In Defence of the Sectarianism Bill

[Martin Luther 53]

Expect to see more of this from TGFITW.

You will only see it if an undercover reporter sees it as the BBC wont show it and the papers wont write about it. Well they wont write about it as much as a big bad song sung by big bad men.

[ogbg 20]

I was at Hampden 2 years ago or so (LCF) - a 'lout' (but one of us!!) 2 rows in front on me started acting like an idiot at half time. Jumping up and down the stairs, stopping folk going for a pish, gets told by the crowd to get out of the way - so he starts jumping on the seats instead - copper tells him to calm down and sit down. "Fuck off piggy" says our lout, " I'll do what I want". Again in a calm voice the copper says "look son, calm down before you either hurt someone or cause some damage and I would need to arrest you and we dont want that" Our bold lot responds with this great rejoinder "Oink Oink, Listen to the piggy squeal" and jumps harder up and down on the seat, which cracks in two. Cop arrests him! Deserves all he got IMHO and it is only nutters like this that are likley to be affected by this new law. It wont be me or you jumping up and down (but not on the seats) when we score our next 93rd minute winner against them!

But, as your story illustrates, nutters like this were covered by the old law

[Frankie 505]

Am always quite disappointed (but not surprised) when people miss the point of stuff like this.

1. Existing laws covered much of what was being proposed here - i.e. lots of public money being spent for nothing.

2. These proposals don't discuss the wider influences on sectarianism - i.e. they don't genuinely address issue.

3. Public consultation was minimal and farcical - i.e. this flawed process doesn't account for good democracy.

Ergo, while I don't doubt that few people on this forum (or Rangers supporters generally) would have been arrested under these new legislations (or indeed the existing ones), that shouldn't stop anyone being concerned at why football is used as some sort of scapegoat for a social problem.

I'm thankful that the Rangers Assembly (and those who worked closely with them) had their eye on the ball on this occasion and have been proven right in their criticism of what was clearly a disingenuous attempt to enforce flawed politics on one small aspect of a blight in our country.

Shame on those responsible!

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

But, as your story illustrates, nutters like this were covered by the old law

Yes but those nutters who think spewing bile on here and elswhere were not covered by the old law and additionally (and I admit failing) this new law was trying to bring further definition to the 'aggrivation' element of those old laws (while expanding the punishment.) - but as I said if you act like a lout you will get done - if you are a decent citizen you wont be affected by these laws - ergo why the fuss ??

[ogbg 20]

Yes but those nutters who think spewing bile on here and elswhere were not covered by the old law and additionally (and I admit failing) this new law was trying to bring further definition to the 'aggrivation' element of those old laws (while expanding the punishment.) - but as I said if you act like a lout you will get done - if you are a decent citizen you wont be affected by these laws - ergo why the fuss ??

Legislators can never be totally sure of the consequences of a given law, regardless of their intentions, so why make new ones when the old ones suffice?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Legislators can never be totally sure of the consequences of a given law, regardless of their intentions, so why make new ones when the old ones suffice?

The old ones do not suffice - they do not cover internet threats and bile, nor do they cover 'them' and their shit - law needs a better definition - only mistake being made as far as I can see is the speed they wanted to do it - not the basic intentions..

[ogbg 20]

The old ones do not suffice - they do not cover internet threats and bile, nor do they cover 'them' and their shit - law needs a better definition - only mistake being made as far as I can see is the speed they wanted to do it - not the basic intentions..

Isn't online malicious communication covered by Breach of the Peace?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Isn't online malicious communication covered by Breach of the Peace?

Not an expert but I dont think so - and certainly the aggrivated element of that Breach of the Peace isnt as far as I am aware. Hence the desire for a law to cover it.

[Adoniram 1,919]

That story has no relevance to the point I made though has it?

For the intellectual supporter you make yourself out to be your answers on this thread prove otherwise.

[outlaw69uk 123]

The old ones do not suffice - they do not cover internet threats and bile, nor do they cover 'them' and their shit - law needs a better definition - only mistake being made as far as I can see is the speed they wanted to do it - not the basic intentions..

Neither do these! (prob why the thing has been pulled/postponed)

I am in England, Scottish Law doesnt apply, so, if "i" post on a site NOT hosted in Scotland (ie, Facebook, Twitter, most forums), and, my "intent" if for what "I" am writing to be viewed by a worldwide audience, hence, its posting on the "World wide web", and doesnt constitute a breach of the law in the country i reside, or, the country my chosen site is hosted, how do you apply a charge?

Also, a note from an MSP in response to someones query on it, in regard to cunninghams insinuation that it will be a jailable offence to sing GSTQ or Rule Britannia... in Britain!

My understanding is that two offences are being created. But none make it an offence to sing national anthems, no matter which one a person my choose to favour and give of their best rendition.

It's sectarian and bigoted behaviour that will cause the offence to be committed.

