RST meet with James Kelly MSP

[Zappa 0]

Chris, the bill doesn't just need tighter definition; the bill is completely outrageous. Remember what I was joking about (actually sarcastically getting at) yesterday regarding various methods of recorded material being communicated via mobile phones and soft toys? Well, those were just theoretical examples, but take a minute to read this part of the Justice Committee Report on the Bill at Stage 2 again, especially 202 which I've put in bold. -

 

Justice Committee, 1st Report, 2011 (Session 4)

 

THE SECTION 5 OFFENCE: THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS

 

Explanation of the offence

 

197. The second main element of the Bill is the new offence of threatening communications, set out at section 5 of the Bill.

 

198. The offence is committed where (a) a person communicates material to another person, and (b) one of two conditions set out in the Bill are satisfied. These are referred to as Condition A and Condition B.

 

199. The key element of Condition A is the threat of a seriously violent act. To quote from the Billâ??

 

"(2) Condition A is thatâ??

 

(a) the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person or against persons of a particular description,

 

(b) the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and

 

© the person communicating the materialâ??

 

(i) intends by doing so to cause fear or alarm, or

 

(ii) is reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm."

 

200. The key element of Condition B is religious hatred. To quote again from the Billâ??

 

"Condition B is thatâ??

 

(a) the material is threatening, and

 

(b) the person communicating it intends by doing so to stir up religious hatred."

 

201. The Bill provides for a defence to the section 5 offence "that the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable." There has been some debate as to whether this is sufficient to ensure the protection of freedom of speech, as outlined further below.

 

202. Communication in respect of the offence is defined as communication "by any means (other than by means of unrecorded speech)". "Material" is given a wide definition: "anything capable of being read, looked at, watched or listened to, either directly or after conversion from data stored in another form."

 

203. The scope of the section 5 offence is therefore significantly wider than that of the section 1 offence, in that it does not require a football connection and in that the key terms "communicate" and "material" are quite widely defined. It is also in some respects narrower, most notably in that it expressly excludes unrecorded (ie direct) speech and extends a degree of protection against religious hatred that is not expressly provided against, say, homophobic or racist hatred. The section 5 offence is not limited to internet communication (the sending of threatening mail or of a fake bomb would probably be covered by it), but we have noted a tendency to view it as "the internet offence", as opposed to "the football offence" in section 1, and this is reflected in the balance of the evidence that we have received on it.

[Zappa 0]

That means you could indeed be arrested and potentially jailed under the section 5 offence for playing a phone ringtone or other recorded material if it's deemed to satisfy anything in condition A or B.

 

Are we getting the picture yet?

[Fury 0]

Chris, the bill doesn't just need tighter definition; the bill is completely outrageous. Remember what I was joking about (actually sarcastically getting at) yesterday regarding various methods of recorded material being communicated via mobile phones and soft toys? Well, those were just theoretical examples, but take a minute to read this part of the Justice Committee Report on the Bill at Stage 2 again, especially 202 which I've put in bold. -

 

Justice Committee, 1st Report, 2011 (Session 4)

 

THE SECTION 5 OFFENCE: THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS

 

Explanation of the offence

 

197. The second main element of the Bill is the new offence of threatening communications, set out at section 5 of the Bill.

 

198. The offence is committed where (a) a person communicates material to another person, and (b) one of two conditions set out in the Bill are satisfied. These are referred to as Condition A and Condition B.

 

199. The key element of Condition A is the threat of a seriously violent act. To quote from the Bill—

 

"(2) Condition A is that—

 

(a) the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person or against persons of a particular description,

 

(b) the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and

 

© the person communicating the material—

 

(i) intends by doing so to cause fear or alarm, or

 

(ii) is reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm."

 

200. The key element of Condition B is religious hatred. To quote again from the Bill—

 

"Condition B is that—

 

(a) the material is threatening, and

 

(b) the person communicating it intends by doing so to stir up religious hatred."

 

201. The Bill provides for a defence to the section 5 offence "that the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable." There has been some debate as to whether this is sufficient to ensure the protection of freedom of speech, as outlined further below.

 

202. Communication in respect of the offence is defined as communication "by any means (other than by means of unrecorded speech)". "Material" is given a wide definition: "anything capable of being read, looked at, watched or listened to, either directly or after conversion from data stored in another form."

 

203. The scope of the section 5 offence is therefore significantly wider than that of the section 1 offence, in that it does not require a football connection and in that the key terms "communicate" and "material" are quite widely defined. It is also in some respects narrower, most notably in that it expressly excludes unrecorded (ie direct) speech and extends a degree of protection against religious hatred that is not expressly provided against, say, homophobic or racist hatred. The section 5 offence is not limited to internet communication (the sending of threatening mail or of a fake bomb would probably be covered by it), but we have noted a tendency to view it as "the internet offence", as opposed to "the football offence" in section 1, and this is reflected in the balance of the evidence that we have received on it.

 

Well this part of the bill is not that part that pertains to actually attending the football but covers, internet message boards, Twitter, Facebook etc. I was really referring more to the offensive behaviour part. It's so vague and so open to interpretation that IRA songs for example, might be covered or, despite what Salmond said in the press, might not.

[Zappa 0]

Well this part of the bill is not that part that pertains to actually attending the football but covers, internet message boards, Twitter, Facebook etc.

 

It states that a section 5 offence doesn't "require" a football connection. It's sneakily worded! Also, note section 203 of that Report extract where it states that "The section 5 offence is not limited to internet communication".

 

I was really referring more to the offensive behaviour part. It's so vague and so open to interpretation that IRA songs for example, might be covered or, despite what Salmond said in the press, might not.

