Discriminatory Singing Sanctions ââ?¬â?? Still no Clarity

[Frankie 8,151]

http://www.gersnetonline.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=422&Itemid=2

 

At last, after much rhetoric over the last few years, the SPL (in conjunction with the SFA*) is to officially introduce wide-ranging rules to combat anti-social behaviour at matches from next season. The new legislation, to be included in its constitution from August 1st, will include tough new penalties for offenders. These will include fines, annulling and replaying of fixtures, deduction of points, closing all or part of a stadium and playing matches behind closed doors, withholding the title and, ultimately, expulsion from the league.

 

Tough talking then from the authorities - however the question remains in that what exactly is anti-social behaviour?

 

Obviously it rightly includes sectarianism. Over the last few years Rangers fans especially have been vilified for such behaviour. Chants of *** and the use of the word ââ?¬Ë?******ââ?¬â?¢ have been challenged and, for the most part, wiped out in an admirable years work by the Rangers support. Being fined by UEFA in 2006 finally made the majority of the Rangers support appreciate that a small cross section were letting us (and our club) down by using outdated chants to bore other fans with non-football related nonsense. One unfortunate incident in Spain earlier this year brought the issue again to the fore and since then the Rangers support have worked together to ââ?¬Ë?self-policeââ?¬â?¢.

 

The results have been magnificent and although we�ll have to continue to work not to allow any small minority to let us down, our support deserves a lot of praise for reacting to the criticism (from the media and the authorities) so quickly and so well. Just a pity you won�t read about it any time soon from the people who wanted the improvement. However, no faux praise is required as we should be happy enough with our progress to feel comfortable that the new SPL legislation may not actually worry us more than some of the other teams in the league.

 

What also seems to be included (if you take the Scotsman article below at face value**) is offensive singing generally. Unfortunately, this is where the new legislation will really be tested. Ewing Grahame suggests that songs about ââ?¬Ë?sheep-sh#ggersââ?¬â?¢ will be punished as well as any other ââ?¬Ë?racist, sexist or violent behaviourââ?¬â?¢. This is strange as the Aberdeen fans sing about their selves in that (albeit bizarre) manner and there was little complaint in May when Neil Lennon light-heartedly used the term to describe them as they ruined his farewell speech. A contested term already and we have hardly started analysing the issue!

 

Thus, what else can be considered offensive? ââ?¬Ë?Politicalââ?¬â?¢ songs supporting terrorist organisations will obviously be high on the agenda but will the SFA be expected to ââ?¬Ë?self-policeââ?¬â?¢ the Scotland fans as they sing about Jimmy Hill being a p##f? Will the Hibs fans be in the dock for suggesting some Hearts players may be overly-friendly with their owner? Indeed, will the Edinburgh clubs no longer be able to sing about Glasgow slums when they travel west? Killie fans may also no longer wish to be ââ?¬Ë?up to their knees in Ayr bloodââ?¬â?¢.

 

Just how far will the new rules go? There is obviously a fine line between banter and ill-advised mockery of rival clubsââ?¬â?¢ backgrounds compared to genuine discrimination and prejudice. Ergo, who will decide where the line is drawn? After his embarrassing quotes of last week, can we safely assume it wonââ?¬â?¢t be new ââ?¬Ë?Honorary (sic) Vice-Chairmanââ?¬â?¢ of the SFA John McBeth? Perhaps new Chief Executive Gordon Smith will contribute? Just donââ?¬â?¢t tell the Celtic fans who have started a petition against that particular appointment (what they are doing about Eric Rileyââ?¬â?¢s loyalties isnââ?¬â?¢t known).

 

Thus, it�s vital for the credibility of any new rules that they are set out clearly beforehand. If the authorities are serious about the problem, the education of the problem fans should initially be paramount before condemnation and punishment. What songs are offensive? What chants are not acceptable? What is the punishment? Who decides? Will the fans be consulted and represented? Where do the stewards and police fit in? For this to work we have to be made aware of the banned terms and the penalties awaiting any breach.

