony's remarks, and armed with the newly-passed Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, they get out the handcuffs and advise him that post-Cadder, he can now avail himself of legal representation when questioned. Before he is carted off, I just manage to ask one of the constables "how the devil was this a crime?" 

This learned officer of the law could give me the following information. Firstly, he points to the football match being broadcast in the background, regulating my chums comments under s2(3) of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. Grudgingly, I cannot avoid conceding that our anti-Huguenot hate meeting is potentially caught. Secondly, the jurisprudentially informed officer would identify that one element of the offence is simply to "express hatred" [s1(2)(a)] about a "social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation" [s1(2)(a)(ii)]. To say "I hate Huguenots" is to do just that. Being a calculating, raging anti-Huguenot bigot, I too had boned up on the new law.  "But what about the public order element?", I ask triumphantly, assured that my friend would soon be liberated. "Look around," I say. "The pub is passive, chaos has not ensued and the peace remains undisturbed." The officer could concede the general serenity of the room easily enough, but that wouldn't smudge away his indulging smile or liberate my loathesome friend. 

"Read section 1(5) more closely, young man. You don't have to cause public disorder. The test is that the 'behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder', even if where is really nobody there to be incited." Goggling, I stammer out "so you mean, if we pretend a Huguenot had been here, and we assume that he would be likely to being incited to cause a hubbub by my friend's expressions of hatred, then he can be convicted of offensive behaviour at football?" "Yup". "So basically, the vaunted public order limitation is potentially entirely fictional, since the Act specifically aims to criminalise situations relating to regulated football matches where groups of bigoted misanthropes congregate to air their views, and nobody who is actually present would bat an eyelid at the scabrous sentiments we express, being bigots themselves?" Shoving the miserable anti-Huguenot out of the door, the constable crisply concludes: "Just read the law, son." 

I can hear the sound of distant scoffing already, but on my reading of this tortured statute, the scenario I'm envisaging is clearly regulated by this Bill. Clearly, it isn't the primary business which Holyrood thinks it is about, but it is the practical consequence of their general commitments to it. More generally, ministerial protestations that the "public order" aspect will be a substantial safeguard at least start to look questionable, when the statute itself invites courts to invent imaginary incitees from impugned groups to justify the criminalisation of dismal sentiments with no realistic prospect of inciting assembled persons at all. 

This morning, I note that some nationalist members of the Committee are scoffing at the failure by Labour and the Liberal Democrats to produce any substantial amendments to this Bill, suggesting that their opposition amounts to shameless opportunism. That is certainly a disappointing. However, to imply that this is the only reason anybody could have for questioning or doubting the virtues of this hastily-drafted and complicated statute is clearly ridiculous.  From the beginning, ministers from the First Minister downwards have made muddled and often confused pronouncements on the policy objectives this Bill seeks to realise, while justifications given for the proposed provisions have marched and counter-marched all over the place since the Bill's first "emergency" introduction in the summer. Partisan loyalty being what it is, I don't expect SNP MSPs to publicly concede these things, but the defensive arts of the braggart are growing tedious. 

Legislators, it is your job to scrutinise Bills. You'll do your country a far greater service by applying your mind to the confusions and limitations of what this Bill is actually proposing, than gloating over a crushed opposition in the chamber.  Indeed, it strikes me that the Nationalist tone at the stage two debate on the Bill in Holyrood struck an ugly parallel with recent Scottish Questions in the House of Commons. A tiny knot in a gigantic room full of folk opposed to them, the Unionist parties delivered a hysterical kicking to the Nationalists. I was particularly struck by the psychological satisfaction this piece of institutionally sanctioned barbarity clearly gave to those who participated in it. Whatever the triumphant Nationalists do elsewhere, however pitiful the electoral fortunes of the Labour, Liberal and Tory parties in the country, in the serene tabernacle of the House of Commons, the small sprout of Nats can always be treated like contemptible, upstart toadstools, handily unrooted. The delirious kicking in the room makes up for the kicking that all three received out of it. 

Similarly, in Holyrood, the SNP benches may applaud ministerial invective, indict the intentions of their opponents and scoff at any expressions of concern about the football legislation. In the space, I'm sure this lends them an overwhelming sense of reassurance. It is a warm and compensating feeling. Our lot didn't cock up, it is just everyone else, up to their usual obstructionist tricks.  Particularly significant, I think, that the SNP have reached so speedily for this familiar, self-satisfying puir me narrative, which in turn disavows the extent to which this whole Bill has been a bungling enterprise, and the shock at the skepticism and division which has met what they clearly hoped would be a simple, popular proposal.

Just as their disavowed defeats make the Unionist majority in Westminster don their tackety-boots, whatever doubts are expressed about the Football Bill outside Holyrood, in the chamber the roaring Nationalist majority can always cheer away these anxieties. This is political intoxication, not good sense and not good governance. We're stuck talking about a general diagnosis, rather than attending to the reason or unreason of the particular prescription the SNP has proposed. Parliamentarians considering amendments in the Justice Committee today would do well to follow the advice of my fictional policeman: "Just read the law, son."

123 comments :

  1. Is that section not to deal with the situation that has been cited where football fans have made monkey noises and shouted racist things at black players etc but have got away with it precisely because it was in a heavily policed football ground? Therefore they were not likely to incite public disorder for two reasons - because the place would be swarming with cops and because the people in the immediate vicinity would be supporting the same team and therefore unlikely to be roused to fury by abuse being directed at an opposing player, even if said abuse was racist.

    Of course the player might object but maybe he could take the Blatter approach and just shake hands afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Groundskeeper Willie22 November 2011 at 11:59

    Everything the bill purports to do is already covered by the criminal law.

    Except this bit

    '(e) any other behaviour that a reasonable person would find offensive'.

    The practical effect of this is to criminalise the songs that some Celtic fans sings.

    That may not have been the intention but it's the effect.

    There again the exchange between Christine Grahame and Prof Tom Devine at the select committee hearing suggests that it might have been the intention all along.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1(5)(b) is clearly somewhat unsatisfactory, at least in its first part. I'm not sure people being present *in small numbers* is such a sound case - is it okay to abuse and provoke people just because you outnumber them? - but if there are *none* then it's a bit silly.

    But of course, the argument would be that the purpose of such a clause is to denormalise the behaviour - if you can't be sure of getting away with being a loud bigoted arsehole anywhere, even in the safety of The Huguenot-Haters' Arms, you're going to get out of the habit of it generally. That's an attempt at tackling the problem at source rather than just in the stands, and as such is at the very least well-intentioned and rational.

    The law is not perfect. But the alternative which is in practice being put forward by the opposition - do nothing - is worse.

    Bring the bill forward, and if it results in ridiculous cases it can be amended and improved in the future with the benefit of hindsight. And hopefully with the benefit of a constructive approach from the opposition, rather than the despicable opportunistic attempt to grab a few votes from the ranks of the bigots that is their current angle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually another thing occurs to me about that. If we do away with corroboration would the police be able to arrest someone simply on the evidence of a police officer seeing or hearing someone do or say something? Because that might change the situation. At the moment they would need to get someone else to give evidence that a person had shouted racist abuse at a player and it's not going to be easy to get that - but if they no longer need that evidence these measures might not be so important any more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can't fault Peat Worrier's analysis. As Indy points out LPW's scenario may not be what the Bill's promoters are aiming at; but there is little doubt that it is amongst the behaviour that is caught.

    As someone who spends six months each year in a South African community whose ancestors were predominantly Huguenot, I commend LPW for his bold attempt to introduce the Afrikaans orthography into English.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Groundskeeper Willie22 November 2011 at 12:24

    'some nationalist members of the Committee are scoffing at the failure by Labour and the Liberal Democrats to produce any substantial amendments to this Bill,'


    You can't polish a turd.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jannie Wullie...............is that no a huguenout Afrikanner name?

    Despite the fact that your main job is trolling, like a broken clock that is right twice a day, so in this instance are you.

    I am gobsmacked that despite all the evidence to the contrary. The 'wan side is as bad as the other' mantra provided the premise for the origination - Alec S and his designation that songs in support of the IRA would no longer be tolerated - and stewardship Christina G giving the game away with her conversation with Devine who's contribution was all but ignored - of this Bill.

    Is tackling anti-Catholic/Irish discrimination so burdensome that we must target some Celtic fans for the politcal crime of being supporters of Irish Republicanism. I do not recall Scotland being shamed over and over and over and over ad finitum for the 'crime' of singing songs supporting Ireland's right to self-determination.

    Paul McBride QC is a man who has earned the use of Joseph's amazing technicolour dreamcoat. However even he cannot get away with abusing Celtic fans for 'glorifying killers' in the wake of a month long period of devotion to the heroes of Basra and Khandahar. British killers good, Irish killers bad...........fair enough! Reminds me of the chorus of the song for hunger striker Joe McDonnell where he laments the irony of being accused of terrorism from down the barrell of a gun.

    I want a fair and just society, all this Bill serves to do is lose newly hard won support like snow aff a dyke for the SNP. Criminalising your support needlessly is not a good move I'd suggest. The use of songs republican or otherwise is an issue for celtic fans alone, not one to be forced along under the guise of a false premise. I personally have been disgusted by the responses I have had from some senior party members, mostly borne of outright ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Is tackling anti-Catholic/Irish discrimination so burdensome that we must target some Celtic fans for the politcal crime of being supporters of Irish Republicanism"

    Irish Republicanism != the IRA.

    But frankly, anyone who wants to sings political songs about a foreign country in Scottish football grounds can fuck off as far as I'm concerned, and they can keep fucking off until they've fucked *all the way* off to wherever it is they clearly want to live instead of Scotland. Last I heard, Ireland was already a Republic.

    (And in context, just so we're clear, "foreign" includes England and the UK. There is no British Football Association, no British League, no British Cup.)

    I'm sick and tired of listening to idiots whine about their "right" to sing sectarian songs of ancient foreign politics at Tannadice and Pittodrie and Fir Park and McDiarmid Park, and so is the entire population of Scotland outside Glasgow. The fans of the Gruesome Twosome have had a hundred years to clean up their acts voluntarily, and they've failed. Enough is enough.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tony this Bill is not about tackling anti-Irish discrimination. It is very specifically about dealing with football related disorder. That's why it's called the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill, not the Anti Discrimination Bill.