 

I think that's why top catholic church guys have held private meetings with Salmond recently. They are actively lobbying (along with people like Devine) for the legislation not to specifically target Celtic fans for their so-called "political songs" and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if their wishes are met.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zappa

[Fury 0]

I think that's why top catholic church guys have held private meetings with Salmond recently. They are actively lobbying (along with people like Devine) for the legislation not to specifically target Celtic fans for their so-called "political songs" and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if their wishes are met.

 

Which is precisely my point. If this bill goes through in this vague form then it allows that kind of pressure to be exerted. The bill should be mentioning the outlawing of songs and chants in support of terrorist groups in the same way that it mentions "sectarian" chants and songs. If not then I've no doubt that it won't be applied that way.

[Zappa 0]

Which is precisely my point. If this bill goes through in this vague form then it allows that kind of pressure to be exerted. The bill should be mentioning the outlawing of songs and chants in support of terrorist groups in the same way that it mentions "sectarian" chants and songs. If not then I've no doubt that it won't be applied that way.

 

If you haven't read this latest Justice Committee report (published last week) I'm quoting from then it's here - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Reports/OFBTC_Bill_FINAL.pdf

 

Be sure to read the section named "Political sectarianism" (point numbers 154, 155, 156 & 157).

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zappa

[Fury 0]

If you haven't read this latest Justice Committee report (published last week) I'm quoting from then it's here - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Reports/OFBTC_Bill_FINAL.pdf

 

Be sure to read the section named "Political sectarianism" (point numbers 154, 155, 156 & 157).

 

Again this is my point. That language is not in the bill. The police asked for it to be clarified because at the moment they feel they can't enforce it. These are notes about the submissions. If you read the actual bill there is nothing there to cover this and people like Devine are terrified that it could (and should) be included. They want to be able to sing songs about the IRA. They've been quite explicit about that. They want to use the word "Hun". Jeanette Findlay said as much in her submission for the Celtic Supporters Trust. They want this bill to apply to us and not them and at the moment there is no language in the actual bill to ensure that does not happen.

[Zappa 0]

Again this is my point. That language is not in the bill. The police asked for it to be clarified because at the moment they feel they can't enforce it. These are notes about the submissions. If you read the actual bill there is nothing there to cover this and people like Devine are terrified that it could (and should) be included. They want to be able to sing songs about the IRA. They've been quite explicit about that. They want to use the word "Hun". Jeanette Findlay said as much in her submission for the Celtic Supporters Trust. They want this bill to apply to us and not them and at the moment there is no language in the actual bill to ensure that does not happen.

 

Exactly, but my point is that there is absolutely no way this Bill (which I have read) is going to be re-worded to specifically include definitions which target Celtic fans. That's the reason I strongly oppose the whole thing. It's a complete and utter stitch-up! It's predominantly catholic MSPs who've campaigned for measures to be taken against sectarianism for a whole decade (you can search the gov' archive for every document on file which includes the words "sectarian" and "sectarianism"). Now that they've got their way on that agenda they're campaigning that the Celtic support be practically exempt from it and allowed to continue to sing their songs about the IRA.

 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and if the Bill is passed it will NOT be of benefit to us whatsoever.

 

Interestingly though; have you read the Lord Advocate's "guidelines" document draft published last month? There's some amazingly strange contradictions in it.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zappa

[Fury 0]

Exactly, but my point is that there is absolutely no way this Bill (which I have read) is going to be re-worded to specifically include definitions which target Celtic fans. That's the reason I strongly oppose the whole thing. It's a complete and utter stitch-up! It's predominantly catholic MSPs who've campaigned for measures to be taken against sectarianism for a whole decade (you can search the gov' archive for every document on file which includes the words "sectarian" and "sectarianism"). Now that they've got their way on that agenda they're campaigning that the Celtic support be practically exempt from it and allowed to continue to sing their songs about the IRA.

 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and if the Bill is passed it will NOT be of benefit to us whatsoever.

 

Interestingly though; have you read the Lord Advocate's "guidelines" document draft published last month? There's some amazingly strange contradictions in it.

 

I haven't but I think it's interesting that Salmond came out and specifically mentioned IRA songs the other week. If they introduce this bill and then the police are still inactive on dealing with their terrorist pish then I think he's going to look very, very stupid and that isn't something he likes.

 

I think we agree on the bill in it's current form but what I'd like to know is why the RST and other supporters groups are taking the rather immature view of just opposing the bill when it's clearly going to become law? We have to influence these things not just bump our gums about how unfair it all is. The responsibility of the RST is not to uphold free speech, it's to make sure that Rangers fans at least get something out of this shambles of a bill.

[Zappa 0]

I think it's interesting that Salmond came out and specifically mentioned IRA songs the other week.

 

That was an interesting developement, but not as interesting as what followed: Link - First Minister Alex Salmond agreed to strengthen freedom of speech rights in the legislation and release data on sectarian incidents. The move came after a meeting between Mr Salmond and Philip Tagliatelle, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Paisley.

 

So the Catholic church and Catholic politicians campaign for years for measures to be taken against sectarianism, but when measures are taken and look likely to include their own kind's offensive behaviour all of a sudden there's private meetings between the First Minister and concerned Catholic bishops? Not only that, but said meeting/s end in the First Minister making agreements to ammend the Bill to strengthen freedom of speech rights in the legislation. Now THAT is interesting!

 

I think we agree on the bill in it's current form but what I'd like to know is why the RST and other supporters groups are taking the rather immature view of just opposing the bill when it's clearly going to become law? We have to influence these things not just bump our gums about how unfair it all is. The responsibility of the RST is not to uphold free speech, it's to make sure that Rangers fans at least get something out of this shambles of a bill.

 

I'm not an RST member, but I support their stance to oppose the bill. The only way we'll get anything out of this shambles is if the proposed Bill is scrapped.