 

What is also clear is for the legislation to be a success is that all Scottish clubs must take the directive on board and act accordingly. The Rangers support are still imperfect but their actions so far in terms of admitting they have a problem while combating it strongly via the fans working with the club are actions worthy of imitation by any other club that may face similar future problems.

 

What hasn�t been so encouraging is that while the Rangers fans have been acting positively; other supports have continued to plead their innocence from the moral high ground. Will the fans be able to rise above judgements based on one-upmanship? Or can we expect some supports to continue to be more eager to have others punished instead of facing their own problems? Can we rely on the media to be neutral in their approach or will we continue to see the irresponsible reporting that continues to increase tension instead of alleviating it?

 

Judgement Day is almost upon us. Scottish football can either lead the way in dealing with offensive behaviour or the whole issue could prove to make us a laughing stock. Can football really show society and the politicians how to remove anti-social behaviour from our country? Or will this be another case of all talk and no substance while flawed legislation ruins our game?

 

At this stage there are still far too many questions and not enough answers. The clock is ticking....

 

* - http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news.cfm?newsid=2999

 

** - http://sport.scotsman.com/football.cfm?id=866752007

[gisabeer 409]

the can of worms has been well and truely opened here. Political correctness gone mad. I shudder to think of the implications next season when they come into force. And the silence from the stands will be deafening.

[ascender 352]

I was reading about this yesterday Frankie. On one hand I couldn't believe what I was reading, but on the other, I among others, said this would happen. Lets see how smug fans of other clubs are now that the boot is on the other foot.

 

I know that Gordon Smith has said in the past that he would like clarification of exactly what can and can't be sung, so hopefully we will see some common sense coming from him.

[Trailio 0]

Correct Gisabeer "Political correctness gone mad". It's something that will be very difficult to police. For example there are certain songs that may be deemed to be offensive to one set of fans but not to another. It really depends on the interpretation of the person making the decision.

 

Eventually this pc mentality will destroy what little atmosphere remains at Scottish football matches. Fans around the country will be too uncertain as to what is deemed to be offensive so ultimately they will choose not to sing at all.

[Wija 0]

TBH idf the SFA are dealing with it, then it will not work. There must be a line drawn for all behaviour for all teams to abide by. We know this will not be the case.

[gisabeer 409]

all racial and bigotry is banned but songs of hate too. I would also think songs like "who ate all the pies" will be banned as well.

 

I can just see it, Rangers are beating celtic 2 - 1 in the final game of the season to win the league and the game gets replayed as a section of the Rangers support refered to gordon strachan as "wee chesney" in a song".

 

another nail in the coffin of the average footie supporter if you ask me.

[calscot 0]

Trouble is, that it's the complete nonces who think it's big an clever to bore people with their expression of their "political" and "religious" beliefs, who are 100% to blame.

 

I'm also a bit sick and tired of those who go on about PC gone mad when it's the liberal attitude of letting people do whatever they like that has dramatically lowered the moral and civil traditions of this country. The younger generation have such a lack of empathy and decent values that I really fear for the future for the nation.

 

It shows what a cretinous lot we have in our midst when we have to bring in more rules for decent behaviour at a football match.

 

Why are we down on the prosecutor rather than the criminal?

[bmck 117]

Trouble is, that it's the complete nonces who think it's big an clever to bore people with their expression of their "political" and "religious" beliefs, who are 100% to blame.

 

1. interesting use of the word 'nonce' there man. 2. utter tosh. even if people do cover malign interests with 'political' and 'religious' labels it doesn't mean that anything some people are bored with can just be banned.

 

I'm also a bit sick and tired of those who go on about PC gone mad when it's the liberal attitude of letting people do whatever they like that has dramatically lowered the moral and civil traditions of this country.

 

this is probably the most confused thing i've ever seen you write. when people use the term "PC Gone mad" they are advocating a specifically conservative ideal. the "liberal" attitude is the one that legislates away offense. your slagging of liberal attitudes whilst mocking the most anti-liberal phrase the media has in "PC gone mad".

