Gersnet Investigation into new Sectarianism Bill

[Frankie 8,150]

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=416:gersnet-investigation-into-sectarianism-bill-sham&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67

 

As we’ve covered on our @GersnetOnline Twitter account over the last few weeks the SNP’s new ‘Sectarianism’ Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament yesterday (Friday). I’ve not used its full name (you can find that below) as I wanted to use the one word you won’t actually find anywhere in the draft legislation as no-one (5 years and millions of pounds of public money down the line) can define what this is or what terms are actually covered by it – the real secret shame indeed.

 

Onto the Bill1 itself and while any reasonable person would agree further debate and discussion is certainly required to rid our national game (and society) of this scourge; any reasonable person would also agree the rushed and flawed way this Bill has been progressed is not the way to go about doing so.

 

Indeed, everyone from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, to the Catholic Church, to the Law Society and even the Justice committee charged with ensuring the draft Bill is suitable to be passed (in the next two weeks incredibly) have said as much.

 

Let’s look at the initial comments from the Justice Committee:

 

 

Excerpts from Justice Committee Meeting, 14 June 20112

 

James Kelly

 

“I note that a sectarianism bill is due to come before Parliament to be processed before the end of June. The timetable has not been published yet, but we must be aware of the potential for input from this committee. A number of meetings would normally be required to consider a bill of that nature, and I am concerned that the timetable is somewhat truncated. Leaving those concerns aside, we need to flag up the opportunity for input from the committee once we know what the timetable is.”

 

John Lamont

 

“A bill is coming forward, but I am not yet sure of the Government's intentions with regard to the committee's role. I acknowledge the Government's concern to get the bill through as quickly as possible, but we should not necessarily negate the committee's role without question.”

 

Graeme Pearson (A respected ex-senior Policeman)

 

I have very practical concerns. Anticipation of a solution has been raised in the public mind, but the timetable does not seem to offer enough time for committee members fully to consider the ramifications. Without rehearsing all the elements, I wish to note my concern.

 

Alison McInnes

 

I reiterate what other members have said. This is a complex area of legislation, and I am very concerned that it looks as if the bill will be pushed ahead without any pre-legislative inquiry. The committee's role ought to be recognised.

 

The Convener (Christine Grahame): We have put that issue on the record, and we can return to it. Members have not come up with any inquiry ideas—that is fine, because we can deal with such ideas when we hold a business planning day, which is the next item for us to discuss. Previous members have found such a day to be very useful. The details will be developed by the clerks, the convener and the deputy convener, with regard paid to committee members' views.

 

Do members agree in principle that we would like a day on which we sit down and have a real discussion about the types of inquiries that we might want to undertake, and about our modus operandi as a committee?

 

Members indicated agreement.

 

The Convener: I ask members to let the clerks know of their availability so that we can co-ordinate matters. It would be good to hold the planning day in July, but I suspect that members, having had a long campaign and a busy settling-in period, may wish it to be later. It will be held in the Parliament—we are not allowed to leave the building.

 

On the same tack, members may, once they have fed in their draft ideas, wish SPICe to produce any additional research briefings that would be useful. That would allow us to know whether Audit Scotland was doing something or whether an inquiry was going on somewhere else, for example: we might duplicate work or our timing might be wrong. We might also want to follow up previous Justice Committee inquiries.

 

Members should e-mail their ideas to the clerk, who will produce a briefing paper about what areas might be useful to follow up. The legacy paper might have given members ideas and members might wish to pick up on issues that the previous committee dealt with. I am always banging on about the fact that legacy papers should not gather dust.

 

We have agreement in principle to the away day—which will take place here—and members will advise clerks of some ideas for research, which will form part of a discussion paper.

 

Do members wish to invite relevant ministers and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the next meeting of the committee, so that we can get a broad outline from the Government of what lies ahead? Members should indicate agreement by speaking rather than nodding; nodding heads do not go on the record.

 

Edited June 18, 2011 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,150]

It is clear then that there are serious doubts with regard to the hasty judicial and legal process being followed here. Therefore, it is incumbent on every Rangers supporter concerned by this farcical issue to ask the direct questions of those involved.