    Now what I thought was very interesting in the statistics which were published was how few arrests were made around marches and parades. Because that is a reflection of the way that heavy-handed police tactics have paid off.

    We all know in years gone by there were times of the day you didn't even go out if there was an orange walk on. Where I lived all the wee Asian shops would be shut if there was a walk coming our way, they would lose a day's trading rather than stay open and risk being trashed. It's different now, you can "cross the walk" without taking your life into your hands these days because the police put the fear of God into them - and what a relief for everyone in Glasgow.

    I don't think both sides are the same but I don't give a monkeys frankly what side anyone is on - if they are wanting to start a fight I want them stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It's different now, you can "cross the walk" without taking your life into your hands these days because the police put the fear of God into them"

    Yep. Which is exactly why this bill, flaws and all, is a good thing.

    I think it's extraordinarily brave of the SNP to be pushing it forward now. They have hopes of winning Glasgow in the council elections in six months, and the bill will undoubtedly be unpopular with significant numbers of bigots in Glasgow on both sides.

    Given the opposition in Parliament, they could easily put it off for another year until the elections were done with and not lose any face by doing so. But just as with Megrahi, they're doing something that's likely to be unpopular and cost them some support, because it's the right thing to do. Would that this country had more political parties of such integrity and courage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Indy

    Sure, I agree but as I have stated in our earlier discussions. De-facto - no matter how it is dressed up - this Bill is an evening up process. Some of the better responses from our people range from "so what you had it coming" to "how come it is you people doing all the complaining when the rest of Scotland thinks it is aimed at Rangers fans" to "wait and see the impact as it is how the 'reasonable man' views the situation." I am not legally ignorant and know fine well that widening the powers based on the two cop BOP is madness. Look at the case of late of the 17yr old who was dawn raided, put on remand till the 23rd of December and only freed on the intervention of the Lord Advocate.

    The Supreme Court is going to be inundated.

    Stu

    Thanks for typifying the downright ignorant responses that have disgusted me from some senior party members. You know I could almost hear strains of the 'famine song' resonating from you when telling me to "fuck off home" I am home cara.............deal with it!

    Go educate yourself about the Irish conflict before pushing the establishment line about IRA as bad guys line on me. And if you knew what you were talking about then you would know that Celtic fans don't sing sectarian songs hence why this Bill sets out to 'even up' the criminal attentions of the polis.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Keek!

    I should clarify that no one in the SNP (Stu apart) has told me to 'go home' I would have been subject to arrest for a real crime then I suppose. No it is only that his obvious ignorance typifies the approach and ramifications of this bill.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Groundskeeper Willie22 November 2011 at 13:32

    RevStu said...
    'But frankly, anyone who wants to sings political songs about a foreign country in Scottish football grounds can fuck off as far as I'm concerned, and they can keep fucking off until they've fucked *all the way* off to wherever it is they clearly want to live instead of Scotland.'



    I see the spirit of Andrew Dewar Gibb is alive and well within the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Groundskeepwer Willie22 November 2011 at 13:34

    Indy said...

    'It is very specifically about dealing with football related disorder. That's why it's called the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill, not the Anti Discrimination Bill.'


    What does this proposed legislation criminalise that's not already illegal?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You know I could almost hear strains of the 'famine song' resonating from you when telling me to "fuck off home""

    A couple of small errors - I didn't tell you to go "home", and I'm not a member of the SNP. And I'm a Rangers fan about as much as Graham Norton is heterosexual.

    But then that's typical of Old Firm bigotry - slag both of them off and whichever one you're talking to just automatically assumes you're on the other side, no matter what you actually said. It doesn't even enter your tiny primitive brains that the vast majority of Scots want nothing to do with EITHER of your vile little bands of Irish historical re-enactment societies, which is why most ordinary people welcome this bill.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I see the spirit of Andrew Dewar Gibb is alive and well within the SNP."

    I'm not in the SNP, and I don't have the remotest idea who Andrew Dewar Gibb is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Groundskeeper Willie22 November 2011 at 15:19

    'Our lot didn't cock up'


    Michael Kelly was on a recent edition of Newsnicht Scotland debating the Bill with Paul MacBride.

    Kelly mentioned that senior police officers had let it be known that the concern they expressed at the start of all of this stushie was in relation to domestic violence and that the SNP had either misunderstood their concerns or had chosen to misrepresent them for their own ends.

    So perhaps it's been a cock up ab initio.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rev Stu kind of illustrates why I think the revamped history and culture curriculum in Scottish schools should include the teaching of Irish history.

    I always found it bizarre that we spent ages learning about the Corn Laws and suchlike, massive amounts of English history and that we studied the whole history of the 1914-18 war (along with a whole term of the poetry as I recall) with not a mention of Ireland, ever.

    Whatever way you look at it, it was odd. Would you not think that any British history between the years 1914 - 1918 might just have given a wee mention to what happened in 1916 yet it was the great unmentionable in my days at school. I'd like to see that change and pupils from all over Scotland given a proper and rounded education in the history and culture of their country, which cannot be understood without a grounding in Irish history.

    But that is by the by - that's actually about tackling the roots of sectarianism, not football related problems.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Rev Stu kind of illustrates why I think the revamped history and culture curriculum in Scottish schools should include the teaching of Irish history."

    Sorry, you're going to have to point out where I made any erroneous assertions about Irish history. And perhaps also clarify its relevance to Scottish football matches. I know the history of the French Revolution pretty well, but I feel no need to sing the Marseillaise when Livingston play Hamilton Accies.

    All I've said about Irish history is that I don't want to hear it sung about at Scottish football matches by a bunch of sectarian arseholes, and nor do the vast majority of Scots.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well Rev all I can do is repeat to you the words of Alex Salmond.

    "There is no country on earth that we have more family connections with than Northern Ireland. They are the blood of our blood, bone of our bone."

    Not really "foreigners" then and sectarianism is not a "foreign" problem to be solved by isolating the foreign types.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Aright -so this is an 'All we are saying Bill.'

    Since we cannot extract DNA quality evidence from thought it at least sets a wavery benchmark as to what society considers acceptable behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ""There is no country on earth that we have more family connections with than Northern Ireland.... Not really "foreigners" then""

    I was unaware that the flag so many Celtic supporters wave so enthusiastically was that of *Northern* Ireland. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs some extra Irish history lessons...

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think you are deliberately missing the point Rev Stu.

    Let's get down to brass tacks - you are clearly one of those who likes to think that sectarianism is a problem for people over there and is somehow not really "Scottish".

    But you fail to acknowledge that the people of Northern Ireland (which I mean geographically - to include Donegal) and the people of Scotland, particularly the west of Scotland, are in fact the same people.

    Some of us are Protestants who went over there. Some of us are Catholics who came over here. Many families, if their history was traced, have been over and back and over and back again many times.

    So smug assertions about singing "foreign" songs in Scottish football grounds rather misses the point. Where do you even think the Scots came from?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Let's get down to brass tacks - you are clearly one of those who likes to think that sectarianism is a problem for people over there and is somehow not really "Scottish"."

    No, that's completely groundless and offensive bollocks, unless by "over there" you mean "Glasgow". (I'm from Bathgate myself.) I hold nobody but the Scots responsible for the despicable antics of both halves of the Old Firm. They are Scotland's Shame, not Ireland's, whatever flags they wave.

    "But you fail to acknowledge that the people of Northern Ireland (which I mean geographically - to include Donegal) and the people of Scotland, particularly the west of Scotland, are in fact the same people."

    This is meaningless sentimental keech. Indeed, it borders on racist, because as far as I'm concerned the SNP's "New Scots" - ie those from all over the world who now consider Scotland their home - are just as "Scottish" as I am. I have no interest whatsoever in anyone's ancestral ethnicity, for any purposes, and I'm enormously surprised and disappointed that you do, because you actually ARE in the SNP.

    "So smug assertions about singing "foreign" songs in Scottish football grounds rather misses the point."

    No, it IS the point. The relevance of the ancient history of the Republic of Ireland and its struggles to become such a thing to Scottish football matches utterly escapes me. By your ethnic argument the inhabitants of the northern half of England are the same "people" as us too, so why don't we hear a load of bigoted pissed-up halfwits singing songs about the Wars Of The Roses every Saturday?

    To be honest, if someone dropped a couple of large bombs on Ibrox and Parkhead next matchday it'd be the best thing that happened to Scotland since Bannockburn. Our entire nation would leap forward a century in an instant. But unlike the IRA/UVF/whoever I don't hold with murder as a political tool, so I'll settle for locking a load of them up instead and keeping their poisoned minds away from decent people. It's a start.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's mince indeed isn't it. Reminds of the test for Breach, against which I was found guilty, even though no-one had made a complaint. The Justice, it seems, was entitled to convict merely because he thought my actions could have led to the breach. The words law and ass spring to mind.

    Enjoyed your telly appearance btw.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am not going to continue to engage with you Stu save to observe that if someone dropped a couple of large bombs on Ibrox and Parkhead it would lead to a death toll higher than all the folk killed in the troubles in Northern Ireland put together and multiplied by at least thirty. And the fact that you think that's the best thing that could happen tells me all I need to know.

    I support what the SNP Government is trying to do to tackle football related violence and disorder but to imagine that locking up every Rangers and Celtic fan would solve sectarianism is fanciful - the Scottish Government has never claimed that, they've been very clear about what the legislation is for and what it is not for as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "And the fact that you think that's the best thing that could happen tells me all I need to know."

    What a pathetic cop-out get-out. Thought much better of you than to dodge all the issues in such a feeble way, especially given that I explicitly said I *didn't* hold with violence as a solution. But yeah, I did make things a bit tricky for you on the old ethnic-vs-civic-nationalism ground, didn't I? You're probably best bailing out before that particular hole gets dug any deeper under your feet.