And the unfortunate (or misleading) interpretation placed on this by the media was that a person singing songs happily and without any danger to themselves or the public would be committing the offence. Not the case.

Its the bigoted behaviour that will lead to the offence being committed. And that I think will be the case no matter what a person chooses to sing at the time.

A person could sing Three Blind Mice if they want to. But if behaving in a sectarian and bigoted manner they will certainly and deservedly be arrested for that. I hope you agree. The song is not the offence. The behaviour is.

As usual the media leaps to a conclusion before bothering to find out what the bill is actually trying to do.

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Sorry but, what?? How can you define singing something in that manner? Its absolutely ridiculous, laughable and embarassing.

[nachothelegend 1,932]

We will all find out if this affects us when they start pulling people out of the Crowd and Huckling people for sining the National Anthem.

It will happen IMO and there is a hidden Sectarian agenda behind this whole rushed up Bill, taken on the word of one saintly Football manager who gets threats from individuals who probably havent even stepped inside Ibrox Last season .

You could sit in your cave in Afghanistan spewing out all sorts of vile sectarian retoric or sit in a Mosque in Finsbury Speaking Arabic and not being touched, but as soon as you post something on the Internet in Scotland which is taken as an offence to a minority, or you give an opinion on a Religouse or Political view or sing your National Anthem then you can be arrested .Time for the silent Majority to stand up and take notice .

Scotland =Nationalist, Fascist, Republican, Socialist, State .We have names for Governments who run States like this they are called Dictatorships.

God save the Queen and the Union of the United Kingdom.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Neither do these! (prob why the thing has been pulled/postponed)

I am in England, Scottish Law doesnt apply, so, if "i" post on a site NOT hosted in Scotland (ie, Facebook, Twitter, most forums), and, my "intent" if for what "I" am writing to be viewed by a worldwide audience, hence, its posting on the "World wide web", and doesnt constitute a breach of the law in the country i reside, or, the country my chosen site is hosted, how do you apply a charge?

Also, a note from an MSP in response to someones query on it, in regard to cunninghams insinuation that it will be a jailable offence to sing GSTQ or Rule Britannia... in Britain!

Sorry but, what?? How can you define singing something in that manner? Its absolutely ridiculous, laughable and embarassing.

While the internet law is impossible to implement out side of Scotland it is perfectly enforcable in Scotland and that is a start. And where I am surprised is do you reallly want Rangers (or any other) fans spewing bile and hatred, inciting deah threats and generally dragging us or football down on the 'internet' just because they can?

Do you not want the law clarified about what is and isn't sectarian aggrivation (a key point of the proposed law) - I see very few commentators on this topic saying no new law is needed, the general complaint is the speed of implimentation and that has now changed. I for one would like to see some clarity on the issue, even to the extent that at least the new laws are trying to do something about the current inequities of the law and seemed to have made the premise that certain Rangers 'songs' are secarian but Celtics rebel 'songs' are just old folk tune homilies and a bit of a 'craic'. Do you not at least want this issue clarified ?

[outlaw69uk 123]

While the internet law is impossible to implement out side of Scotland it is perfectly enforcable in Scotland and that is a start.

But its not, there in lieth the problem. I "cant" watch a Rangers game, paid for, via rangers.co.uk, and, they validate this by my IP address. I can, however, bounce my ip address to say, USA, and, watch the game. Anyone online, can mask where they are from, quite simply. Also, If I am sat in Scotland, and, I post on Twitter, a good QC will argue that I am actually (in a virtual sense) in the USA. Its not true, but, its called a technicality. I suspect half the reason its been pulled/postponed, is due to this aspect. The only place they can enforce any of it, is physically, at games etc.

And where I am surprised is do you reallly want Rangers (or any other) fans spewing bile and hatred, inciting deah threats and generally dragging us or football down on the 'internet' just because they can?

Excuse me while I "lol". Ok, where did I say this? Silly comment that was really. Can you define bile and hatred? Bile is part of your stomach, and, hatred can be normal, and, nothing wrong with it. Its all about perspective isnt it? Do I hate celtic? probably, if I think about it, and, whats wrong with that? I also hate Marmite, mushrooms and white wine. What you (and others) do, is, simply reel off buzzwords like "sectarian" and "bile" and "bigot", with no clarification of what that is. Its almost like a pavlovian response to the word Rangers fan these days, and, applies to nobody else. (see answer below for expansion)

Do you not want the law clarified about what is and isn't sectarian aggrivation (a key point of the proposed law) - I see very few commentators on this topic saying no new law is needed, the general complaint is the speed of implimentation and that has now changed. I for one would like to see some clarity on the issue, even to the extent that at least the new laws are trying to do something about the current inequities of the law and seemed to have made the premise that certain Rangers 'songs' are secarian but Celtics rebel 'songs' are just old folk tune homilies and a bit of a 'craic'. Do you not at least want this issue clarified ?

