Gersnet Investigation into new Sectarianism Bill

[Zappa 0]

Frankie, really well done for covering this and detailing some extremely important issues with the way in which the new legislation is being rushed through. Some of the questions you suggest are very important indeed because they appear to be getting either glossed over, worked around or both. For example, question 5:

 

5. Will the final Bill clearly define what the terms ââ?¬Å?offensiveââ?¬Â and ââ?¬Å?sectarianââ?¬Â and ââ?¬Å?anti-religiousââ?¬Â mean in a legal context? Who is left to decide? Is it a matter of how many people complain about perceived offence?

 

The first part of this question is essentially answered in section 4 of the Introduction of the Policy Memorandum document where it says:-

 

4. There have been historical issues about the extent to which the criminal law extends to cover various behaviours that society would deem ââ?¬Å?sectarianââ?¬Â. ââ?¬Å?Sectarianââ?¬Â is a term which is not defined in Scots law and there are many competing viewpoints about what is or should be included and excluded from any definition. What is crucial about the measures in this Bill is that they do not rest on any such definition. We intend that these measures will cover all offensive or threatening behaviour at football matches, regardless of whether it is ââ?¬Å?sectarianââ?¬Â. This means offensive or threatening behaviour likely to incite public disorder, whether that is through songs and chants, displaying banners or otherwise. In terms of threatening communications, the focus is on threatening or inciting serious harm intended to cause fear and alarm or threats that incite religious hatred, regardless of whether such communications are of a ââ?¬Å?sectarianââ?¬Â character or not.

 

So...... The Bill will not define the terms your question asks about because the Bill is specifically designed to skirt around the crucial issue of defining these terms in Scottish Law. This is evident when it says 'What is crucial about the measures in this Bill is that they do not rest on any such definition.'. It appears to me that they are deliberately creating two new extremely broad and open football related legal offences based on various terms which will NOT be clearly defined in either this Bill or in Scots Law at all for that matter. Specific interpretation and use of the Bill will be left to the police and the courts which is rather worrying given the Bill's overall looseness and openness.

 

Personally, I have to wonder if they actually realise what they're doing here because if they're fully aware of the possible consequences then you'd have to say that they know fine well that this is potentially going to cause a serious amount of trouble due to the lack of clear definitions, broadness and openness of the Bill and how it can be interpreted. For example, having now read the Policy Memorandum it seems clear to me that essentially you could be arrested for practically anything at all which antagonises or could antagonise another person. That could include songs, chants, banners or virtually anything which winds up opposition fans. Could you get done for simply taking the piss out of them because they're losing? What about laughing at them, mocking them, flicking the vicky etc? Serious questions btw because these things which are a fun part of football all over the world can be deemed as antagonising under this Bill and could potentially see you arrested if some jobsworth decides to interpret your actions as inciting or attempting to incite trouble.

 

6. Why does it not also define ââ?¬Å?open support for terrorist organisations and activity?ââ?¬Â

 

Terrorism and support for terrorism is covered under other Bills in Scots and UK Law, but clearly open supporters of the IRA in Scotland are exempt. It'll be interesting to see whether any of the thousands of IRA supporters with season tickets at Celtic Park are prosecuted under this new Bill. If they aren't then we know something is wrong and the new Bill has a clearly biased agenda.

 

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?[/b]

 

Personally, I'm almost certain that the Policy Memorandum for this Bill is about as comprehensive as it's going to get because they are specifically avoiding defining what constitutes these terms under Scots Law.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Zappa

[biggordy 0]

Frankie, e-mails sent to all aforementioned MSPs plus copies to various opposition MSPs plus a copy to my local Westminster MP, Brian Donohoe who wished to be kept informed.

 

I hope others have done likewise.

 

The main thrust of my mail asked that any new sectarian laws be inclusive of ALL religions.

I felt failure to do this at the exclusivity to perceived offences against one religion only as was stated by Roseanna Cunningham, namely Catholic, could result in a "self fulfilling prophecy" where real anti Catholic bias would escalate.

It is improper, unjust, and downright illegal that any Religion should be given preference over any other.

 

However, can I also say I have been lobbying many MSPs for more than 2 months concerning the bigotted rantings of social worker Bhaine, making them aware of the contents of his subversive blog with no replies other than deflection and buck passing.

[Zappa 0]

The chant doesn't particularly bother me, what bothers me is septic fans have managed to have some of our traditional songs banned when really it's just football rivalry trying to wind up the opposition fans.

 

At the rate we're going just now future 'old firm' games will be very quiet affairs - the Rangers end silent because we wont be allowed to open our mouths - and the scum end because their team will be losing 'Can you hear the Celtic sing?....'