    "but to imagine that locking up every Rangers and Celtic fan would solve sectarianism is fanciful"

    I didn't say it would solve it. But it'd transfer it to Barlinnie where it belongs, and keep it out of our football grounds, off our streets and out of the A&E wards full of battered wives after every Old Firm game.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Meanwhile, some sense on the subject, as well as an examination of the mindset the bill is up against - some of which I'm sad to say has been replicated here:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/cartoon/joan_mcalpine_sing_out_for_a_country_free_of_prejudice_and_hate_1_1977959

    ReplyDelete
  29. Groundskeeper Willie22 November 2011 at 18:38

    Is it just me or does that photo montage of the select committee at the top of the page put anyone else in mind of Celebrity Squares?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Groundskeeper Willie22 November 2011 at 18:40

    Indy

    'Where do you even think the Scots came from?'

    Greater Scythia?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Indy said...
    I always found it bizarre that we spent ages learning about the Corn Laws and suchlike, massive amounts of English history and that we studied the whole history of the 1914-18 war (along with a whole term of the poetry as I recall) with not a mention of Ireland, ever.

    Not so bizarre really. With education comes questioning. Questioning that would inevitably lead to awkward explanations, and yet more questions.
    Far simpler to educate the populace into ignorance and division as far as possible, and then let that division conquer & control on your behalf.
    It's then a doddle to perpetuate further lies to the compliant about being too wee, too poor etc.
    It's astonishingly clever in it's simplicity, but of course can only last so long....

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jannie Wullie is again correct as stated re domestic violence. It was inevitable that we would produce bad legislation somewhere along the line. This is it!

    Stu

    You do realise that your base premise is wrong don't you? Once you get by this then you can begin to understand fully what indy is getting at............until then.

    Your ignorant defiance is just that.

    My genes have washed up on both sides of the north channel several times over, I am home whether I wish to involve myself in Irish, Palestinian or even Basque politics.

    To have you compare me and mine with knucklefragging right-wing uber British anti-Catholic/Irish atavists is truly what is offensive.

    The Irish Republican movement were merely the vehicle for the Irish people to seek self determination. Despite the centuries and decades of lies, half-truths and propoganda, they have not came close to the barbarity of HM's forces. Thus your default disgust at anything concerning Irish republicanism should really cause you pause to consider whether you need to go educate yourself sufficiently to comment on such issues, lest we question your motivations.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh and I usually like Joan McAlpines stuff. Still at least she has entered a debate that few newspapers or blogs even will allow. It really is a taboo topic, I would hope it is shame but sadly it isn't, more akin to snobbishness smeared with ignorance.

    Joans rambling does not hide the lack of explanation as to why songs is support of Ireland freedom should not be sung, she mentions one dastrdly incident in Cork that is brought up ad finitum. neglecting to add that in the main most informers were pro-British Protestant Irishmen, and all wars inevitably end with some bloodletting.

    Celtic a club borne of famine and oppression is inextricably linked to Ireland and Irish politics, Celtic is exactly where these songs should be sung. What we should ask is who and why are the people offended? And should we consider the motivations of these offended?

    I watched the great US drama set in New Orleans a fortnight ago, a song that ridicules the British army and praises the IRA standing upto them;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clvni7i9sIw

    The 'bold fenian men' sung in a John Wayne film, another in the wire at some funeral if memory serves. I was coming round to the idea of a discussion whether Celtic park is the place for political songs, not anymore. And many who are dead against irish folk/republican songs are now to the fore backing their fellow Celts right to freedom of expression. These songs are not discriminatory, and it only serves to highlight the arbitrary conduct of the police, media and sadly government who's lack of action over the decades against Hearts and Rangers who have been discriminatory.

    I agree with Joan on one thing though that she should be wary of being attacked, as Gerry hassan has pointed out of late. That dominant established parties tend to lash out all the more when they lose that dominance. Let's hope Joan is safe from these loonies, as sadly recent history has shown that they will strike out.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "You do realise that your base premise is wrong don't you?"

    My base premise is that anyone who wants to turn Scottish football matches into Irish historical re-enactments can fuck off. That's also the base premise of most of the Scottish population, who by a margin of 9 to 1 want something done about the loathsome bigot vermin who inhabit Ibrox and Parkhead in their thousands.

    "To have you compare me and mine with knucklefragging right-wing uber British anti-Catholic/Irish atavists is truly what is offensive."

    I'm glad you're offended, because if you want to sing Irish Republican songs at Scottish football grounds you ARE the same as them, and you're both a cancer on the face of Scotland. Take your politics to a place politics belong, not our fucking football grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Stu

    Tut tut not very christian that language rev.

    However I'll take reasoned informed disscussion over ignorant advice anyday thanks.

    Just a quick thought.

    Is Scottish political songs ok by you eg. Flower of Scotland ok? And is pro-British political songs like GSTQ/K Ok? How about the US rebel song the star spangled banner that those of your intellectual ilk played at Ibrox on Saturday, is that allowed? Oh and is miltary demonstrations and commemorations ok? What type of songs would pass the rev stu test exactly?

    Just asking!

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's an old one, but it kind of sums up the stupidity from both sides (Rangers AND celtic).

    A man is walking down the street in Belfast, a guy stops him and with a menacing look says "are you catholic or protestant'. The man smartly replies by saying "I'm an atheist". Quick as a flash the menacing guy comes back at him, and asks him "aye, but are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist".

    I hope the flaws are sorted out in this legislation. The SNP Government are to be applauded for at least trying to do something to end this nonsense, which most Scots detest.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Is Scottish political songs ok by you eg. Flower of Scotland ok? And is pro-British political songs like GSTQ/K Ok? How about the US rebel song the star spangled banner"

    No, none of those have any place at a Scottish football ground during a club match.

    "Oh and is miltary demonstrations and commemorations ok?"

    What's a "military demonstration" in the context of something that's happened at a football game?

    "What type of songs would pass the rev stu test exactly?"

    Ones that have some passing relation to football, ideally involving the teams who are actually on the field. It's not rocket science.

    Any more questions?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Quick as a flash the menacing guy comes back at him, and asks him "aye, but are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist"."

    I read an old German proverb this week that summed up the situation even more aptly and concisely:

    "What do two monsters do when they encounter one another in the woods?"

    "They smile."

    ReplyDelete
  39. >>Any more questions?<<

    Well I haven't had much luck with the first ones..........so naw!

    I'll leave Louis and yirsel to your fun.

    Bliss!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Groundskeeper Willie23 November 2011 at 07:43

    I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what will be illegal after this bill is passed which is not currently illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ah the 'bold' Rev Stu....once again we see this as a Celtic and rangers problem. Of course there are no instances of anti Irish/catholic chanting and singing at other Scottish grounds? Where Celtic and our fans are deemed 'Fenian bastards', 'dirty Taigs' and such? No never. And since when is it a crime to celebrate one's heritage? Only in Scotland, only at the football and only if your of Irish Catholic descent. The latent bigotry and denial of some is astounding.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Groundskeeper Willie23 November 2011 at 09:37

    Anonymous

    Anti Irish Catholic racism was the main driver behind the formation of the SNP.

    Scottish patriots were concerned that the Scottish race was being imperiled by the influx of Irish Catholics whom they regarded as inferior in every respect.

    The SNP have never faced up to the skeletons in their wardrobe so it's hardly surprising that these sentiments still bubble to the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jannie Wullie I prefer it when you are not being trollish.

    The SNP is chock a block of excellent people of many creeds, many of whom are jungle Jims like myself so we would have to be self-hating to substantiate your trolling. Actually Gerry Hassan makes similar points re Rangers as labour and the SNP as celtic regarding the direction of hate. Stop proving him right widye!

    Indy

    To get back to reality. Guys like Stu only serve to underpin my argument. Considering his stated objections coming from what he believes to be from the 'decent majority' and not from the extremes as such. What chance do Celtic fans have of not satisfying the grounds under the new Bill. Whereby we would be the cause of disorder merely for singing songs that are not illegal?

    Next time we are up against core pro-British loyalist ergo anti-Irish/Catholic teams like Rangers and Hearts. All they have to do is erupt in real or faux indignation, don their usual angry heids full of self rightous condemnation. The polis as they have been so arbitrarily eager to do of late, merely do their job and act to prevent disorder under the provisions of the Bill.

    That is the nub, and there is no getting away from it.

    There are two damaging repercussions from this.

    1) The Celtic Trust have set up a legal fund, they are clever people who will not meekly submit. Expect these challenges to go as far as the Supreme Court if neccesary.

    2) I won a few quid backing my pal John Mason at the Glasgow East by-election. I took the punt at generous odds because people were talking about Scottish politics seriously in the pub and very positively about the SNP. That has rarely happened before or since. Once again we are the talk of the steamie, and it is not good. I have been fighting a winning battle for years now getting traditional labour or even non-voters to turn to us. My fear is that much of that is already gone regrdless, but that much more goodwill will go as and when the ramifications of this Bill begin to tell on law abiding families who just happen to have sons/daughters arrested for singing songs that are a part of their identity.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Lallands, Indy et al

    Here is an article from Kevin Rooney whom I met recently;

    http://tinyurl.com/dyxbyx6

    He makes some good points.

    And the group he speaks of;

    http://fansagainstcriminalisation.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  45. Tony - I agree that people like Stu who put forward their own version of Norman Tebbit's cricket test are missing the point in a big way. And I also agree that discussion around these kinds of issues has been taboo - which is why there is a fair bit of rage floating around, rage which has probably been suppressed for a long time in some cases. There's also some pretty dirty politics going on here - see, for example, Michael Kelly's comments about people knowing where to make the sign of the cross come the next election.

    But let's cpme back to the reality of what this bill is about. I agree with what Joan McAlpine says in her article - there is nothing wrong with any song per se but there are circumstances in which particular songs or particular chants, for pragmatic reasons of public safety, should not be sung.

    I agree with that. Someone said to me that the SNP are hypocrites because we commemorate Bannockburn and celebrate William Wallace etc but I have been on the Bannockburn march numerous times and never seen more than 6 police officers at it, ever. Nobody has ever been arrested. There has never been any trouble. The police are only there as a kind of token presence. They don't really need to be there, the march and rally could function perfectly well without a police presence.

    Now let's imagine an Old Firm game at which there were no police officers present. What would happen?