 

To that end, I was astounded when I found out earlier in the week that the official Rangers fans group (the Rangers Supporters Assembly) were not initially invited to the Stakeholder Meeting held for the people directly affected by the Bill in Edinburgh on its presentation day. In actual fact, only the actions of a concerned citizen made them aware of the event. Meanwhile, the independent (though government backed) Rangers Supporters Trust were also only informed late on. Yet less involved groups such as the 'Orange Order' and 'Cairde na hÃ?â?°ireann' were sent invites. Rather bizarre given the wording of the draft Bill. To my knowledge no internet site administrators/owners were invited nor have been consulted at any stage.

 

It seems what we have then is a hastily constructed and inherently flawed legislation which will affect many football supporters in Scotland and beyond. The aims of the people behind the concept remain unclear and the Law Society and acting QC's are doubtful whether or not anyone charged under the proposed law would ever stand trial. Nevertheless, while political own goals have already been scored this Bill will progress and will be passed. It is up to us to ensure we do not lose our opportunity to affect it.

 

Therefore, it is more important than ever for the Rangers support – and particularly our fan groups – to work together, united as one, to lobby as effectively as possible. Indeed, the Justice Committee has already made their ‘Call for Evidence’ where we can write to them to submit our feelings on record.3 It is fair to say a unified letter from our fan groups (as well as associated websites) would put across a strong message. [As well as the ‘Call for Evidence’, there is also a public meeting scheduled for this coming Tuesday4 of which you can attend (and book tickets for).5]

 

As ever, Gersnet is keen to assist our fan-base in any way possible. As such – after consulting an expert in such legislation - we can recommend the following questions (below – in bold) to be asked when you contact both the committee and/or your own MSP (see Appendix B). Please be polite, succinct and ask for a prompt reply given the unseemly pace at which this issue is moving.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,150]

Recommended questions:

 

1. Will there be minutes kept of all meetings?

 

Why not? They should be public record. Are we being told or consulted? As taxpayers we are footing the bill for this expensive issue.

 

 

2. Just recently, after the Scottish elections, two young people lost their lives by knife attack. Yet this Government has chosen to rush through an ill-conceived and badly thought out Bill on offensive singing at football matches.

 

Do you not agree, given the severity of the consequences of both issues, that this Government is showing a grossly misguided sense of priority in bringing forward its legislation?

 

Is sectarian singing at football matches a more grievous matter than knife crime and two people being murdered?

 

 

3. As discussed, last week, on Tuesday the 14th, each and every member of the Justice Committee unanimously expressed – on record – grave concerns about the rushed nature of this legislation. Normally as far as I can gather, any legislation on Criminal Law takes 18 months to 2 years to pass through Parliament.

 

Why, on such a contentious and important issue is the Government disregarding past good practice in matters of Criminal Law legislation?

 

 

4. Before the Bill was presented, I couldn’t access any information whatsoever about it. Furthermore, in my opinion, ‘Stakeholders’ were invited to this event as an afterthought - perhaps it was an afterthought after the Justice Committee’s meeting on Tuesday last. We are being asked to give our consideration on proposed legislation that we have no knowledge of – which should be regarded as being at the least shoddy, and at the most, something that belongs in a dictatorial state.

 

There has been – as we are all aware - a synopsis of it available on Internet forums (via an email from Margo McDonald MSP).

 

Why did the Government choose to leak the information in this way?

 

Why haven’t one of the key stakeholders here - the fans - not been consulted and why were we not provided with a copy of the proposed Bill before the tardy invitation?

 

Why has this Government decided to ride rough shod over past good practice?

 

 

5. Will the final Bill clearly define what the terms “offensive” and “sectarian” and “anti-religious” mean in a legal context? Who is left to decide? Is it a matter of how many people complain about perceived offence?

 

 

6. Why does it not also define “open support for terrorist organisations and activity?”

 

 

7. During past government-funded investigations into sectarianism in football the role of the media and their associated responsibilities was discussed.

 

Are there plans to involve them again given the often inaccurate and sensationalist nature of their ongoing coverage?

 

8. Will the Government be issuing comprehensive guidance on the Bill so that Crown Office, the Police, the fans and the general public will be clear over what constitutes offensive behaviour or sectarian intent?

