One Scotland, Many Cultures & 2 Tier "Justice"

[The Real PapaBear 0]

RPB - I think you you should pratice what you preach re reading posts properly -

 

oh, but I am reading them properly. Once again, it's yourself who seems to be confused; this time between 'punishment' and 'prosecution'.

 

 

My original sentence : "If not, why should O'Hara be punished for his comments which, while stupid, were legal?"

 

Your quote : "However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted -"

 

People, yourself included, have been calling for the SNP to punish O'hara by expelling or suspending him - although failing to make a case for retrospective punishment.

Of course no one in their right minds is calling for him to be prosecuted, and I never suggested they were - which is why I have used the term 'punishment' and not 'prosecution'.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Let's get something straight first with no denying and no deflection.

Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist?

 

Stop being ridiculous and get to the point.

[barca72 440]

Stop being ridiculous and get to the point.

 

I shall not engage in a deranged dance of semantics. If we are going to have a discussion then you will have to agree on a few basic points.

First, I shall repeat the question; Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist?

[RANGERRAB 3,254]

The principle presumably being that you can be punished retrospectively if the law changes?

 

Remember Donald Findlay having to resign as Rangers chairman?

Perhaps he shouldnt have resigned then because of your 'retrospective' logic then?

[Thinker 851]

The SNP created their anti-sectarian legislation (that prohibits the use of the word hun) because they, as a party, believe such language and behaviour to be offensive.

 

The type of online behaviour O'Hara indulged in only became illegal at the time the legislation was passed (so there's no question of him being retrospectively prosecuted) but did it also only become offensive to the values of the SNP at that time? To argue that it did would seem strange. I'd have thought a political party would seek to distance themselves from any individual who has a record of indulging in behaviour that they consider so offensive they felt compelled to create legislation against it.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Thinker

[Frankie 8,146]

1. you see an inconsistency in approaching a party political debate from a party political standpoint whilst not allowing one's choice of sports team to influence one's political choice? Ehhm. OK.

 

2. Comments about Rangers being deceased or calling us huns in a football sense are stupid, but part of football 'banter' and in no way as moronic as getting involved in trying to drown out a political opponent, even though much of what Murphy was spouting was lies and fear mongering. Every time that lying toe rag opens his mouth the SNP vote increases, so the moronic part of their actions was getting involved in the first place. The only people listening to Murphy were the press and his collection of schoolkids that he carries around with him; Until the brians trust arrived there was nobody else there.

 

The entire thing was a set up designed to engender sympathy for Murphy and create an anti-nationalist backlash in his own constituency, where he is facing defeat. Otherwise, why would Murphy's campaign manager have been the one to alert the rent-a-goons to the location of his speech?

 

3. If you're going to ignore the childish posts, fine - but don't then accuse the SNP of doing nothing about them.

 

4. Perhaps it would help if you thought about the difference between 'understand' and 'excuse'. I don't excuse people who abuse others on twitter, or elsewhere for that matter, but I understand why they do it.

 

5. I have, about half a dozen times now, answered the accusations of what you and others call SNP inconsistency. If you refuse to read those, then there's nothing more I can do.

 

6. Agree entirely. And yet it is only happening among Rangers fans. AFAIK no other group of fans is allowing their sporting allegience to inform their political choice.

 

Apologies for the late reply but I don't usually post in the evenings if I can help it...

 

1. The inconsistency was that you suggested only Rangers fans were guilty of bad behaviour while ignoring and/or defending the bad behaviour of your political party. I think it was valid to highlight that.

 

2. Set-up or not (I'm not convinced by the claims there) I'm glad your criticising such behaviour. However, I'm more concerned with the background of O'Hara and the other joker who are clearly not Rangers friendly people. Like we agree, conflating football and politics may be a fool's errand but it does happen so it's worthy of criticism - SNP supporter, Rangers supporter or not.

 

3. The did nothing about the 'hun' stuff or the football 'banter'. Ignoring such stuff is fine for you or I but for those in positions of proper responsibility it shouldn't be the answer.

 

4. You do excuse it. You've done so several times with Mr O'Hara and certainly infer it's acceptable from others whilst hiding behind the it's understandable, well, excuse. Once again the SNP should lead from the front in dealing with such. Weak apologies is not that.

 

5. You've not which is why I decided to post. The SNP put together the new Act yet stand by candidates that, time limited or not, espouse the kind of crap they supposedly want to address. It's like Celtic defending their player's racist and sectarian behaviour - unhelpful and disingenuous.