    That's the difference.

    And for the sake of clarity if there was some move to set up an anti-Bannockburn march which sought to cause trouble and wind up Scottish nationalists I would say scrap the march cos it's not worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Groundskeeper Willie23 November 2011 at 11:21

    Tony

    'The SNP is chock a block of excellent people of many creeds, many of whom are jungle Jims like myself so we would have to be self-hating to substantiate your trolling'


    Firstly, it's not trolling.

    It goes to the essence of the matter.

    Secondly, of those 'excellent people', how many of them know anything about the formation of the party?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sectarianism is bigotry and bigotry's sustained by ignorance.

    To diminish the effects of bigotry the Law can act as the fulcrum but education has to be the lever.

    This legislation could be effective, but only as a backstop and when used with maximum integrity and discretion.

    In my opinion legislation targeting the pockets of arenas and establishments where the majority of this behaviour is given the oxygen of publicity and is either at best passively accepted or, at worst, encouraged would have a more immediate effect.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "But let's cpme back to the reality of what this bill is about. I agree with what Joan McAlpine says in her article - there is nothing wrong with any song per se but there are circumstances in which particular songs or particular chants, for pragmatic reasons of public safety, should not be sung."

    Which is, of course, precisely what I've been saying the whole time. I have NEVER said, and don't believe, that people should be banned from singing songs wholesale. Only at football matches, where their sole purpose is to inflame opposing fans.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The problem with that approach, Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers, is that you would be punishing all fans for the behaviour of a minority. Let's be clear that most football fans are not bigots, they are not racists, they don't sing offensive songs or chant offensive things. And if proposals were in place to fine clubs if a minority of fans misbehave or make them play behind closed doors (which would eventually lead to bankruptcy) you can bet those points would be made very loudly and clearly. People would be saying it is a form of collective punishment and they'd have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Groundskeeper Willie23 November 2011 at 13:11

    November 2011 12:16

    RevStu said...

    'I have NEVER said, and don't believe, that people should be banned from singing songs wholesale. Only at football matches, where their sole purpose is to inflame opposing fans.'



    I can't speak for the huns but that's cerainly not the case with Celtic fans.

    These songs are sung in pubs, on supporters' busses and other places where Celtic fans gather, with no other football fans present and at games all over Europe where the opposition fans don't know the songs or understand the words.

    That they might irritate those who don't like them may be a bonus, but it is not the reason why they are sung.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "These songs are sung in pubs, on supporters' busses and other places where Celtic fans gather, with no other football fans present and at games all over Europe where the opposition fans don't know the songs or understand the words."

    I see. So, just so that we're all clear where we stand on this legislation, presumably you're fine with Rangers fans singing The Famine Song and The Billy Boys whenever and wherever they like, using the same justifications? (Because I'm sure they sing them on their buses too.) Am I representing your position accurately there?

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Well I haven't had much luck with the first ones..........so naw!"

    I answered two directly, and asked for clarification on the other, which you've been oddly reluctant to provide.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Stu

    Have you not noticed the military love ins/displays/demonstrations call it what you will that are de at many fitba grounds around Britain, especially at that quintessentially British team down Ibrox way?

    Now you have stated that you are happy to offend me, and good manners preclude me from feeding you any longer. You are not even prepared, the basic courtesy of taking anything on board before giving considered reasons for your condemnation of me and mine. Until then.

    Away'n'chase yirsel!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Indy

    Kelly's comments are a disgrace, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong in his conjecture. I would rather we done the right thing for the right reasons. However if it is to be a psephological argument then so be it.

    This truly worries me;

    "And for the sake of clarity if there was some move to set up an anti-Bannockburn march which sought to cause trouble and wind up Scottish nationalists I would say scrap the march cos it's not worth it."

    Are you happy for divali, eid and hanukkah to end up likewise? Except we know that our 'tolerant' society would not accept a bunch of right-wing bigots disrupting such, yet because it is a long standing tradition of preventing expressions of Irish culture that is ok.

    A really weak argument for someone of your standing.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Have you not noticed the military love ins/displays/demonstrations call it what you will that are de at many fitba grounds around Britain, especially at that quintessentially British team down Ibrox way?"

    No, I haven't, since I don't go to Ibrox, nor have I witnessed anything approaching a "military display" anywhere else. So you're going to have to actually explain what the heck you're going on about, because I haven't the first idea.

    "You are not even prepared, the basic courtesy of taking anything on board before giving considered reasons for your condemnation of me and mine."

    On the contrary - having never met you or encountered you before in any way, my impressions and comments are based solely on what you've said. But feel free to run away on the basis of pretend hurt feelings rather than address the arguments. Your actions will speak for you more than adequately.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Crinkly

    "In my opinion legislation targeting the pockets of arenas and establishments where the majority of this behaviour is given the oxygen of publicity and is either at best passively accepted or, at worst, encouraged would have a more immediate effect."

    Do you say this in full awareness that it is foreigners, UEFA and FIFA that have brought us to task repeatedly for systematic anti-Catholic discriminatory behaviour? Yet rather than deal with this the government have widened existing powers which de-facto target that which the polis may find offensive and liable to cause disorder. Recent figures show that most arrests at fitba grounds occur at Celtic park, the vast majority opposition fans. Just what is it about Celtic that causes these people tae lose the heid and get the gaol.

    And for the sake of completeness we don't need to look at pockets, it is there in all it's triumphalist glory in many parts of Scotland, May through to November. Year in year out. And already the political policing, arbitrary at the very least is occuring. Despite decades of accepting discriminatory songs against catholics, songs joyously recounting killing them. Only now are they being tackled, with the victims of such threw in for fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Groundskeeper Willie23 November 2011 at 14:50

    RevStu said...

    'I see. So, just so that we're all clear where we stand on this legislation, presumably you're fine with Rangers fans singing The Famine Song and The Billy Boys whenever and wherever they like, using the same justifications?'


    You haven't quite understood.

    You stated, with regard to the songs that 'their sole purpose is to inflame opposing fans.'

    How you've reached that conclusion I don't know. It certainly isn't from any personal knowledge or understanding. Perhaps it's just prejudice on your part. No matter, the point is you're wrong and the purpose of my comment was to show that you are wrong.

    My view is that the existing legislation is sufficient provided it's applied.

    It wasn't applied for instance at last season's league cup final. You know, the one MacAskill described thus:

    'This was the showpiece final everyone wanted to see, and it was a great advert for Scottish football.


    "Both teams were passionate, committed and it was end to end stuff from kick off to the final whistle.

    "The players, management and fans contributed to a memorable occasion, and I urge that their positive example inside the ground is replicated outside it over the course of the evening and beyond."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Stu

    I am not some fool who is going to allow myself to be given the runaround by a troll over whether there are demonstration/displays/love ins etc.

    Your argument consists of fuck off home, wan side is as bad as the other etc.etc. etc.

    What argument is there to respond to? Even jannie Wullie has higher standards than me by not biting.

    I have explained myself in full, go and find someone else to annoy.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ooops, just I was bigging ye up Jannie Wullie.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "I am not some fool who is going to allow myself to be given the runaround by a troll over whether there are demonstration/displays/love ins etc."

    Er, you brought them up, not me. If you're going to refuse to explain what you're talking about, I'm going to assume you were talking shite.

    "Your argument consists of fuck off home, wan side is as bad as the other etc.etc. etc. "

    Yet again you push this blatant lie as a way of escaping the debate. I never once told you to go "home", and it does you no favours to keep claiming dishonestly that I did.

    Your position seems to me to be absolutely clear - the Celtic support's provocative, irrelevant songs of Irish history are decent, honourable parts of their heritage, whereas the Rangers support's provocative, irrelevant songs of Irish history are disgusting bigotry.

    Me, I don't think ANYONE's provocative, irrelevant songs of Irish history have any business in a Scottish football match. I can only imagine how much it bewilders the collection of Poles, Dutchmen, Americans, Croats, Israelis, Kenyans, Moroccans, Romanians, Spaniards, Bosnians and Koreans who contested the last Old Firm game to hear you and your Hum compatriots bawling away about the Boyne or whatever.

    I'd happily have all Rangers and Celtic games held behind closed doors until you could all be trusted to behave like civilised human beings. Except, of course, that then you'd all be at home to beat your wives up even more.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I don't understand what you mean by saying that Divali, Eid and Hanukkah are somehow comparable with sectarian chanting or singing at a football ground. That's not a real comparison. They are more compatable with Christmas and they are celebrated in the same way - in peoples homes, with family and friends.

    That's like the polar opposite of what we are talking about surely.

    I mean football - in all contexts - is quite a confrontational thing. You have two teams going out to face each other, you have the two sets of supporters facing each other. It is inherently confrontational and I guess for many people it's maybe a way of channelling aggression, getting in toucb with the old caveman within, there aren't many other opportunities for modern men to go out dressed in their side's colours to bare their teeth at the enemy. I get that. It serves a function. But at what point does it stop being a way to channell aggression and start becoming a cause of aggression? I think that's what we are talking about here, nothing to do with religious festivals.

    ReplyDelete
  62. RevStu,

    I never respond to this usual tit-for-tat nonsense but your comments are totally ridiculous. May I ask are you an actual football fan ? To set my own stall, I go to Celtic home games with my 7 , 11 and 12 year old kids and I must admit I'm mystified with the hysteria you are perpetuating ? I sit in the same end, although a different section, of the stadium where the scary so-called bigots called the "Green Brigade" congregate and I can honestly say that they bring a great atmosphere to the stadium with their continuous singing and chanting throughout the game. I must admit that maybe once or twice at games this season I have heard and cringed when u hear at most 10-20 kids/idiots shouting 'ooh-ahh' , at most, once or twice in a game, say 10-20 seconds tops. Sooo, for these 20 or so fans out of a crowd of 40-50,000, making the odd shout, you are seriously suggesting that we should close the stadium, what complete and utter contemptible drivel you speak. Please note, I do not take my kids to the OF games, primarily, because I would not want to subject them to the poisonous atmosphere and total bile coming mainly from the other side tbh. As an aside we actually sit not that far from the away supporters and every 2nd week you get the renditions of "Hello Hello we are the Killie/Gorgie/etc boys" being belted out, apparently, that's a sectarian song they like to sing and tbh my kids find it amusing, personally, I find it rather tedious and sad.. Finally, I would like to close that my favourite fans who visit Parkhead are actually from Aberdeen, because although they are very vociferous in the support of their own team they are actually amusing and self-deprecating in equal measure with their own songs, particularly, the ones about their fondness for their woolly friends :-)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Tony and Indy -I acknowledge both the points you raise -but I can see nothing in the proposed legislation nor in my alternatives that is discriminatory.

