The Real PapaBear

 

I've thought about suggesting this a few times since it was clear we weren't catching Hearts, but didn't because Little General's been leading the GPL standings since the 9th competitive game of the season and even although it's mostly just a bit of fun, I thought it would be pretty uncool to suggest it.

 

I should maybe have mentioned it back in Jan/Feb, but now we're at a stage where LG's been leading the pack for almost 40 games, so I don't think we should even entertain the idea.

It would be very unfair and unsporting to change the rules at the last minute and would make a mockery of the entire competition.

On the other hand, it's my only hope of climbing the table. I say we change the rules at the last minute.

A bit - although the Samaras example isn't exactly self-application.

 

Is it okay for me to call Samaras the Athenian ******?

 

I don't want to get side-tracked by an N word debate, but that's a fine example of hypocrisy. If a term is unacceptable, self-application is just as bad. Anyone who does undermines the argument against its use.

Side tracked? It's central to your argument. I think we're all agreed that the N word is entirely unacceptable for us to use. And yet, we'll happily listen to rap music by black artists where every second word seems to be the N word. If white artists outside the rap scene (and 90% within it) used it, the roof fall in on them.

Maybe you should write to 50 Cent and let him know that it's unacceptbale for him to use the term

I thought that you said it had become unacceptable? How can it always have been acceptable?

 

When you say it's always been acceptable, are you referring to those who complained about it 10 years ago? Was it acceptable to them then?

 

If it was unacceptable 10 years ago then it proves that your statement is totally wrong and the whole premise of your argument is wrong.

 

The fact is that it's always been acceptable to you perhaps due to either ignorance of the use of the word or lack of interest but to thousands of other Rangers fans it has always had a sectarian meaning and has always been unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

So it's a sectarian insult to call a Hearts fan it but not a Rangers fan? Wow.

 

That's because Hearts are known as a mainly Protestant team whereas Rangers aren't? No, that's not it........

 

I think you're proving my argument for me.

 

 

There's no pretence on this subject just ignorance.

 

Where you are correct is that fen'ian has been used to describe RCs a lot longer than hun has been used to describe Protestants. However when hun did start getting used in that way then it instantly became unacceptable. When it was subsequently used to describe Rangers fans that didn't suddenly make it OK.

You seem to be doing a fine job of inventing stuff for me to say and then cleverly disproving the stuff you've just invented. I'll let you get on with it.

Celtic fans self-apply the term. For example they called Samaras "the Athenian ******". Should any Celtic fan using that phrase have been prosecuted? If the answer is no, then the term does have acceptable, non-sectarian usage.

You mean like the word n*gger is an acceptable word for black people to use but not white people?

When exactly was it acceptable to use it about Rangers?

 

Here's a post of mine from 7 years ago on the subject, for example.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?8339-UEFA-deem-Huns-acceptable&p=118908&highlight=psni#post118908

 

let's go further back. Alan Brazil used it on Talksport in October 2005 and after a barrage of complaints, Mike Parry gave assurances that it would never be used again.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but that just shows your ignorance about the use of the word as has been shown on this thread, rather than anything else.

 

 

 

And there are RC fans of other teams that call Celtic fans fen'ians. Does that make the use of the word OK?

 

Is your jambo son-in-law happy to be called it by Celtic fans?

 

I'm sure that there are Celtic fans who are happy to be called fen'ians but that doesn't make the use of the word acceptable.

 

If you're happy to have people call you it and for you to be the "house hun" then that's your prerogative but it doesn't make the use of it any more acceptable anywhere else.

To answer your three points, whilst ignoring your childish jibe:

1. As a derogatory term for Rangers and the fans, it's always been 'acceptable' however unpleasant.

2. If you say so. I have never heard it used in that way.

3. No, because anyone calling a Hearts fan a hun is using the word as a sectarian insult.

Do you now begin to see the complexity of this? The easiest solution is the one reached by the SNP, a blanket ban on them all but to pretend that both terms were historically always as bad as each other is either ignorance or hypocricy.

It's called context.

 

Fen!an has many non-sectarian contexts as does hun. However, both can and are are used in a sectarian fashion. For example, of course it's unlikely a Protestant Hearts fan calling you a hun is unlikely to be perceived as such - however from a Catholic Celtic fan, it may well be depending on the situation.

 

It's not difficult to grasp or offer a balanced opinion on any specific example in that regard. Mr O'Hara's usage may be historic and may not have been sectarian in nature but the point continually being missed is that it harms the SNP's reputation given the stance they've employed in recent years.

 

Generally the obvious problems in attempting to prove intentions just shows how bad the law is. The original was more than adequate to address the usual whataboutery around the issue in football.

See, if you hadn't put that first part in, I'd be agreeing with most of what you write. Outside of academic studies of Irish history I have never, and I mean never, heard the F word used in a non-sectarian context. Hun, as you say, covers the range from familial footballing contempt to naked sectarian bigotry and its use is much more difficult to identify as being sectarian at any given time. I do suspect, however, that had sectarianism been O'Hara's motivation, he would have joined the Labour party (remember them?) rather than the SNP

Whether it harms the SNPs reputation outside of the Rangers bubble is open to debate after last night's astonishing result.