 

too much health and safety legislation? PC gone mad.

too much religious tolerance? PC gone mad.

too many immigrants in the country? PC gone mad.

not offending muslims during christmas? PC gone mad.

stopping ordinary working people singing anything that may be considered offensive? PC gone mad.

 

the liberal attitude that your berating is the same attitude that gave birth to the piece of legislation you're defending.

 

further than that, it is absolute, unmitigated nonsense, that suggest a) the moral and civil traditions of this country are drastically lower, and b) that this is due to an increasingly liberal mindset.

 

or maybe you hark back to the good old conservative moral days when those nasty blacks/queers/women never had so much of a say? the old = good, modern = bad dichotomy is far too simple, especially when reduced to one issue.

 

if anything its modern capitalism and technology that has killed traditional morality/community etc. not that its all a bad thing.

 

The younger generation have such a lack of empathy and decent values that I really fear for the future for the nation.

 

get off that high-horse granda. kids are no worse now than they've ever been. there were plenty of young hoodlums when you were a kid just like there has been through the ages other than in the middle and upper classes - they just get more attention now.

 

It shows what a cretinous lot we have in our midst when we have to bring in more rules for decent behaviour at a football match.

 

the idea that we need more rules for decent behaviour at a football match has yet to be demonstrated. taking away people's right to be offensive is more offensive than any "your maw ate all the pies chant". moral crusaders are always more dangerous in the long run than the immorality they seek to eradicate. especially on something as trivial as offense caused at a football match.

 

Why are we down on the prosecutor rather than the criminal?

 

because the idea of prosecution for causing offense is, by and large, unjust.

[calscot 0]

this is probably the most confused thing i've ever seen you write.

 

It was written with a lot of irony.

 

when people use the term "PC Gone mad" they are advocating a specifically conservative ideal. the "liberal" attitude is the one that legislates away offense. your slagging of liberal attitudes whilst mocking the most anti-liberal phrase the media has in "PC gone mad".

 

I find that people who use the phrase, "pc gone mad" are the ones who are confusing their ideals. The phrase is very ironic indeed and usually used in a very badly thought out argument.

 

too much health and safety legislation? PC gone mad.

 

Great example, so many people complain about health and safety and then are outraged and in the courts if any tiny injury happens to them.

 

too much religious tolerance? PC gone mad.

 

Again the same people will complain when other religions have the temerity to self promote and disparage their own religion. They claim to have the right to do what they like but then get upset when a football association decides to do what they like and let in who they like.

 

too many immigrants in the country? PC gone mad.

 

And yet most people have immigrant ancestry and others would rather be on the dole than work in low paid jobs like cleaning, shelf stacking and barwork.

 

not offending muslims during christmas? PC gone mad.

 

And ironically that is offending Christians, but ironically again, Christmas for most is more a homage to capitalism than Christianity.

 

stopping ordinary working people singing anything that may be considered offensive? PC gone mad.

 

And yet some of the same people will beat someone up for singing something they find offensive....

 

the liberal attitude that your berating is the same attitude that gave birth to the piece of legislation you're defending.

 

That's the irony of it.

 

further than that, it is absolute, unmitigated nonsense, that suggest a) the moral and civil traditions of this country are drastically lower, and b) that this is due to an increasingly liberal mindset.

 

In my opinion the moral traditions of this country have collapsed and I wouldn't quite blame a liberal mindset, more a mindset where kids are defended for their bad behaviour instead of admonished and educated, the I'm all right jack attitude and a complete lack of empathy for other and a dearth of any community spirit.

 

or maybe you hark back to the good old conservative moral days when those nasty blacks/queers/women never had so much of a say? the old = good, modern = bad dichotomy is far too simple, especially when reduced to one issue.

 

Not at all, I don't know why that is relevant. I've always been for equality - REAL equality, but it's a word that is misused so often.