    Nor am I advocating singing should be banned during matches. It's part of the ambiance and adds to the enjoyment rather than detract from it - international rugby is a case in point.

    That said, while some of the tunes are catchy and ingrained in folklore - surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to simply change the words?

    Thought, whether good or evil are owned by the individual. Legislation can act as a control if they are brought into effect but it's a shoogly peg to hang a society on.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Of course you understand Indy, you are merely using the fact that I have not used direct comparisons not to answer the points I made. You understand fine well that your equation with self sacrifice over say a Bannockburn commemoration march, or the song flower of Scotland even, can reasonably be compared to important events held by minority groups, religious, political or otherwise, c'mon pal.

    What is asked is a step too far. Celtic supporters are to be hostages to those who hate our identity, and expect a police force who have acted in a very arbitrary manner of late to not use these wider powers to further their agenda. That agenda as I stated much earlier has been stated by Alex Salmond and Christine Graham loud and clear. With respect, you have ignored this point previously twice by my reckoning.

    Stu

    >>Your position seems to me to be absolutely clear - the Celtic support's provocative, irrelevant songs of Irish history are decent, honourable parts of their heritage, whereas the Rangers support's provocative, irrelevant songs of Irish history are disgusting bigotry.<<

    Why do you find songs about Irish history provocative?

    I have clearly pointed out time and time again that Rangers fans certainly, and Hearts fans to an extent sing discriminatory songs. I have no problem with them singing songs extolling their triumphant planter songs on behalf of the English/Brittania. Songs about fenian blood, the famine song - discriminatory, songs about defending Derry from rebel scum and the sash, although not my cup of tea I have no issue with and at no time have I said otherwise.

    Please show me where I have? or stick to what you know, prevarication.

    Talking of prevarication, I find it strange, curious even that you insist on dwelling on my use of the term demonstration not to answer whether these military love in's should be held at fitba grounds.

    Surely I've not touched a 'help for heroes' nerve............surely not!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Crinkly

    Not all legislation directly names what it is to be used for, often as in this instance vague terms like offensive and disorder are used and co-relations thereof. Allied of course with the stated intentions of our FM and Justice convenor. Our Justice Ministers comments after the league cup final the other year didn't help either. Although I realise that he hadn't a clue what he was praising others have taken his comments at face value. Despite 90 mins of anti-catholic songs he declared the game a success in that there was no repeat of Ally McCoist invading the Celtic dugout or him provoking a man who's family were living under real and threat of bomb attack. Graeme Spiers, a Rangers fan and sports journalist (who has been hounded out of Scotland for daring to state the obvious) declared that the Rangers support were the most poisonous and vile group going or words to that effect following the match.

    Also while Rangers fans have been told the songs they cannot sing by police, Celtic fans have not. Apparently we are too clever. Code for let's not embarress ourselves by creating headlines around the world by banning Irish political/folk songs. Rather they will in situ use the new powers to decree that this song or that has the potential to cause disorder by offending those who hate us anyway and as a result they were forced to intervene.

    Please read the article I posted earlier by Kevin Rooney in the Scottish review. He sums up much better than I the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I don’t think you have answered my point either Tony.

    I’m delighted that you have no problem with football supporters singing whatever they like – indeed it’s been great to see the way that traditional rivals have come together to defend their freedom of speech and right to sing and chant whatever they like and to respect their fellow supporters’ right to do the same.

    That’s terrific because it means we won’t need to send vanloads of cops to keep them from fighting each other any more, indeed we won’t even need to segregate them in future because there will be no need. Will there?

    And of course, reading Kevin Rooney’s article, how outrageous that someone should be punished just for saying he hates people of a certain religion and wishes they were all dead on facebook. What does it matter if he has previously expressed that opinion via the medium of a Stanley knife? He has a right to share his opinion with like-minded souls and we should all respect that.

    And of course Kevin Rooney ends his stirring article with the usual quotation from Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

    That has always interested me because my question would be whose death? Is Voltaire saying that he would give up his life to defend freedom of speech – or is he saying that he would give up the lives of others? Is free speech really more important than the right of other people to live free of the threat or reality of violence? Some would say it is, some would say it isn’t.

    But I think one thing is for sure - if the police decided to walk out of the next Old Firm stand-off, if there was no-one there to keep the peace, there is every chance that violence would ensue and people might die as a consequence. And they would die with the sounds of sectarian chanting and singing ringing in their ears.

    Whereas if the police walked out of the next England-Scotland rugby match or the next Bannockburn Rally would that result in violence? Highly unlikely I would suggest. And that is the difference. It’s the difference between policing a situation which carries within it a potential threat to public order and policing a situation which really doesn't. If you don’t see that now you never will so there’s probably little point in continuing this.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The Scotsman's poll on the anti-sectarianism bill, incidentally, currently shows the public convincingly backing the bill by a margin of almost 2 to 1, despite all the opposition parties (supposedly representing 55% of the electorate) being against it and the mainstream media mostly attacking it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Indy

    Whether I agree with people or not I always admire people who take on issues without too much ducking and diving. On this occasion you are not living upto my admiration and I can't for the life of me understand why.

    Your basic premise is that because the Glasgow derby is rivalry mixed with historic identity issues, that in turn require heavy policing. And if that heavy policing was removed there would be violence, and this is enough to provide for the dispensation of peoples basic rights.

    Apart from the fact that the Edinburgh derby, Manchester certainly, even Liverpool Man U, Chelsea Spurs, Man U Leeds etc. etc. would all result in violence sans policing............what is you point? Blame divide and rule, repercussions of the reformation mixed with geo-political 17thC politics for our added ingrediant. Not Celtic's irish-Scottish identity.

    >>And they would die with the sounds of sectarian chanting and singing ringing in their ears.<<

    Why do you believe that Rangers fans would win the fight? Of course I am being disengenuous, but I would like to know which Celtic singing and chanting is sectarian in your view for the sake of clarity, since you choose to blandly lump us all in together.

    Also there was good news from the latest sectarian aggravated crime figures. Me and mine are now only 4-5 times more likely to be a victim than the previous 5-6 times........now that is progress. Not exactly Nero fiddling material but I'm sure you get the point.

    Oh aye and despite the fiscal destroying those all important figures it seems that the British Transport Police hadn't. Of the 12 people arrested for sectarian aggravated crimes this year, 11 were Rangers fans and one was a Northern Ireland fan. I wonder what those figures the fiscal's office deleted might have told us.

    Also please don't selectively quote Rooneys article whilst misrepresenting my position. Where I differ from Rooney and agree with you is that hate speech, songs and chanting should be hit hard whenever and wherever possible, I was crystal on this on a previous thread also. My position remains that because that which should be punished does not exist amongst the Celtic support this new Bill de-facto criminalises their political and folk songs. I am not altogether sure how it would work at Ibrox since they cannot arrest someone for singing rule brittania surely even if we threaten to riot for faux or real offence.

    Should Celtic fans indulge in said hateful stuff then I am all for them feeling the full force of the law.

    Will we call that 3 times now you have refused to answer my earlier points about the slippery slope of your self-sacrifice over the Bannockburn march. And the police effectively having carte blanche to arrest people for offending those who already hate us.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Roseanna Cunninghams new initiatives are really just more of the same.

    We are funding an industry where we are all to blame. Most Scots are not to blame, although I am coming to the opinion that tacitly perhaps many more are than I first thought.

    Perhaps we should spend a fraction targetting those who are actually carrying out sectarian acts.

    Although if the new offensive Behaviour Bill is anything to go by, I would hate to see what kind of restorative justice is mooted. catholic victims having their good names dragged through the mud for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And upsetting the perpetrator by their mere prescence.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The only point I would make there Tony is that the legislation will apply in every football ground in Scotland - it is not only designed to cover Rangers/Celtic matches. And it will not simply apply to sectarian abuse, it will also apply to racist and homophobic abuse as well. And it will apply to supporters of English or any other clubs when they are in Scotland.

    And to get back to the main point, if it was the case that there was a frequent incidence of sectarian, racist or homophobic abuse and related incidents of of public disorder and violence associated with any other activity, whether it be rugby matches, religious festivals or any other activity, then I have no doubt that the same approach would be taken. But since there are no particular public order issues associated with those activities there is no need for these kinds of measures.

    Your position on this also seems somewhat contradictory - earlier you said that you "have no problem with them singing songs extolling their triumphant planter songs on behalf of the English/Brittania. Songs about fenian blood, the famine song - discriminatory, songs about defending Derry from rebel scum and the sash, although not my cup of tea I have no issue with". But then you say that "hate speech, songs and chanting should be hit hard whenever and wherever possible." I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense. If singing songs about being up to your knees in blood does not qualify as a hate song then what does?

    It seems to me that your whole issue with this boils down to the fact that you see certain songs as political and certain songs as sectarian.

    I can appreciate that but I also don't think it really matters that much and it's no reason to oppose the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Indy

    re-read what I said;

    "Songs about fenian blood, the famine song - discriminatory"

    Ergo hate speech.

    "songs about defending Derry from rebel scum and the sash, although not my cup of tea I have no issue with"

    Speaks for itself.

    How and why you are confused is bizzare.

    There is no disorder at fitba grounds, not even after last years shame game, arrest figures are low, really low. Thus that and your point about the Bill affecting all games, whilst true is a red herring. Good for homophobia and racism, bad for expressions of Irish cultural or political identity.

    Once again you have failed to address the widening of powers and stated aims of Salmond and Graham allied with the arbitrary policing we have already witnessed of late. Same with the point over bannockburn march.