Not really barca. I'm by-passing whether or not there was legislation in place or not. And going straight for the hypocrisy that one word (Hun) needs to be etched in stone in legislation before anyone should be chastised over it whilst the use of another word (fen!an) needs none of the same legal formality around it.

 

No wonder we are fighting a losing battle on the sectarian debate when our own willingly defend that one is sectarian whilst the other isn't... the one they accept is the one that casts us as the bigots.... where is the parity in dealing with two similarly offensive words ?

The problem here is not hypocricy on my part, but rather willful ignorance and false outrage on yours - and by *you* I mean everyone who spouts this nonsense about the H & F words being equivalent. The F word was always a term of religious and cultural abuse. The H word was not and has only recently become unacceptable.

Barca's dog-with-a-bone harping on about the legislation is utterly irrelevant since the use of Hun did not have religious or cultural conotations in the vast majority of instances it was used. To pretend that it did is just self-delusion.

When any one of you can explain how my Jambo son-in-law (Protestant), Motherwell business partner (protestant) or a variety of friends and relatives of both persuasions and many teams can call me a Hun in a way that is sectarian, I'll re-visit the subject.

RPB, can you post the legislation that was in existence at the time which meant that the use of the "F" word was more than just an insult and was sectarian ?

You're suggesting that sectarianism only started in 2011? and that a word has to be enshrined in statute? Really?

Messi is fantastic in an era where parking the bus is more prevalent than ever.

 

Not only scores dozens of vital goals but creates many more.

 

Generally though, it's an impossible question to answer fairly.

This for me is the decisive factor. No team has ever been faced with such defensive tactics so often and yet time after time he beats them.

For me it's

1. Messi 2. Zidane 3. Maradona

very good decision and statement. Gets it right up the suits but stays on the right side of the law. i'm starting to think the guys in charge know what they are doing

Has it?

 

Once again I'd argue context remains everything.

 

First of all Findlay wasn't accused of singing anything with fen!an in it. However, even if he did, I doubt it was used in a sectarian fashion but it brought enough reputational damage to himself and the club that firstly Findlay then the fanbase fell on its sword when it came to the Billy Boys chant.

 

It was only after around 2004 via media pressure to UEFA that fen!an was seen as sectarian - whereas before it was, like hun, just another insult.

He was secretely filmed standing among a group of players, with Neil Mcann immediately over his right shoulder, singing "up to our knees in f!!nian blood" - that's why he had to go. There is nothing wrong with singing The Sash and if you seriously think fe!!nian was "just another insult", then we must have grown up in very different places.

Remember Donald Findlay having to resign as Rangers chairman?

Perhaps he shouldnt have resigned then because of your 'retrospective' logic then?

Findlay resigned, or was forced to resign, because the use of the F word was never acceptable and was always sectarian - unlike the word Hun which has only become so recently. Nothing retrospective here.

I shall not engage in a deranged dance of semantics. If we are going to have a discussion then you will have to agree on a few basic points.

First, I shall repeat the question; Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist?

I don't have the time or inclination to play stupid games; make your point or get off the potty.

The SNP refused to accept that the phrase used was sectarian and refused to condemn the use of it. This tells you all you need to know about the SNP.

 

Whether he is prosecuted or not isn't important at this point, and discussion about the OBA is just a deflection from the disgraceful attitude of the SNP and the fact that their apologists don't see anything wrong with what they have done and their attempt to excuse the use of the H word shows that they are willing to accept sectarianism against Protestants.

Rubbish from start to finish.

The SNP refused to accept that the use in this instance at that time was intended in a sectarian manner. Since the law was passed banning the word - a law passed by the SNP, by the way - things have changed and everybody knows that the use of the word today is unacceptable.

Show me one instance of an SNP officual using the word Hun since 2011.

The SNP created their anti-sectarian legislation (that prohibits the use of the word hun) because they, as a party, believe such language and behaviour to be offensive.

 

The type of online behaviour O'Hara indulged in only became illegal at the time the legislation was passed (so there's no question of him being retrospectively prosecuted) but did it also only become offensive to the values of the SNP at that time? To argue that it did would seem strange. I'd have thought a political party would seek to distance themselves from any individual who has a record of indulging in behaviour that they consider so offensive they felt compelled to create legislation against it.

Now, *that* is a very good and well made point.

Let's get something straight first with no denying and no deflection.

Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist?

Stop being ridiculous and get to the point.

RPB - I think you you should pratice what you preach re reading posts properly -

oh, but I am reading them properly. Once again, it's yourself who seems to be confused; this time between 'punishment' and 'prosecution'.

My original sentence : "If not, why should O'Hara be punished for his comments which, while stupid, were legal?"

Your quote : "However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted -"

People, yourself included, have been calling for the SNP to punish O'hara by expelling or suspending him - although failing to make a case for retrospective punishment.

Of course no one in their right minds is calling for him to be prosecuted, and I never suggested they were - which is why I have used the term 'punishment' and not 'prosecution'.

He should have been removed on a point of principle. That is why.