 

6. Our site poll says otherwise. Imagine the SNP's lead amongst RFC fans if they dealt properly with the crap above.

[barca72 440]

The SNP created their anti-sectarian legislation (that prohibits the use of the word hun) because they, as a party, believe such language and behaviour to be offensive.

 

The type of online behaviour O'Hara indulged in only became illegal at the time the legislation was passed (so there's no question of him being retrospectively prosecuted) but did it also only become offensive to the values of the SNP at that time? To argue that it did would seem strange. I'd have thought a political party would seek to distance themselves from any individual who has a record of indulging in behaviour that they consider so offensive they felt compelled to create legislation against it.

 

There may be slight confusion here. There are two Acts to consider -

 

1. section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into effect in June 2003, the aggravation (religious or otherwise) must be taken into account when offenders are sentenced in court. - http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1003667.aspx#.VUsJcel_lD9

2. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14th December 2011 and came into force on 1st March 2012. - http://www.gov.scot/Topics/archive/law-order/sectarianism-action-1/football-violence/bill

 

Ergo, there was sufficient legislation in place when O'Hara committed his transgressions, in 2007 & 2008, to have been charged and convicted for religiously aggravated breach of the peace. I don't know what the statute of limitations on that Act are, but that is not the point. The fact that he could and should have been charged and prosecuted is.

However, since the SNP have subsequently introduced their own legislation - the OBA - this should endorse the view that a man who should have been charged with a religiously aggravated crime should not be presented as a candidate in this current election. It is cringeworthy to think that a man with this religiously aggravated attitude should be considered as a law-maker.

Maybe Rabbie had it right - "a parcel o' rogues in the nation".

[Frankie 8,146]

The SNP created their anti-sectarian legislation (that prohibits the use of the word hun) because they, as a party, believe such language and behaviour to be offensive.

 

The type of online behaviour O'Hara indulged in only became illegal at the time the legislation was passed (so there's no question of him being retrospectively prosecuted) but did it also only become offensive to the values of the SNP at that time? To argue that it did would seem strange. I'd have thought a political party would seek to distance themselves from any individual who has a record of indulging in behaviour that they consider so offensive they felt compelled to create legislation against it.

 

Like I said yesterday, because of the historic factor of the 'offence' I doubt anyone can make a strong argument for prosecuting the guy or even removing him as a candidate.

 

However, the point I and others are making is that no matter what law did or didn't exist at the time of his comments, the SNP's failure to offer more than a weak apology and the fact such a dodgy character has made it this far within the party says a lot to those affected by the slur. Juxtapose it with the other joker's new club 'banter' then it brings the party into disrepute just as much as any idiot heckling public speakers.

 

Yes, most of us are capable of separating our sporting persuasions from our politics but the point still stands - doesn't matter if it was hun, fen!an or n!gger the guy used.

[Frankie 8,146]

There may be slight confusion here. There are two Acts to consider -

 

1. section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into effect in June 2003, the aggravation (religious or otherwise) must be taken into account when offenders are sentenced in court. - http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1003667.aspx#.VUsJcel_lD9

2. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14th December 2011 and came into force on 1st March 2012. - http://www.gov.scot/Topics/archive/law-order/sectarianism-action-1/football-violence/bill

 

Ergo, there was sufficient legislation in place when O'Hara committed his transgressions, in 2007 & 2008, to have been charged and convicted for religiously aggravated breach of the peace. I don't know what the statute of limitations on that Act are, but that is not the point. The fact that he could and should have been charged and prosecuted is.

However, since the SNP have subsequently introduced their own legislation - the OBA - this should endorse the view that a man who should have been charged with a religiously aggravated crime should not be presented as a candidate in this current election. It is cringeworthy to think that a man with this religiously aggravated attitude should be considered as a law-maker.

Maybe Rabbie had it right - "a parcel o' rogues in the nation".

 

The problem was the offence would not have been reported. Not to mention the difficulty in proving his posts were sectarian.

 

Remember these same forums - as well as social media now - remain full of such insults with the vast majority going unpunished.

 

The point is the validity of his selection since and the SNP's lack of action now.

[Bluedell 5,329]

As is your portrayal of events. That was not an SNP event; it was organised by Tommy Sheridan.

 

I didn't say it was an SNP event so stop trying to deflect. The event was attended by SNP supporters and those cheering the pro-IRA band were SNP supporters.

 

It's interesting that you attempt to equate my post to the morality or those who support the IRA. Do you really think that the 2 are equivalent. Do you really think that little of criticism of the IRA?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Bluedell