New twist in bid to tackle sectarianism

[ian1964 10,413]

FOOTBALL fans who peddle internet hate will still get the red card under tough new anti-bigotry laws â?? but only if their messages are deemed to be THREATENING.

 

The change to the SNP's anti-sectarian Bill came yesterday after Nat chiefs added a clause protecting freedom of expression.

 

It now means that messages containing insults or abusing religious beliefs will NOT be against the law â?? but those considered likely to cause public disorder or threaten people WILL.

 

The clause also doesn't apply to sectarian or threatening behaviour at and around football games â?? which will also be deemed illegal.

 

Last night Community Safety Minister Roseanna Cunningham,tasked with steering the legislation through Parliament, said: "The intention of the amendment is not to prevent legitimate religion discussion and debate.

 

"It aims to prevent the kind of communication we saw last football season when individuals were threatened with serious harm.

 

"It is important that we remember that's what this is about."

 

The clause to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill was backed by MSPs on Holyrood's Justice Committee in a vote yesterday â?? despite Labour members James Kelly and Graeme Pearson REFUSING to take part.

 

It also received a lukewarm response from human rights experts.

 

But last night Shadow Justice Minister Mr Kelly again blasted the Bill â?? and called for it to be scrapped.

 

Earlier he and Mr Pearson abstained from every single vote on almost 40 amendments during the vital second of three stages needed for it to become law.

 

The move infuriated Glasgow MSP Humza Yousaf, who represents the SNP on the Justice Committee.

 

He said: "You cannot simply opt out of debating or discussing the whole of a piece of legislation, especially one as important as this.

 

"This Bill is significant and, whether people are in favour of it or opposed to it, they were let down by their Labour MSPs â?? they may as well have stayed at home."

 

But Mr Kelly defended his actions â?? and repeated his claim that the Bill was not "fit for purpose".

 

He said he abstained in protest after the Government "failed to engage" with critics about issues surrounding the legislation.

 

And he vowed his Labour colleagues would turn out in force to vote against it when it comes back for consideration in front of the whole Scottish Parliament.

 

He said: "The reason we abstained was to give ministers time to reflect on the legislation and call a halt to the Bill.

 

"As it currently stands we do not believe it is fit for purpose and Parliament should not be asked to pass bad law.

 

"We want the SNP to withdraw this Bill and take more time to discuss the problems of sectarian behaviour with all interested parties."

 

Mr Kelly's criticisms were backed by Green MSP Patrick Harvie. He said: "I'm still not convinced that this Bill can be fixed â?? its flaws are too deep.

 

"Ministers are stubbornly determined to force it through in the teeth of consistent and reasoned opposition from all quarters, inside and outside Parliament. Parliament as a whole will have one more chance to address some of the most obvious problems with it.

 

"I hope that colleagues in other parties will be ready to discuss how to achieve that before the legislation's final stage."

 

The plans were first introduced following a series of bust-ups and sectarian incidents last season which shamed Scottish football.

 

A host of Old Firm stars â?? including Celtic boss Neil Lennon â?? were also targeted in online rants by web thugs.

 

But the Bill has since faced huge opposition from football clubs, fans' group, church leaders and legal experts, who have all voiced their concerns.

 

Under it, the SNP propose two new offences.

 

The first targets sectarian and threatening behaviour at and around football matches â?? which is deemed likely to cause public disorder.

 

The second relates to threats or serious harm which are intended to stir up religious hatred on the internet or other communications.

 

Those convicted under the legislation could spend up to five years in prison â?? and be banned from football grounds.

 

Another change made by the committee widens part of the Bill to include people not necessarily travelling to a football match.

 

Last night Mairi Clare Rodgers, director of media relations for human rights campaign group Liberty, still voiced her concerns.

 

She said: "We welcome this admission from the Scottish Government that its Bill is chilling to free speech. But the offences it contains remain dangerously broad and a nightmare for police to enforce.

 

"We look forward to further sensible amendment. It's one thing to incite violence, quite another to cause offence."

 

A Rangers spokesman said: "Rangers welcomes the fact the Scottish Government has recognised legitimate freedom of expression is to be protected in the proposed new bill.

 

"We are also supportive of tackling threatening behaviour on the internet. Our overarching concern about any legislation or effort to tackle anti-social behaviour is that it is applied evenly and fairly and does not stigmatise football supporters unjustly."

 

A spokesman for Celtic said: "We have made our position quite clear and believe that the current legislation is already in place to tackle the issues which the proposed Bill aims to address."

myView

 

By COLM DEMPSEY, Defence Lawyer

 

THIS is a positive change to the Bill â?? but concerns remain as to whether it is sufficiently succinct.

 

You could still have cases where one person's freedom of expression is another person's offensive behaviour.

 

For example, songs that one person may think are political or simply an expression of freedom could be considered threatening by someone else.

 

There needs to be more clarification to eliminate any potential ambiguity.

 

These will eventually be matters for the court â?? but the more uncertainty and questions are squared away, the better.

 

 

Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3953640/New-twist-in-bid-to-tackle-sectarianism.html#ixzz1eW0htd9S

[GovanAllan 0]

I'm lost now, so I can offend someone but I can't offend them while telling him he's getting his head kicked in.

[biggordy 0]

The fact that the tims are hell bent against this bill is making me suspicious.

[biggordy 0]

Do you think kearney will be back in the news spouting his rubbish or, do you think he wishes he'd kept his mouth shirt ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3883838/Doing-the-Hokey-Cokey-could-be-hate-crime.html

[Super_Ally 0]

I live in England so can I dish out all the sectarian abuse I want online?

[der Berliner 3,245]

What is sectarian anyway?

[GovanAllan 0]

The fact that the tims are hell bent against this bill is making me suspicious.

 

Same here BG the amendments only started after fat Eck had his meeting with Bishop Pasta and the spotlight was on the Yahoos, something stinks in Holyrood.

 

I see the SNP have announced a 3mil plan to tackle the so called sectarian problem. Here's a plan for you fat Eck close the bigot factories save some money and solve the problem in one fell swoop.

[Ergatrude 0]

I think basically as long as you don't say stuff along the lines of "die you fenian/orange scumbag". Remove the word "die" and it becomes ok?

[Guest Dutchy]

It could possibly be that this Bill might be a lot of rot!

 

Probably!!!