 

Fuck me they'll ban that next.

 

Hope you don't mind mate, but I've merged this into Frankie's thread here since it probably makes sense to talk about it in here.

 

Regarding the use of the word 'Hun', it's not something which usually bothers me either, although it does depend on the context because there's a BIG difference between the word being used in a joking or wind-up manner in every day life and the way it's normally used towards Rangers fans at games. I think what's important is that the word 'hun' IS normally used towards Rangers fans in an offensive and inciteful manner when it's used at matches, so whether it's deemed 'sectarian' or not, it should definitely fall under this new Bill.

[Zappa 0]

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

 

 

It has to be said that fully reading through and properly digesting the Bill and two supporting documents is pretty tough going.

[Guest Dutchy]

The reason I'm not getting into the discussion is that I believe that this bill is the wholely wrong way to go about tackling the problem of sectarism in Scotland.

 

I'd mentioned in a previous post that our country should become secular, basically, you can worship what you want, but the state has no hand in helping, or halting you to do so. With the exception of any obvious laws that you may break in persuit of your own particular form of delusion.

 

Folks didn't seem to think that was a viable proposal, so I see no point in trying to convince anyone that I'm right and they are wrong. That is the way I live my life, that's all I can say.

[54andcounting 0]

It has to be said that fully reading through and properly digesting the Bill and two supporting documents is pretty tough going.

 

Agree Zap. Ah went tae a normal skool and done ok, ah fink....Mastermind springs to mind in trying to read AND understand that stuff

 

ps; my post has been hi-jacked to lead to this one - bah!

Edited June 19, 2011 by 54andcounting

[Gribz 743]

Frankie, well done on raising the issue on here. Like I said to you on another thread a few weeks back Id be interested to follow this and how they are tackling it. As they state websites such as Twitter and Facebook will be monitored, does that mean it will be a global law??

 

There is no doubt about it, the knee jerk reaction to push this through compared to some other social problems is disgusting (but thats what governments do...could be a new thread in the Bluenose Subforum).......therefore as they have decided to go through with it the first question that has to be answered from your list is:

 

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?

 

And Id ask who is this aimed at. Im not ready to jump onto a website and start posting TBB (Ive never been on twitter in my life anyway), but as Pete says are the Dutch police going to show up at his door?

[54andcounting 0]

Hope you don't mind mate, but I've merged this into Frankie's thread here since it probably makes sense to talk about it in here.

 

Regarding the use of the word 'Hun', it's not something which usually bothers me either, although it does depend on the context because there's a BIG difference between the word being used in a joking or wind-up manner in every day life and the way it's normally used towards Rangers fans at games. I think what's important is that the word 'hun' IS normally used towards Rangers fans in an offensive and inciteful manner when it's used at matches, so whether it's deemed 'sectarian' or not, it should definitely fall under this new Bill.

 

But that's where it all goes silly.

Let's ban 'go home ya hun' in fact why don't we ban ALL singing at football matches.

They started it.

 

ps: I'm still and will forever be pissed off at not being able to sing 'The Billy Boys' at a Rangers game - quite simply it was a Rangers Anthem, over the past century it inspired the fans and the team, unfortunately the scum picked on certain wording within the song which they could find 'offensive' you know the type, plastic irish, the mob who were born under the Union Jack and are in denial...those idiots who freely sing songs and think it's ok and yet ours are offensive to them....the same mob who boo our country's heroes, our grandfathers who saved them from the clutches of Hitler.

 

I've got a lousey feeling WE are being walked over here.

[Zappa 0]

As they state websites such as Twitter and Facebook will be monitored, does that mean it will be a global law??

 

It's stated in the Bill and supporting doc's that the Bill includes and will tackle offenders even if the source is foreign (outwith Scotland), but can be viewed, heard or read in Scotland. This is directly trying to fire a warning shot to online fans abroad, but god knows how they intend to implement that side of things. It sounds like bullshit if you ask me, although fans outwith Scotland, but still within the UK will be very easy for them to target if they really want.

[pete 2,499]

It's stated in the Bill and supporting doc's that the Bill includes and will tackle offenders even if the source is foreign (outwith Scotland), but can be viewed, heard or read in Scotland. This is directly trying to fire a warning shot to online fans abroad, but god knows how they intend to implement that side of things. It sounds like bullshit if you ask me, although fans outwith Scotland, but still within the UK will be very easy for them to target if they really want.

 

They have difficulty extraditing murderers in Holland so I doubt they would even think about trying to extradite someone for singing a song. I am not extreme in any way so I doubt if the bill will ever affect me even if I lived in Scotland.