ian1964 10,416 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Wednesday, 12 October 2011 14:09 Earlier this week members of the RST Board met with James Kelly MSP. Mr Kelly is the deputy convener of the Scottish Parliamentâ??s Justice Committee which is considering the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. Mr Kelly and all the non-SNP members of the Justice Committee voted against the Bill citing concerns over free expression being curtailed. The RST put forward the view that the Bill should be voted down in itâ??s entirety as it is flawed and in any case every offence raised in it already exists under Scots Law and the sentencing provisions are draconian but already available to the courts. Mr Kelly is continuing to consult other fans groups and interested parties to help formulate Labour Party policy with regard to the progress of the Bill through the Parliament. The Rangers Supporter Trust asks that itâ??s members and football fans in general oppose the Bill and make their feeling known to their MSPs. If youâ??d like to contribute your thoughts to the Trust please email us - rstinfo@rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk You can find details of your local MSPs on this website - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/177.aspx The Take A Liberty Scotland website has a great range of information about the campaign against the Bill on their website - http://takealiberty.blogspot.com/ http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/rstsite/latest-rst-news/397-rst-meet-with-james-kelly-msp 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 A bit light on info. Perhaps one of our resident trust reps could tell us a bit more? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fury 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Why are we opposing it? I understand the bill in it's present form is wooly, lacking in detail and needs a large amount of work but are we happy with the current situation where Rangers fans are lifted for pretty much anything while the fans of the sporting wing of the IRA sing their songs and assault ball boys, stewards and police with absolutely nothing happening? I'd prefer people could attend football without having to worry about any of this stuff but that ship has sailed. How do we achieve anything approaching a level playing field without something new? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 SNP only listening to one side in this debate and it's not us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Why are we opposing it? I understand the bill in it's present form is wooly, lacking in detail and needs a large amount of work but are we happy with the current situation where Rangers fans are lifted for pretty much anything while the fans of the sporting wing of the IRA sing their songs and assault ball boys, stewards and police with absolutely nothing happening? I'd prefer people could attend football without having to worry about any of this stuff but that ship has sailed. How do we achieve anything approaching a level playing field without something new? It''s a fair point actually. I disagree with the legislation and the need for it. However, it will arguably change the situation for the better in terms of decreeing what is and isn't acceptable. RFC and its fans won't lose out there. Others will. Problem is we're then just supporting something that has been poorly presented just to make hay with Celtic and their fans. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fury 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 It''s a fair point actually. I disagree with the legislation and the need for it. However, it will arguably change the situation for the better in terms of decreeing what is and isn't acceptable. RFC and its fans won't lose out there. Others will. Problem is we're then just supporting something that has been poorly presented just to make hay with Celtic and their fans. I wouldn't support it in it's current form no matter what it achieved. However, with some proper definition of what is termed to be "offensive", even if that is under broad terms such as "support for terrorist organisations", "sectarian singing" etc then the bill would merely be rubber stamping what is already being enforced on Rangers but is not being applied across the city. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Still don't see how this bill will make it a level playing field. It is to be left to the discretion of the officer on site whether he thinks something is offensive. Unless they start acting differently nothing will change. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Why are we opposing it? Dr David McArdle talks a lot of sense in this extract from an Index on Censorship article. Dr David McArdle, from Stirling Law School, agrees that the bill would be unlikely to have much effect on freedom of speech because existing laws already govern religious hatred: “The main implication will be that those laws, in whichever form the crown uses them, will be used more robustly — more prosecutions, more custodial sentences, more football banning orders.” Additionally, he is concerned by the bill’s attempt to “criminalise” singing: “ don’t like football, I’m not religious, I’m not Scottish so for the life of me I don’t fully understand what’s going on and I wish all these people would crawl back into their respective holes, but music is an incredibly powerful social phenomenon — that’s why totalitarian regimes are most successful when they can police a culture’s music, literature or art out of existence — and for a mature democracy to seek to prevent people singing songs on the basis that others will find them distasteful or provocative isn’t a route we should be going down.” The football songs should not be taken too seriously, he says: “If you look at the most high-profile one, The Famine Song: well there’s very little in there which can be properly regarded as offensive – there’s no swearing and you hear far worse week in-week out at grounds down south.” That is not to say there aren’t problems associated with football, he adds, “but it’s in the form of domestic violence, violence against vulnerable groups, knife crime, drink driving and so on”. Alternatives to legislation McArdle believes this legislation is unnecessary. In his view, “the robust application of the existing laws in appropriate cases — and a greater degree of proactivity on the part of the clubs themselves than we have seen hitherto — should be the default position”. “We need to determine what is an appropriate response to ‘fighting words’ but yet more criminal law isn’t it. Abolishing faith-based schools would be a better long-term strategy: it’s not ok that, by the age of five, we have thousands of children every year who know that there’s us, and there’s the other lot. That’s ‘Scotland’s Shame’, and to expect football clubs to deal with the consequences of that is entirely unrealistic.” http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/08/old-firm-sectarianism-bill-a-threat-to-free-speech/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fury 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I think what the good Doctor says is quite correct, however where were all these people crying out about freedom of speech when Rangers fans were being arrested left, right and centre? I posted this on another board but these are my thoughts on this in a nutshell... My stance would be this. If I had my first choice I'd prefer that people could sing what they liked at football matches. It's a sterile arena in terms of the likelihood of any violence but obviously someone attempting violence can be dealt with anyway. However that is gone. Rangers fans are lifted for singing anything religious at all no matter how tenuous it's link to "sectarianism" might be. That is going to continue whether this bill comes into force or not. My second choice is a level playing field. At the moment Celtic fans can sing about "Huns", " FTQ" and their wide and varied repertoire of IRA songs without any fear of arrest. With some tighter definition within the bill then this can be eradicated. We still won't be able to sing The Billy Boys but we can't anyway. We still won't be able to sing FTP but we shouldn't anyway. The only difference will be that they and other fans across Scotland will be subject to the same rules. Stuart Waiton is quite right to complain about free speech. However free speech is not currently available at football in Scotland anyway. My fear is that this bill, whilst formalising a situation already in place for Rangers fans, will not necessarily deal with the issues on the other side of the city. I know Salmond came out and mentioned IRA songs specifically but I've read the bill and I don't see them mentioned anywhere in there. The Celtic supporters groups are already mobilising to stop this bill applying to them. Without it being more specific they will probably get their way again. In my opinion, rather than saying we want the bill stopped - which won't happen anyway - we should be focussing on making sure it deals properly with the "problem" the politicians feel is there. Otherwise we end up with the status quo under a new name. Does anyone really think that if this bill is defeated then everyone can go back to singing what they like? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 A bit light on info. Perhaps one of our resident trust reps could tell us a bit more? The feedback I got was that Kelly was against the bill and so is his peers out with the SNP. Anything else discussed was pretty much what we already know - it isn't needed. Obviously the fair playing field was discussed but I haven't touched on it as I've been busy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.