One Scotland, Many Cultures & 2 Tier "Justice"

[Bearman 9]

I'd rather discuss Rangers matters in 'Rangers Chat' rather than politics, but since this is what we have I'd like to moan about the buggers in government that stopped me smoking a fag in the pub and in the airport.

 

In fairness a lot of pubs accommodated the smoker by creating covered smoking areas for them, but some don't which means folk walking past as you puff away outside give you a sidestep and a dirty look.

 

Should be in the lounge this.

[D'Artagnan 173]

What you forget to mention is that he used the term some 4 years before the law was introduced, so your use of the phrase "who engages in hate speech" is at best temporally incorrect and slightly hysterical. You further suggest that he is being allowed to get off because he's an SNP member, whereas he's being treated just like any other person would be- or do you expect the SNP to expel a person for something that was perfectly legal at the time they did it?

 

I'm not suggesting the SNP is perfect, but to compare them to the unionist masters of lies, hypocricy, fear-mongering and hatred is to take a trip down the rabbit hole.

 

Thats a dangerous logic to offer as some kind of defence for his action RPB. Given that many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed.

 

I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regrad to O'Hara.

 

Furthermore, despite the presence of the relevant legislation, I dont recall its absence preventing Donald Finlay being hounded and lambasted as a "bigot"

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Thats a dangerous logic to offer as some kind of defence for his action RPB. Given that many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed.

 

Could you offer an example of these sexual offenses which were legal but which are now illegal?

I would suggest that the only dangerous thing here is comparing sexual abuse with derogatory footballing banter' date=' as misusing comparisons like that only serves to debase the currency.

 

I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regrad to O'Hara.

 

Furthermore, despite the presence of the relevant legislation, I dont recall its absence preventing Donald Finlay being hounded and lambasted as a "bigot"

 

You would think that because of your hatred of the SNP. I would disagree that just about anyone outside the poisonously claustrophobic and tiny world of SNP-hating Rangers supporters would find hypocritical the decision not to suspend someone for something which wasn't an offense when it happened.

I think most people, irrespective of party politics, would understand that the term 'hun' was and continues to be widely used by footbal fans of all teams to describe us, the fans, and Rangers, the club In the majority of cases in which the term is/was used sectarianism is not the motivating factor. Where Mr O'Hara was being sectarian when he used the term is something only he knows.

I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, since the only truly sectarian Celtic fans I have ever met have all been supporters of the unionist Labour party, which they tend to regard as 'theirs'. There is no place in the SNP for sectarianism or bigotry; something which cannot be said for either of the two main unionist parties and particularly the closet fascists of UKIP.

 

As for Findlay, there is no equivalence between the term 'hun' and the 'F' word, the use of which is always sectarian. To pretend they are equivalent terms is, at best, disingenuous.

 

In a previous thread I suggested that we had all used the F word at some point in our lives and asked Frankie who was calling for O'Hara's head (or it may have been Zappa - I forget which, since these admins all look the same to me), given this to be true, whether he would agree that his use of the term in years gone by made him unfit to be an admin of a site which represents Rangers and whose rules prohibit sectarianism.

I would ask the same question of you; if you have used the F word, doesn't that preclude you from writing blogs about Rangers? After all, if he and you are both asking for retrospective punishment for something which wasn't an offense when it was committed, shouldn't you apply the same standards to yourself?

Edited May 5, 2015 by The Real PapaBear

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I'd rather discuss Rangers matters in 'Rangers Chat' rather than politics, but since this is what we have I'd like to moan about the buggers in government that stopped me smoking a fag in the pub and in the airport.

 

In fairness a lot of pubs accommodated the smoker by creating covered smoking areas for them, but some don't which means folk walking past as you puff away outside give you a sidestep and a dirty look.

 

Should be in the lounge this.

 

The Scottish Govt leading the way again with a law that all right minded people will support.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Could you offer an example of these sexual offenses which were legal but which are now illegal?

I would suggest that the only dangerous thing here is comparing sexual abuse with derogatory footballing banter, as misusing comparisons like that only serves to debase the currency.

 

 

 

You would think that because of your hatred of the SNP. I would disagree that just about anyone outside the poisonously claustrophobic and tiny world of SNP-hating Rangers supporters would find hypocritical the decision not to suspend someone for something which wasn't an offense when it happened.