Edited June 18, 2011 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,150]

Conclusion:

 

Finally, to get a better idea of what is driving all this political posturing, one may examine a freely available document regarding the Strathclyde Police Authority’s intention to change the way the charge their member clubs for their policing requirements.6

 

Late last season I’m sure we all remember a variety of high profile police figures calling for a plethora of different ways to treat Old Firm games in particular – from outright bans on the matches to bizarre scheduling suggestions. Indeed, it was only last week that the traditional Ne’er Day derby was moved forward from a Public Holiday to a mid-week evening. A coincidence? I think not.

 

It is quite incredible then that just as the Government push through flawed new laws, the very people tasked with preventing such crimes look to increase their costs to the detriment of our safety. It is up to us to expose such hypocrisy before this Orwellian nightmare becomes a distinct reality.

 

Politics, money and control – perhaps this could be the Scottish Government’s own Secret Shame?

Edited June 18, 2011 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,150]

Appendix 1 - Further reading:

 

1. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/bills/01-offbehfoot/index.htm

 

2. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/justice/or-11/ju11-0102.htm#Col5'>http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/justice/or-11/ju11-0102.htm#Col5

 

3. http://tinyurl.com/6hxse8l

 

4. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/justice/papers-11/jup11-02.pdf

 

5. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/visitingHolyrood/chamberTickets.htm#comm

 

6. http://tinyurl.com/6g7kbx2

 

 

Appendix 2 – Justice Committee details

 

Justice committee website is available here: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/committees/justice/

 

- Roderick Campbell MSP (SNP – North East Fife): Roderick.Campbell.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- John Finnie MSP (SNP – Highlands and Islands): John.Finnie.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- Christine Grahame MSP (SNP – Midlothian South): Christine.Grahame.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- Colin Keir MSP (SNP – Edinburgh Western): Colin.Keir.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- James Kelly MSP (Scottish Labour – Rutherglen): James.Kelly.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- John Lamont MSP (Conservative – Berwickshire): John.Lamont.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- Alison McInnes MSP (Liberal – North East Scotland): Alison.McInnes.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- Graeme Pearson MSP (Scottish Labour – South Scotland): Graeme.Pearson.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

 

- Humza Yousaf MSP (SNP – Glasgow): Humza.Yousaf.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Edited June 18, 2011 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,150]

Now online folks - please forward this onto your respective representatives.

 

Please note we'll also be producing a template letter which we'd like our fan groups to jointly sign and send to the Justice Committee and First Minister.

 

[Frankie 8,150]

Surprised no-one wants to discuss this issue on here.

 

[mainstandbear 0]

I suppose, as the cliche goes, the proof is in the pudding. In this close season it seems to lack an immediate impact. The sectarian issue has dragged on and on without ever being properly dealt with and this seems like yet more skirting around the issue. If the dhims are gonna challenge being told to stop singing ira songs and threaten to go thru the courts in an effort to establish legitimacy, it seems only likely that people lifted for singing the sash or waving a RHOU would do the same. Leggo said the other day about it being a vehicle for roseanna cunningham to brandish a stick against percieved anti-catholicism, which is fair enough if the stick is used against those who sing about 'sad orange bastards' and 'huns'...and that, as i say, leads right back to my opening cliche....i cant help but feel that this is political posturing by the snp and they have hurried thru legislation so they are seen as addressing this issue and showing what a strong government they are. I think the facebook bigots will probably be more easily dealt with rather than fans at games.

[Frankie 8,150]

MB:

 

I don't doubt this is political grandstanding of the worst kind.

 

However, because of that, there will be pressure for this Bill to deliver results (in the short term at least). Does this mean groups like the Green Brigade with their banners of hate will finally be dealt with? No, it means daft wee 15 year old Joe Bloggs on Facebook, half-p!ssed on cheap cider as his parents neglect him will be made scapegoat.

 

This isn't a serious attempt to address an exaggerated social disease. This is paying lip service to the sensationalist media ( I can't even say tabloid here) who criticise one minute then count their pennies the next.

 

There is something shameful here. But it need not be a secret if we act together to expose it.

[pete 2,499]

To be honest I have not had time to read up on what is actually in the new bill. I doubt if the Dutch Police will be waking me up and going through an extradition battle for me using the word fenian on-line.:smile:

 

This whole thing just seems to be a knee jerk reaction and has so many grey area's as to what will be legal and what will be illegal.

As I have not read up on it this is an uneducated view.