    Your continued refusal to take on board my main points and address them saddens me, because if guys like you are behaving like this.......I have a choice to make. Here was me thinking that we were trying to make a better Scotland.

    Perhaps I am........was naive.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Groundskeeper Willie24 November 2011 at 17:15

    Indy said...
    'And it will not simply apply to sectarian abuse, it will also apply to racist and homophobic abuse as well.'


    A Celtic fan was sent to prison last season for racially abusing Diouf.

    Why is this legislation necessary?

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Here was me thinking that we were trying to make a better Scotland."

    No, what you're trying to make is a second Ireland. Otherwise you'd be waving Scottish flags everywhere you went, not Irish ones.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The Bill's defenders seem to rely on the argument that it will only ever be used in the precise circumstances that they envisage, & will never be used in any other circumstances, & therefore will never have any unintended consequences.

    That is a tad naive to say the least.

    The problems associated with the small minority of Old Firm fans (mainly Rangers ones) who are knuckle dragging retards is not enough to justify some of the most draconian legislation in the Western world. Still, it will keep the Supreme Court busy.

    ReplyDelete
  75. ''Otherwise you'd be waving Scottish flags everywhere you went, not Irish ones.''

    Are we only allowed to have one identity in your Scotland? Now I am certainly not defending the actions of the minority of football fans who bring the Old Firm into disrepute. However both teams have a history & an identity & I don't think that needs to be made illegal because of acts of anti-social behaviour committed by *some* people.

    Individuals should be punished, not groups.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "The Bill's defenders seem to rely on the argument that it will only ever be used in the precise circumstances that they envisage, & will never be used in any other circumstances, & therefore will never have any unintended consequences."

    Welcome to every law ever passed in the entirety of human history. Remember councils using anti-terrorist legislation to check people weren't getting their kids into schools they weren't meant to, and see if people were putting the wrong stuff in their bins? Stuff will happen. Laws aren't written in stone forever, they can be improved as they go.

    "Are we only allowed to have one identity in your Scotland?"

    I love how people can spend all their time walking around waving Irish flags, singing Irish songs about Irish soldiers fighting Irish battles in Ireland, at the ground of a club flying the Irish flag with a shamrock as their symbol, then get incredibly huffy if you suggest they might possibly be somehow identifying themselves as Irish rather than Scottish.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  77. >>Me - "Here was me thinking that we were trying to make a better Scotland."

    RevStu - No, what you're trying to make is a second Ireland. Otherwise you'd be waving Scottish flags everywhere you went, not Irish ones.<<

    As one of the guys who had a saltire in Seville (one of scores, perhaps hundreds I am happy to say) I do not recognise what you are saying here. You are full of fatuous ill informed nonsense, yet you have the cheek to air these ignorant views, flaunting your lack of knowledge liberally.

    I was speaking on this topic to a fellow nat and Catholic yesterday, although not one who is particularly sympathetic to Irish republicanism. He related several stories of predjudice, lost jobs, not welcome in pals houses, girlfriends Da's refusing to shake hands etc. The usual fare that you will hear from his peer group say 50 plus Catholics. These stories of discrimination are hardly even one generation removed from mine, we have grown up with this knowledge of injustice.

    Prof Tom Devine describes Catholics as being treated as something other than Scottish. Many didn't really care for being Scottish if that was how predjudiced Scottish society was. The slow integration into mainstream Scottish society was helped and hindered by various factors. Whilst the strong sway of the Orange Order was certainly a hinderance, Catholic schools and Celtic has helped comfort this society apart and meant that our coming together has taken so long.

    There could and should be thesis and dissertations just on subjects closely related to this topic and is impossible to cover here. Look at the crazy unjustifiable baseless attacks on Catholic schools, multiply that by a hundred when it comes to Celtic. A family grouping that is a crucially important part of who we are and our identity. Saltires are now a normal part of the crowd at parkhead. John McLean shares a banner with James Connolly. Long may that continue.

    A more natural group to support Scottish independence we would not find. Shiting on a part of that identity, criminalising that which should not be criminalised will do damage that could potentially last long term and will result in the loss of votes that people like me have been working so hard to get.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Groundskeeper Willie24 November 2011 at 22:35

    tony

    Saltires were thin on the ground in Seville.

    They're a rare site at Celtic Park.

    Salmond's appearance on the big screen at the John Kennedy game was greeted by a chorus of boos.

    Some fans gave the SNP the benefit of the doubt last time. I can't see it happening again now that the SNP has reverted to type.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Jannie Wullie

    It's all relative............they were there in their dozens, scores, hunners even.

    >>Salmond's appearance on the big screen at the John Kennedy game was greeted by a chorus of boos.<<

    Whit else would we expect from you.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Well, I think I've figured out the legal side of things!

    I can see what the SNP are doing with the bill, but what if there are flaws that suddenly get exposed. More seriously, what if someone ends up with a conviction for something that is only an offence in Scotland for a throwaway remark?

    Many nationalist supporters have criticised Labour's demand for minimum sentencing for knife crime. And they rightly point out that the law as it stands can deal with such crimes. But the same applies to sectarianism issues. There are laws in place which deal with a breach of the peace and violence.

    For the record, I don't support either football team and cannot stand religious bigotry. But I worry that if this becomes law, it will be abused.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "As one of the guys who had a saltire in Seville (one of scores, perhaps hundreds I am happy to say) I do not recognise what you are saying here."

    Well done you. But maybe three were visible in the ground on the TV, alongside hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Irish tricolours, so you can't seriously be pretending that it isn't a fair point.

    http://file.vustv.com/4bRLAwsXJIYAP.jpg

    http://iceltic.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/seville.png

    http://smokebelch.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/celtic.jpg?w=420

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Many nationalist supporters have criticised Labour's demand for minimum sentencing for knife crime."

    Nobody's talking about a mandatory six months in jail for somebody who just walks into a greengrocer and gets misheard ordering "blood oranges", though.

    There's nothing wrong with sending someone to jail for knife crime, the problem was Labour's proposal to have a mandatory jail term for mere possession, even if you were a workman carrying a Swiss Army knife for completely innocent purposes. The sectarianism bill still grants judges the leeway to fine a convicted person 50 quid and smack them on the wrist for a minor infraction, rather than locking them up with murderers and rapists.

    ReplyDelete
  83. >>Well done you. But maybe three were visible in the ground on the TV, alongside hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Irish tricolours, so you can't seriously be pretending that it isn't a fair point.<<

    Were you in the ground? There is an iconic photo that was on sale of the fans in the ground clearly showing dozens upon dozens, and is in many fans homes.

    I have checked out where you got the photos from by doing an image search for 'celtic seville' and you have chosen the most blurred and faraway images possible. You clearly have an agenda and will no longer be given the benefit of the doubt as 'just an average honest decent Scot'

    Jannie Wullie who could spin for Scotland doesn't attempt to deny my claims as it was well documented at the time and warmly welcomed amongst our support. Why am I even trying to justify myself to you anyway, beat it!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Groundskeeper Willie25 November 2011 at 09:56

    Tony
    Crikey.
    Sight. Obviously.
    And like the man said 'Were you at the game, caller?'

    Can you provide a link to the photo showing all the saltires in Seville? I've never seen it.What do think the ratio of saltires to tricolours was?

    Barbarian of the North

    'Well, I think I've figured out the legal side of things!'

    Then perhaps you could explain what it is that this legislation will criminalise that isn't already a crime. I keep asking but no one has come up with an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Were you in the ground? There is an iconic photo that was on sale of the fans in the ground clearly showing dozens upon dozens, and is in many fans homes."

    Link please. The most I could find in any image of Seville was two.

    But just so we're clear - is it your position that the Saltire isn't usually outnumbered among the Celtic support by the Irish tricolour at a ratio of at least 20 to 1?

    ReplyDelete
  86. This, for example, is the Google Images result for "celtic seville saltires":

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=celtic+seville+saltires&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Mrt&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvnsfd&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=x2rPTqa2GIiq8QOy1unNDw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&biw=1242&bih=822

    ReplyDelete
  87. Rev Stu your cavalier attitude to a bad law that could be mis-used like the anti-terrorist legislation has been mis-used is staggering. SNP supporters were very vocal in criticising Labour's draconian attack on civil liberties under the guise of the so-called war on terror.

    Well as far as I am concerned the SNP are posing an equal threat to Scottish citizens civil liberties by their self-imposed war on the Old Firm.

    As far as I can see, this whole carry on was launched by the attacks on Neil Lennon & the consequent inflamed situation at a couple of matches which the media milked for all it was worth. The response to that should have been measured & calm - instead we got this mess of pottage which could actually see Neil Lennon being lifted if the law is applied.

    How bizarre is that.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Rev Stu again I really don't see the issue with either Celtic fans waving Irish flags & singing Celtic songs, or Rangers fans waving Union Jacks & singing Rangers songs.

    Both clubs are making efforts to stamp out singing songs which bring their clubs into disrepute. But even if they are successful in that, there is still going to remain a clear divide between both clubs which can be associated with both religious affiliation & Ireland. Well, so what.

    That is not a unique situation & it is just something that is part of our history (if you live in Glasgow) whether the SNP like it or not.

    They can't re-make Scotland up to suit themselves.

    If football fans commit criminal offences then lift them & jail them. But we should not make being a football fan a potential offence, & that is what this legislation will do.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Is this one un-blurry enough?

    http://www.dubcentral.co.uk/photos/seville/AtTheGame4.JPG

    I count 3 Saltires (I needed a microscope to spot the third one) and 42 tricolours.

    Can't find a bigger version of this, but it's the Seville "Fanatics" poster from Sports Poster Warehouse, and I can make out one Saltire:

    http://playstationeu.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/141348iDC6AB3503A29BA4C/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

    Which picture are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jannie Wullie

    If I could've linked to it I would've despite wasting valuable minutes of my life trying to do so. I have seen it in several homes, but no I don't intend to go around the hooses either. Are you saying that you don't remember that there were a lot of them? You acknowledged you did earlier, as your query regarded the quantity.