In fairness, I live in England now, where, people see it as ridiculous (if they actually notice it!) Do I want it clarified? I think everyone in Scotland does (apart from one group). But, nothing in this bill/proposal did that. Nothing. As you say, it was a key point, with no substance or clarification whatsoever! As I said above, everything in relation to this proposed change, relates to the poor downtrodden minority (ironically, one of whom I believe is now in charge of the justice system in Scotland, and, another is the public face of this bill!). Its not all encompassing, its set in motion by a man who wants to end all things British, and, have a nice separate Scotland, and, driven on by Irish republican sympathisers. Its almost laughable except for the fact its actually happening.

Should things be done about the situation? Probably, but, its absolutely NOT the priority in Scotland, its not even the priority in Glasgow! If they want to create a new law, it has to be (in the words of Craig Whyte), a level playing field, fair, and, one rule for all, which it isnt. And, without clarification of what is ok, and what isnt, then, it will never get there.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

But its not, there in lieth the problem. I "cant" watch a Rangers game, paid for, via rangers.co.uk, and, they validate this by my IP address. I can, however, bounce my ip address to say, USA, and, watch the game. Anyone online, can mask where they are from, quite simply. Also, If I am sat in Scotland, and, I post on Twitter, a good QC will argue that I am actually (in a virtual sense) in the USA. Its not true, but, its called a technicality. I suspect half the reason its been pulled/postponed, is due to this aspect. The only place they can enforce any of it, is physically, at games etc.

Excuse me while I "lol". Ok, where did I say this? Silly comment that was really. Can you define bile and hatred? Bile is part of your stomach, and, hatred can be normal, and, nothing wrong with it. Its all about perspective isnt it? Do I hate celtic? probably, if I think about it, and, whats wrong with that? I also hate Marmite, mushrooms and white wine. What you (and others) do, is, simply reel off buzzwords like "sectarian" and "bile" and "bigot", with no clarification of what that is. Its almost like a pavlovian response to the word Rangers fan these days, and, applies to nobody else. (see answer below for expansion)

In fairness, I live in England now, where, people see it as ridiculous (if they actually notice it!) Do I want it clarified? I think everyone in Scotland does (apart from one group). But, nothing in this bill/proposal did that. Nothing. As you say, it was a key point, with no substance or clarification whatsoever! As I said above, everything in relation to this proposed change, relates to the poor downtrodden minority (ironically, one of whom I believe is now in charge of the justice system in Scotland, and, another is the public face of this bill!). Its not all encompassing, its set in motion by a man who wants to end all things British, and, have a nice separate Scotland, and, driven on by Irish republican sympathisers. Its almost laughable except for the fact its actually happening.

Should things be done about the situation? Probably, but, its absolutely NOT the priority in Scotland, its not even the priority in Glasgow! If they want to create a new law, it has to be (in the words of Craig Whyte), a level playing field, fair, and, one rule for all, which it isnt. And, without clarification of what is ok, and what isnt, then, it will never get there.

.. while the internet is still relatively new (and fast paced) laws are slowly catching up with the internationalisation of the crimes perpetrated through or on that media (like dealing with pedo's whom distribute their pish through that medium) but laws will have to adopt and adapt to deal with the internet just as we have to.

I notice from your second paragraph that you are happy to be pedantic and literal to try to make your point but one of the aspects of law I like is its protection of minorities, you just see that as them which says more about you than it does them.

but where we do agree is that the ciurrent law neeeds clarification and part of the intent of these changes is to do just that.

[outlaw69uk 123]

.. while the internet is still relatively new (and fast paced) laws are slowly catching up with the internationalisation of the crimes perpetrated through or on that media (like dealing with pedo's whom distribute their pish through that medium) but laws will have to adopt and adapt to deal with the internet just as we have to.

I notice from your second paragraph that you are happy to be pedantic and literal to try to make your point but one of the aspects of law I like is its protection of minorities, you just see that as them which says more about you than it does them.

but where we do agree is that the ciurrent law neeeds clarification and part of the intent of these changes is to do just that.

No it doesnt, not in any way and its comments like that that encourage people to be pedantic, my statement is based on the word that came out of Cunninghams mouth, where it was stated (as I am sure you fully well know), that this was set up to remove the "anti-Irish Catholic bigotry in Scotland". There are COUNTLESS reports on this, and, given where this is happening, its just silly to suggest anything else. In ALL the reports, interviews, Question Time, EVERYTHING on this "law" and, this debate, please enlighten me as to which other minority has been mentioned in ANY way? You cant, because it hasnt happened. Therein lies the problem, and, basically nulls your second paragraph am afraid.

Clarification is of course required, however, a healthy dose of common sense would be far better! I take it you havent seen Michael Kellys recent comments? A Roman Catholic, former Labour Lord Provost, former Celtic majority shareholder?