 

if anything its modern capitalism and technology that has killed traditional morality/community etc. not that its all a bad thing.

 

I would agree it has played it's part. Although sometimes I wonder - with all these films and games portraying heroes who are the good guys and the good guys usually win, how come kids now, ALWAYS want to be the bad guy?

 

get off that high-horse granda. kids are no worse now than they've ever been. there were plenty of young hoodlums when you were a kid just like there has been through the ages other than in the middle and upper classes - they just get more attention now.

 

I may be on a high horse and I do remember bad kids at school but I have no doubt that kids are the worst they have been in living memory.

 

Worst ever violence in school.

Highest levels of vandalism.

Highest levels of STD's

Highest levels of drunkenness.

Highest levels of violence outside pubs.

Highest levels of teenage pregnancies.

Highest levels of car theft for joy riding.

 

Kids are out of control and if you can't see that, then maybe you're the one in an ivory tower.

 

But it's not just the bad kids, it's the lack of good kids. When I was a kid I was reasonably respectful of adult even if nothing more than that they were bigger than me. Now the amount of times where I've had abuse from kids or stones thrown at me driving my car or on my bike is unbelievable. I can't even walk past a kid without him trying to out-stare me for some reason.

 

I've had two cars vandalised on three occasions and some kids ran over the top of another, I don't remember that happening to my parents.

 

Their attitude stinks, I was picking up some rubbish - most probably dropped by kids on a roadside path and a teenage driver beeped me and flipped me off... That's the attitude of kids these days.

 

Kids are so bad these days that I've decided completely against having any.

 

Parents on here will be thinking their kids are fine and fair enough, but it doesn't stop all those other kids who get away Scot free with crimes every day then some adult hits them for it and it's them that gets done. Kids know this and that's one of the reasons they think they can do what they like.

 

My whole point is that if people don't know how to behave in a civilised manner then they shouldn't be surprised when new rules come into force for the comfort, safety and enjoyment of others who do not want exposed to their behaviour. The reason the rules are coming in, is a reflection to me that it's a minority that misbehave. That's a relief.

 

What the minority need to do is start their own FA and league where abusing the opposition is compulsory. That will give people a choice.

 

the idea that we need more rules for decent behaviour at a football match has yet to be demonstrated. taking away people's right to be offensive is more offensive than any "your maw ate all the pies chant". moral crusaders are always more dangerous in the long run than the immorality they seek to eradicate. especially on something as trivial as offense caused at a football match.

 

There is a point there but I doubt you would want people in a party at your house, slagging off the other guests, mothers OR religions. You'd probably kick them out, and that's what football is doing.

 

My question is why are people so desperate to do this at a football match, why do they think it is so big and so clever? Why do they even try to justify it? You can question the PC'ness etc but how about questioning the strange mentality of the people that simply HAVE to do it? It's almost like a collective Tourette's syndrome.

 

Maybe I'm on a high horse but it comes from the frustration of wondering why people can't just try to get on a bit better and be a bit nicer to each other...

 

There's so much anger, hatred and maliciousness in the world that causes most of our day to day problems. Why do people want to embrace it?

 

because the idea of prosecution for causing offense is, by and large, unjust.

 

It is no less unjust than deliberately causing offence in the first place and less morally bankrupt.

 

In the end your argument seems to be that we should all do what we like, and I can see no argument form there in allowing the SFA to make their own rules, in which case, there is nothing for the anti PC brigade to complain about.

 

Therein lies the irony.

[calscot 0]

1. interesting use of the word 'nonce' there man. 2. utter tosh. even if people do cover malign interests with 'political' and 'religious' labels it doesn't mean that anything some people are bored with can just be banned.

 

In my opinion, people who can't behave in a civil manner, and who are then told and warned not to behave in a certain way on some-one's property and they continue to do so, then warned they and their team will be punished if they continue, and they continue, and they argue about how big and clever it is, to me that describes a "nonce".

 

No better than misbehaving childish brats who have to be dealt with to make them behave.