Had a candidate(of any party) referred to f@nians I can just imagine the furore

The principle presumably being that you can be punished retrospectively if the law changes?

Perhaps not but dont you think it is hyper-critical of the SNP to endorse a candidate guilty of an earlier offence which they later sought to criminalise ?

no because, for the 100th time, what he said was not an offense when he said it. Others have dodged the question, so I'll try my luck with you. Should you be criminalised for drink driving because you have driven with an alcohol blood level higher than that which was intoduced a couple of months ago?

If not, why should O'Hara be punished for his comments which, while stupid, were legal?

What are you talking about, no relevance?

Surely the whole point of this thread is to show how hypocritical the SNP are.

The point is not that O'Hara was actually charged and convicted of "religiously aggravated breach of the peace", but that the law was in place to charge and convict him since 2003. Just because Mulholland ( or his predecessor ) and the Justice Minister of the time did not have their police and/or the CPS instruments in active response mode in his direction does not mean that O'Hara was any less guilty of having committed a crime.

I think that what that review shows is that the politicians used those facts, and especially since it appears that police action was directed at 16-20 year olds, to help create the abominable OBA.

Which in my mind now that the facts about O'Hara have surfaced, should be all the more reason for the SNP to stand O'Hara down.

Whomever said earlier in this thread that you should stand for a political office had the rights of it. You seem to have a propensity for ignoring legal facts when it suits you, using marginal data with a fervour and stating them as facts when it suits you, and in between times talking a whole load of pish. Who else do we know that does that ...

Never takes you very long to resort to personal insults, does it?

What you have posted is a review document of the workings of some legislation. The document has nothing whatsoever to do with O'Hara nor with the instance of the character who was charged for religiously aggravated breach of the peace. You claim that he was charged with religious agrravation simply for wearing a t-shirt with the word Hun on it. Utter nonsense, of course. Find out what the charge actually was and what he was actually charged with doing and saying, then get back to me.

The laws covering what would now be an offence were not in place at the time

O'hara wasn't prosecuted because he committed no offense

 

Sorry, RPB, but the laws were already in place long before O'Hara committed his 'crime' ...

 

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/155706/0041794.pdf

 

USE OF SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

(SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY

AGGRAVATED REPORTED CRIME: AN 18 MONTH

REVIEW

 

MAIN FINDINGS

Update of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) Report

• When comparing the first six months of operation of Section 74 (27th June 2003 – 31st

December 2003) with data for the same period in 2004 (27th June – 31st December 2004) –

the number of incidents reported with a religious aggravation increase by 55%. During these

2 time periods, there were broadly similar patterns of Section 74 usage, with the exception

that football related offences accounted for a higher percentage of reported cases in June-

December 2004 and a higher percentage of cases were brought against 16-20 year olds in

June-December 2004. Due to the limited timescale of this comparative exercise, the

significance of these fluctuations should not be overemphasised.

What you've posted is of no relevance to this case.

I would offer you this blog; detailing and bemoaning the facts of a case concerning the word 'hun' - and as you can see it comes from a CFC-supporting blog

 

http://www.celtic-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/scottish_football_fans_must_beware_of_the_hword_police_413448/index.shtml

 

"dirty horrible huns" - the words on a tee-shirt worn by the youth

 

"religiously aggravated breach of the peace" - what the sheriff found him guilty of

 

"the hun hordes have succesfully won their fight to have the term 'hun' deemed sectarian by the law of the land" - the author's conclusion.

 

This all took place in 2008, four years before the Act came in.

 

Now, remind me again if O'Hara said what he said in 2007 or 2008, or if he still supports a team, the fans of whom, weekly chant this kind of word at almost every game. This means that the laws were there and in effect when O'Hara used the language he did. Why he was not prosecuted , who knows?

 

I would remind you of D'Art's statement -

"I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regard to O'Hara."

 

A few weeks ago the SFA, have now officially stated that the use of the word 'hun' is offensive.

Whether O'Hara used the term 8 years ago, last week or perhaps one day in in the future in parliament; he like you, will still remember what he thinks in his mind when the term is remembered.

this took place a year after O'hara used the term. The laws covering what would now be an offence were not in place at the time and to compare the actions of a Timmy ned out actively looking for trouble with a twitter post is weak. O'hara wasn't prosecuted because he committed no offense: How hard is that to grasp?

You yourself said "tarred with the same brush". When you use the term "are you surprised" it CAN have connotations of "you should have expected it" - granted that doesn't necessarily mean that it is acceptable - but I have still to see you actually say that it isn't acceptable, whilst pillorying (is that even a word) everything which is non-SNP.

post 52, point 4.

Regardless, does that then give them the right to abuse ? Inclusive society.... I think not.

post 52, point 4.

Look guys, there's half a dozen of you. Do me a favour and read my replies to the others - it'll save me repeating the same stuff again and again.

Scotland is just about the most inclusive society on the face of the planet and citing a couple of eejits on twitter as some sort of proof that it isn't , is just ridiculous.

So every Rangers supporter should be tarred with the same brush and it is acceptable ? So we are all knuckle-dragging sectarian bigots then ? That is exactly how your sentence above seems to be constructed.

Only if you fail to read it properly.