I think most people, irrespective of party politics, would understand that the term 'hun' was and continues to be widely used by footbal fans of all teams to describe us, the fans, and Rangers, the club In the majority of cases in which the term is/was used sectarianism is not the motivating factor. Where Mr O'Hara was being sectarian when he used the term is something only he knows.

I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, since the only truly sectarian Celtic fans I have ever met have all been supporters of the unionist Labour party, which they tend to regard as 'theirs'. There is no place in the SNP for sectarianism or bigotry; something which cannot be said for either of the two main unionist parties and particularly the closet fascists of UKIP.

 

As for Findlay, there is no equivalence between the term 'hun' and the 'F' word, the use of which is always sectarian. To pretend they are equivalent terms is, at best, disingenuous.

 

In a previous thread I suggested that we had all used the F word at some point in our lives and asked Frankie who was calling for O'Hara's head (or it may have been Zappa - I forget which, since these admins all look the same to me), given this to be true, whether he would agree that his use of the term in years gone by made him unfit to be an admin of a site which represents Rangers and whose rules prohibit sectarianism.

I would ask the same question of you; if you have used the F word, doesn't that preclude you from writing blogs about Rangers? After all, if he and you are both asking for retrospective punishment for something which wasn't an offense when it was committed, shouldn't you apply the same standards to yourself?

 

Dearie me RPB - you are getting yourself in something of a pickle over this. Its not that the original conduct was" legal", just that that the legislation which deals with such conduct was passed after the event.

 

As for Findlay, there is no equivalence between the term 'hun' and the 'F' word, the use of which is always sectarian. To pretend they are equivalent terms is, at best, disingenuous.

 

Do you think NBM are being "disingenuous" ?

 

http://nilbymouth.org/resources/history/

 

Or the Fiscal's who successfully sought and secured prosecutions for this term ?

[Bearman 9]

The Scottish Govt leading the way again with a law that all right minded people will support.

 

It was that Labour bloke McConnell...never ever vote Labour again.

[Bearman 9]

On the subject of the SNP...anyone else find it odd that all the other parties during the referendum told us we are 'better together' and now that Scotland (according to polls) are voting for their preference in a democratic UK vote are painting Scots as 'dangerous' folk?

 

Better together Scotland as long as you shut your effin mouth. That's not democratic.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Bearman

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Dearie me RPB - you are getting yourself in something of a pickle over this. Its not that the original conduct was" legal"' date=' just that that the legislation which deals with such conduct was passed after the event.[/quote']

 

Au contraire. Far from being in a pickle, I would seem to have identified the weakness and self-contradictory nature of your argument.

 

You suggested that my objection to retrospective punishment for a crime which did not exist at the time of the offense was 'dangerous' because "many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed." (I presume you omitted the words "prosecutions of" by mistake after "successful"?).

 

Yet, in your next post you admit that the sexual offenses were also illegal at the time they were committed. Illegal then; illegal now.

The same is NOT true of O'hara's use of 'hun'. At the time he used the term, 4 years before the law changed, it was perfectly legal to do so.

 

Thus your comparison of the term hun with sex crimes is (how can I put this?), somewhat misplaced, shalll we say?

 

I'll ask again; which legislation dealing with sexual abuse was passed after the event and what effect did this legislation have on the legality of the original abuse? And I'll add a rider; In what way is this retrospective legislation, which you yourself say had no bearing on the legality of the conduct, comparable to the passing of the SNP bill which made illegal conduct which hithertofore had been legal?

 

 

Do you think NBM are being "disingenuous" ?

 

http://nilbymouth.org/resources/history/

 

Or the Fiscal's who successfully sought and secured prosecutions for this term ?

 

Interesting to see you use NBM as a support for your argument. Who'd have thought?

 

I think NBM have an interest in seeing sectarianism under every rock; it's what they do; it's their raison d'etre. The more of it they can identify, the more necessary they are as an organisation. Call me cynical.

 

Fiscals were follow the law; they don't interpret it and thus cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

It was that Labour bloke McConnell...never ever vote Labour again.

 

oh, ok. You've convinced me.

[barca72 440]

Fiscals were follow the law; they don't interpret it and thus cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

 

RPB, do you ever feel that you are being allowed just enough rope?