    C'mon it was the talk of the steamie back then, almost as if a rubicon type barrier had been crossed and we were now comfortable with our own flag. Not in the type of way it is used down Ibrox way as subservient to the union flag and as an emblem that belonged pointedly to them to the exclusion of others, namely us.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "That is not a unique situation & it is just something that is part of our history (if you live in Glasgow) whether the SNP like it or not."

    Because something is part of our history doesn't mean it has to be part of our present. We used to hang people for stealing food, should we have kept doing it because it was "tradition"?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Hanging people for stealing food was not a particular feature of Glasgow or the West of Scotland. I am certainly not minded to preserve the divisions which have been a part of the historical development of my part of Scotland. I would like to see them wither on the vine, I think they were actually in the process of getting a bit shrivelled in recent years, after all Glasgow is such a multi-cultural city now that the old way of looking at things is rather redundant.

    What the SNP's legislation will do I am afraid is wake up the beast & let it walk again. This legislation will make martyrs of people if we are not very careful.

    ReplyDelete
  93. My last comment on the topic.

    I am glad I support a club that is open to all creeds and religions. We have identifiably many differing races who inhabit paradise, they are all part of the Celtic family. Which makes me wonder if Humza Yousef really understands his Scots-Pakistani friend who defends Irish songs as part of his Celtic supporting heritage. On the whole - but not exclusively - we sympathise often lend support for leftish type independence movements, are anti-Zionist and opposed to neo-colonial energy wars, oppose the current overwhelming popular mood fraught with jingoism that is warping our society. Resulting in many of our young people causing needless harm and death, and in turn suffering the same needlesly.

    Everywhere Celtic fans go outiside Britain we are welcomed with open arms, light touch policing and have recieved acknowledgemnt from the football authorities for being great ambassadors for football friendship more than once. Several foreign journalist has lamented in print at our misfortune at having to share a city with our rivals, their record is stark and all too availlable to see. Rangers are our rivals in sport but not outlook, motivations and the manifestations of such. It is their actions, long ignored by the Scottish media and authorities that have shamed our nation.

    There has been rising anger for many years about lazy descriptions of the 'auld firm' and one side is as bad as the other etc. which prove once again that myth all too easily becomes fact if the lie is spoken enough. It is obvious now that that lie has been the base premise for this Bill. That base premise was taken to task by several experts reporting to the Justice committee, evidence which was wilfully ignored. Over the years there has been a rising expectation that thanks to foreign intervention, our society would finally rid ourselves of overt predjudice in the form of anti-Catholicism/Irishness. This opportunity has been potentially used for something entirely different and seemingly in keeping with those long standing predjudices.

    As nationalists we have been waiting all along for the Unionist surge to thwart our quest for independance, wondering if they were going to try a new strategy. Those fears seem baseless as they once again embark on the scaremongering and half-truth's that are their normal fare. instead it seems as if we are happy to shoot ourselves in the foot by pursuing this deeply flawed legislation. Which will only serve to underline that the SNP are the Scottish version of the Ulster Unionist party in the minds of a large part of the electorate. Many of whom are newly won votes, and are natural voters for us. They do not have any affinity to the union unlike the uber-British who will never vote for us.

    What a waste!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Tony you would make a much better contribution to this debate if you could put your alliegance to Celtic to the side. You know Rangers fans actually have a right to be Rangers fans too, just because we might not particularly like them doesn't mean that they don't have rights.

    This is about what kind of Scotland the SNP envisage. I am very alarmed about that.

    They seem to have basic problems with civil liberties & human rights. I am not kidding.

    They need to sort that out.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "You clearly have an agenda and will no longer be given the benefit of the doubt as 'just an average honest decent Scot'"

    Yeah, because you've really been giving me the benefit of the doubt this far...

    I realise I'm wasting my time talking to the deaf, but I've got nothing to do today until early afternoon, so let me take ten minutes of my life to tell you a little bit about myself.

    My first football memory is of watching the 1974 World Cup Final, and my first club-related one is of being taunted in the primary school playground by singing children that Aberdeen were going to be relegated. I'd picked the Dons for no better reason that my best friend supported them, and because even at that early age I knew I wanted no part of the bitter sectarian hatred that reached out from Glasgow to my home town in the middle of the Central Belt. Aberdeen (where his family came from) seemed as good a choice as any.

    I never got to go and see my team play at home (far too far for a wee laddie to travel on his own), but I had plenty chances to go to games at Tynecastle, Easter Road, Broomfield, Fir Park etc etc. (I wasn't allowed near Ibrox or Parkhead as a youngster because my parents considered them unsafe, and when I finally got there I realised they were right, under volleys of coins and spittle.) My fondest memory of attending a match is still the 4-1 demolition of Rangers on a bright sunny Hampden afternoon in the 1982 Scottish Cup final.

    http://wosland.podgamer.com/?p=795

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  96. For most of my life I thought I loathed the Old Firm equally. I hated Celtic less than Rangers for their non-sectarian signing policy, but more for their flying of a foreign flag. I despised the Celtic support for their backing of terrorist murderers, but the Rangers support for their Union Jacks and Red Hands and lack of loyalty to their club.

    I highlighted both of those latter characteristics in a piece I contributed to the sadly-lost Total Football magazine:

    http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/world/tf/hate.htm

    and passionately advocated kicking both clubs out of the SPL in the same publication:

    http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/world/tf/kings.htm

    But a few years ago I was genuinely surprised to discover that my hatred wasn't equal. I've always followed former Dons in their management careers - I wanted Coventry and Southampton to do well under Gordon Strachan, looked out for the results of Wolves under Mark McGhee, and living south of the border I still want Man U to win the league as long as Sir Alex is their manager, even despite his being an active Labour supporter and Unionist.

    But during the time when ex-Dons were managing both halves of the Old Firm, I was surprised to note that I grudgingly but unmistakeably wanted Strachan's Celtic to come out on top over McLeish's Rangers. I couldn't justify this in any rational way - I'd adored both as Aberdeen players, and McLeish stayed with the club rather than heading to England - but there it was.

    When Celtic went on their UEFA Cup run, I wanted them to win every game on the way to the final. Not jumping-up-and-down cheering, but unquestionably hoping they'd progress. That lasted right up to the final, when I looked around Seville at the wall-to-wall sea of tricolours being waved by the fans of Scotland's representatives in the competition and thought "Well, fuck YOU, then". I walked out of the room and played a videogame for the duration of the final.

    (I accept to a small degree the justifications offered by some Celtic fans that blue and white are the colours of Rangers - though I've never in my life seen a Rangers fan wearing a scarf with no red in it - but there were no Rangers fans in Seville. I respect and admire the few Celtic fans who square the circle by waving green Saltires.)

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  97. When Rangers made it to the final of the same competition I had no such mixed feelings. I absolutely 100% wanted Zenit St Petersburg to win that game, and watched every minute with the same horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach I get when watching England in internationals - "Oh god, please don't let them win".

    (I live in England and have no problems with the English whatsoever - they're a fine, warm, friendly people and I like it here - but they're unbearable winners. The behaviour of the Rangers fans in Manchester that night was all too familiar to anyone who's observed the England support.)

    So while I don't particularly like it, I have to admit that I'm not quite impartial in my detestation of the Gruesome Twosome. But even within that I tend to swing slightly in the direction of whichever one I'm NOT talking to at any given moment, because you're both utterly grotesque at close quarters, which is why I generally stay well away from all of you.

    You, my friend, personify in living, breathing colour the worst of the cliched Celtic stereotype - paranoid and bitter, assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be ONE OF THEM no matter what they've actually said, claiming people have said things they haven't said because it lets you polish the chip on your shoulder, angrily asserting that there's something that isn't despicable about your songs of century-old religious wars, and whining that everyone's persecuting you just because they're sick of waiting for you to shut the fuck up about Irish history and sing some football songs.

    I couldn't give less of a shit if you and your like give me the benefit of the doubt or not. I post this life-history not at you but for the sake of the record and for the other people reading.

    Ironically, you're a lot like Scottish Labour - you're so blinded by your hatred of "the other side" that you still just don't get how utterly tired Scotland is of your bullshit. Like Labour and the Tories, Rangers and Celtic fans think they're on opposite sides. The truth, in both cases, is that Scotland has finally had enough of the pair of you.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Well thanks for telling us your life story but it's actually got nothing to do with the article which is about criminalising people that you quite evidently don't like.

    That isn't a reason to criminalise them.

    They may be embarrassing & do not present as the cuddly Scots who the SNP want, but they are here & have as much rights as you Stu.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Observer

    I don't recognise your criticism of me.

    I was pointing out the clear blue water between both clubs, and the arbitrary manner in which me and mine are being treated, with the potential for worse to follow. I have no issues with ordinary Rangers fans outwith their dodgy choice of team, and how tacitly comfortable they are in amongst racist sectarian bile.

    oh and Stu having an agenda doesn't mean I think you are a bluenose, stop being childish, I prefer open honest debate not idiotic nitpicking. And as observor says, a good rant, granted should not mean that we do away with peoples' basic freedoms'.

    Are we at a hunner yet?

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Well thanks for telling us your life story but it's actually got nothing to do with the article"

    Um, we left direct relevance to the article behind about 80 comments ago. I already posted my view on that way back at the beginning of the thread, and have expanded on it at length here:

    http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=12576

    The point being that this bill clearly seeks to de-normalise sectarian behaviour at source. That is a hugely honourable and admirable aim, and I'm sure it's one realised by the large majority of the Scottish population who back the bill. (The Scotsman poll now shows 73% for to 27% against.)

    A government's job is to enact the wishes of its people. Rangers and Celtic fans just sound like burglars protesting about a policy of increased sentences for burglary. Well, tough shit. We gave you a hundred years to behave like civilised human beings voluntarily. Time's up.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "oh and Stu having an agenda doesn't mean I think you are a bluenose"

    You do a heck of a good job of impersonating someone who does think that, then.

    "You know I could almost hear strains of the 'famine song' resonating from you when telling me to "fuck off home"

    To the best of my knowledge only one team's fans sing the Famine Song.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Tony, what I am trying to say is that if we are defending civil liberties we have to defend them for all.

    Even those whom we do not like.

    Your point that Celtic fans are likely to be penalised for what is nore moral behaviour than Rangers fans is one that I accept & agree with. However that isn't actually the point.

    The point is that no matter how repugnant a behaviour is, it should not be criminalised if it is just expressing free speech & not an act of anti-social behaviour in itself.

    That way lies madness & the bill will lead to that.

    People are actually entitled to be morons provided that they do not cause actual harm to others & the law as it is now is perfectly capable of dealing with that.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "The point is that no matter how repugnant a behaviour is, it should not be criminalised if it is just expressing free speech & not an act of anti-social behaviour in itself."

    Under what circumstances is hate speech not "anti-social", even when it doesn't directly cause violence? If a Rangers fan walks up to a Celtic fan, shouts "FUCK THE POPE!" in his face, and the Celtic fan rises above the provocation and walks away, does that mean it wasn't anti-social behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Rev Stu I really wouldn't cite the Scotsman poll as an authority as you can vote in it multiple times.

    I don't actually think that the majority of Scots are affected by sectarianism. Do you?

    Let's remember the majority of Scots don't actually go to football matches & don't really care.

    So it shouldn't be used as an excuse to introduce a bill which could see people imprisoned for thought crime.

    ReplyDelete
  105. ''If a Rangers fan walks up to a Celtic fan, shouts "FUCK THE POPE!" in his face,''

    That is already a criminal offence.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "I don't actually think that the majority of Scots are affected by sectarianism. Do you?"

    Depends what you mean by "affected". I certainly think the vast majority care about it and want it ended, something supported by the recent TNS poll.

    "I really wouldn't cite the Scotsman poll as an authority as you can vote in it multiple times."

    ...something which applies equally to people voting No as to those voting Yes, so it's not in itself much of an argument. But as I say, if you want a more scientific poll conducted by a respected professional polling organisation, see the TNS one which had even more dramatic numbers.

    "That is already a criminal offence."

    Then what are you complaining about?

    "a bill which could see people imprisoned for thought crime"

    Well, no. You can still THINK whatever you want. And that's the point I've made about de-normalisation.

    Let's say, for example, that the early days of the bill see a rash of OF supporters picked up for sectarian singing in the pub before the game. They get hauled off to the cells, but the police decide it's not worth the time and expense of prosecuting them all so they let them go at teatime. They don't go to court, but they've missed the game, so maybe next week they think "Hmm, maybe best to shut up about the Pope this week, just in case the polis are outside again".

    Have they suddenly stopped being bigots? No. The thoughts are still there, but now they're not being vocalised. Which means that the next generation of kids walking past that pub on the way to the shops don't hear the songs of bigotry coming out of it, and never get used to it being the norm. They don't imitate the grown-ups, and soon enough the idea of singing these songs becomes weird and quaint, just like the idea of smoking in pubs is now.

    We were warned of hellish consequences with the smoking ban. Thousands would light up anyway and defy the police to come and arrest them all, we were told. Didn't happen, though, and Scotland is a better place as a result.

    I think the same approach is well worth a fling with the sectarianism bill. If someone wants to propose, say, a three-year sunset clause on it that's fine by me. But the idea of doing nothing on the basis of some frankly hysterical hypotheticals is no longer acceptable to me or, more importantly, to the vast majority of the population.

    ReplyDelete
  107. The majority of the population might advocate bringing back hanging, that wouldn't make it right.

    We have already seen the case of Stephen Birrell, jailed for being a moron. He posed no risk to anyone. He threatened no one. He was merely a rather stupid ned, who was jailed for eight months for posting gibberish on Facebook (those of us who venture into the depths of the Hootsman from time to time will have read far far worse).

    If you are not worried about that, you should be.

    The guy had previous for committing an actual offence. So he clearly has the capacity for aggression. So how much more aggression will he have in him after being jailed for nowt?

    This bill is just going to aggravate things.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "The majority of the population might advocate bringing back hanging, that wouldn't make it right."

    Ah, the old chestnut. I oppose capital punishment, but I find it extremely hard to construct a democratic argument for that viewpoint. I just quietly give thanks for there being one fortunate aspect of our hideously flawed political system. But in the case of the sectarianism bill, the politicians have both the moral high ground AND the backing of the public, so all is dandy.

    As for Birrell, I can't say I have much of a problem with his case. He was clearly guilty of pretty loathsome anti-social behaviour, and if four months in Barlinnie gets him out of the habit of spewing sectarian poison into society it's a price well worth paying.

    This is a civilised country, and while I think a jail sentence was excessive he's not going to be tortured and beaten and oppressed in prison. He'll serve 16 weeks or so - that's what, 0.3% of an average person's life? - and come out less inclined to vomit bile at minority groups in public. I'm not sure that amounts to "1984".

    (And all that's leaving aside the fact that that happened under existing law, so what's the big deal about this bill?)

    ReplyDelete
  109. >>(And all that's leaving aside the fact that that happened under existing law, so what's the big deal about this bill?)<<

    Good God man have ye not been reading what I have to say at all?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Good God man have ye not been reading what I have to say at all?!?!"

    Unfortunately I have. Take it from me, I absolutely understand that you think anti-sectarian policing is fine, so long as it only applies to Rangers fans, because Celtic fans are fine upstanding moral folk who are genetically incapable of sectarian behaviour on account of their fine Irish heritage, wait no we mean Scottish heritage, as you can plainly see by all the Scottish flags we wave but which mysteriously don't show up in photographs for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Groundskeeper Willie25 November 2011 at 14:00

    Tony

    You'll see more saltires at Ibrox than at Celtic Park, just as you'll see more on the Shankhill ('blood of our blood, bone of our bone') than you'll see on the Falls.

    There's a reason Scots from an Irish Catholic background distrust the SNP (Strictly No Papes). Ask your granny about it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. oh dear.

    Not very good at addressing the point.

    Still consistancy is good I suppose.

    Experienced debaters on-line are quite aware of strawmen arguments and why they are used. However coming from someone who quotes himself using the most crass point about celtic fans to fuck of home, I suppose it is progression.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "There's a reason Scots from an Irish Catholic background distrust the SNP (Strictly No Papes). Ask your granny about it."

    Man, we surely can't be far from hearing the phrase "Tartan Tories" now.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "Not very good at addressing the point."

    You didn't make a point, you asked a rhetorical and incomprehensible question. If you want to frame it as an actual point I'll gladly have a stab at it.

    "However coming from someone who quotes himself using the most crass point about celtic fans to fuck of home"

    Really? *Still* sticking with this despicable and self-evident lie? Wow. I have never once suggested you came from anywhere but Scotland. Sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Wullie

    My Granny is buried in a graveyard 5mins drive north of South Morang, Victoria. She came from good protestant stock, and her mother-in-law was of planter stock fresh aff the boat.

    I'm sure they wouldn't know.

    Is your solution that we should embrace Brittania's huns wi their long range guns a la our recently departed war criminal of a chairman. Totally abandon our own country because bigots and the causes of bigots are not being tackled in the appropriate manner?

    I am not Irish, cara. No juneau pas irlandaise, Je suis Ecosse. Je voudrais un petit liberty, fraternity and maist importantly egalite, finite

    ReplyDelete
  116. Stu

    In war generals do well to take on the enemy on their terms, however in a debate it gets a bit boring.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "In war generals do well to take on the enemy on their terms, however in a debate it gets a bit boring."

    You can't colour in any of the letters in "Hull City".

    ReplyDelete
  118. (And all that's leaving aside the fact that that happened under existing law, so what's the big deal about this bill?)
    ------------------------

    That's the entire point!

    And read what Birrell wrote - you can hear/read the equivalent of that practically everywhere. If that is anti-social behaviour that warrants a custodial then we had better build a whole lot more jails when the law is extended even further.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "That's the entire point!"

    What's the entire point?

    ReplyDelete
  120. "If that is anti-social behaviour that warrants a custodial"

    I explicitly said a jail sentence was excessive for the crime in itself. But the judge said that his previous record was a factor in his being sent back to jail, so in no sense whatsoever is your statement accurate.

    And if you really can hear such things "practically everywhere", then it couldn't be clearer that we need to take some serious action.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Groundskeeper Willie,

    You asked "What does this proposed legislation criminalise that's not already illegal?" Firstly, as the law stands, it isn't illegal to "express hatred" in the way I discuss above, although breach of the peace remains broad enough that you might be able to convince a sheriff to convict (cf Birrell). Secondly, condition B of section 5 of the Bill will make it illegal to make threats (threats here being undefined and not being restricted to threats of serious violence) which "incite religious hatred". We've nothing on the statute book up here that criminalises that already. Indeed, the SNP resisted Tony Blair's attempt to extend that offence beyond England and Wales just a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Yes, yes, LWP is yet again being diverted by the tedious business of the letter of the law and constructing a fanciful charade of Huguenot haters discussing their favourite topic while a fitba match plays on the telly in the backgound, ( as a matter of interest LWP, was the fitba on the telly live or was it pre-recorded, or mayhap even just high-lights .....just wonderin'), but he has a point.
    Sheeeesh, breach o' the peace means you can be nicked for anything, anytime, any place, any where. But let's be honest, the polis have got to have a story and JUSTIFY it....at least to some extent their judgement can be questioned ( even if only by the PF.......if it gets past him let's face it , yer goose is cooked) LWP's point, as I understand it, is that this new law isn't about that......it now becomes a matter of fact.....not a judgement as to whether or not you were being an obnoxious pain the bum, but a matter of whether or not you were talking about a religous group while there was fitba on the telly. What you may or may not have been saying, and whether or not it was or might have been offensive becomes secondary to the fact ...you were talking about Huguenots and there was fitba' on the telly......facts are facts....what you actually were heard to say disnae matter, whether somebody was upset or not disnae matter, whether somebody might have been upset or not disnae matter. The polis might have thought in all honesty that your remarks were inaudible and inoffensive, but since you did actually break the law....your nicked. The PF, even assuming he feels under no political pressure (real or otherwise), has no where to go...facts are facts ( Huguenots...tick , fitba....tick). In court....same story......the onus of proof is on YOU to to justify yourself and the best you can hope for is a sheriff that finds it convincing enough to opt for absolute discharge ( ie guilty, but no actual punishment).

    ReplyDelete