Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Finding a more suitable alternative to a bad law that they want to repeal is "really creepy"?? No, making it conditional on finding other ways of tackling sectarianism is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Since no-one else has answered this, I will (apologies for the Ad lib-esque legnth). The first and last paragraph shows that his main issue is really with parliamentary democracy: That is literally the point of the opposition. "We won and they lost, they should sit down and shut the f*ck up," seems to be the underlying message. He keeps going on about people who were rejected by the electorate wanting to repeal the act, while failing to acknowledge that the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens actually represent the majority of the Scottish voting public. He brushes over all the criticism of the act in one sentence: Poorly drafted, symbolic and difficult to enforce legislation is obviously not a problem for the Rev. And by 'obstructive hostility', he's referring to this: Sheriff Maxwell Hendry said: “It is deeply flawed legislation. Sectarianism is a blight on Scottish football, a blight on Scottish life and there is an evil in football represented by sectarianism. It seems this Act was designed to try and deal with this evil. I’m not satisfied the Crown have established that any crime has been committed and accordingly I uphold the submission of no case to answer. Do not think this means I approve in any way whatsoever with conduct which is in any way sectarian in nature.†Clearly a raging anti-SNP bigot... There's also this bit: Anyone who has ever been on trains before/after a major 6 nations game could easily give a whole list of things that could be regarded as offensive and criminal under this law, if the perpetrators were football fans and not rugby supporters. If the roles were reversed, and this blog had been written by a prominent Labour blogger Wings would be tearing it to pieces. It's myopic incoherent gibberish. Fair enough. I agree that there are people who have misinterpreted the election results. The SNP got less than 50% of the vote and, rightly so, have less than 50% of the seats. Some folk seem to be having trouble coming to terms with that. I agree with the point in the article that the legislation still has overwhelming support and there are successful convictions under the act. I'm less than impressed with the subjective views of a Sheriff who seems to think age is an excuse for blatant racism. I don't know if he's anti-SNP but he may be pro-bigot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 It does mention specific areas yes, but then it throws in that final clause which covers just about anything. The 'final clause' is not so much 'what is wrong' but 'how we know it's wrong'. The 'what is wrong' is limited to the areas I mentioned. The 'how we know it's wrong' is the pernicious bit - ie 'a reasonable person would find it so' even if a 'reasonable person' was there or not. So the gist of the Act is that, during football matches, an offense takes place when someone does something within a few defined areas which could be deemed to be offensive if it could have caused a public order issue as judged by a reasonable person. I'm pretty sure I've got this right and I'm absolutely certain it's a fucking abortion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Mental how many people the parties are doing this due to some bitter hatred of the SNP and not because the legislation itself is utter shite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I'm less than impressed with the subjective views of a Sheriff who seems to think age is an excuse for blatant racism. I don't know if he's anti-SNP but he may be pro-bigot. You've literally just made this up. At no point did Sheriff Maxwell Hendry: 1. Express subjective views on the Act 2. Say or do anything that communicated a view that "age is an excuse for racism" Nil points to the geriatric again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 No, making it conditional on finding other ways of tackling sectarianism is. 😂 It's "really creepy" to suggest that it would be better to have an alternative strategy in place before repealing the law? I am lost as to what exactly is creepy in this scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Mental how many people the parties are doing this due to some bitter hatred of the SNP and not because the legislation itself is utter shite Missing a 'think' from this, chappy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 😂 It's "really creepy" to suggest that it would be better to have an alternative strategy in place before repealing the law? I am lost as to what exactly is creepy in this scenario? Because you are saying that if we don't develop a new strategy the law should remain in place. You are saying that freedom of expression should only not be interfered with if public policy objectives are first met. This puts the fundamental nature of human rights completely the wrong way round. Their existence are not contingent on displaying a public policy interest; justifying one single interference with them is contingent on displaying a public interest for that interference. There is zero public interest in the criminalisation of hate speech. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Because you are saying that if we don't develop a new strategy the law should remain in place. You are saying that freedom of expression should only not be interfered with if public policy objectives are first met. This puts the fundamental nature of human rights completely the wrong way round. Their existence are not contingent on displaying a public policy interest; justifying one single interference with them is contingent on displaying a public interest for that interference. There is zero public interest in the criminalisation of hate speech. I am not saying any of those things - you are attributing ideas to me that I haven't expressed. I said that I think it would be better (in this instance) to have some alternative plans in place (not necessarily laws) in place to address Scottish footballs problems or that repealing this law will look like exactly what it is, a move to gain popular opinion instead of a serious attempt at fixing a bad law with a credible alternative approach. I have never said it was necessary or essential to have an alternative, in order to repeal this law, or any law. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I fully expect Ad Lib to ignore that and continue down that line anyways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I am not saying any of those things - you are attributing ideas to me that I haven't expressed. I said that I think it would be better (in this instance) to have some alternative plans in place (not necessarily laws) in place to address Scottish footballs problems or that repealing this law will look like exactly what it is, a move to gain popular opinion instead of a serious attempt at fixing a bad law with a credible alternative approach. This isn't a move to gain popular opinion. 'Popular opinion' seems to support the act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 A reasonable person (possibly the wife of the referee) could easily claim that such behaviour is offensive and therefore criminal. That is not the interpretation of a reasonable person, that is a specific person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 What owners of private premises decide people should be allowed to do on their property is their business, Within the confines of the law. You cannot seriously be suggesting that things like cock-fighting, smoking, drug dealing, prostitution etc. is OK as long as it is not performed in a public venue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 That is not the interpretation of a reasonable person, that is a specific person. An independent reasonable person could also be offended by someone screaming that another individual is a f*cking penis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 The 'final clause' is not so much 'what is wrong' but 'how we know it's wrong'. The 'what is wrong' is limited to the areas I mentioned. The 'how we know it's wrong' is the pernicious bit - ie 'a reasonable person would find it so' even if a 'reasonable person' was there or not. So the gist of the Act is that, during football matches, an offense takes place when someone does something within a few defined areas which could be deemed to be offensive if it could have caused a public order issue as judged by a reasonable person. I'm pretty sure I've got this right and I'm absolutely certain it's a fucking abortion. That's not how it's been explained to me by other law folk, but If that's the case then fair enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 This isn't a move to gain popular opinion. 'Popular opinion' seems to support the act. I'm not sure it does. I think there is quite a lot of opposition to the act or at least enough for them to think action is desirable. I also think that's it's something they believe they can come in and change fairly quickly, showing that they are being dynamic and making a difference immediately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 You've literally just made this up.At no point did Sheriff Maxwell Hendry:1. Express subjective views on the Act2. Say or do anything that communicated a view that "age is an excuse for racism"Nil points to the geriatric again. Yeah he excused a taxi driver in Dundee for making racist comments based on his age. This is a guy widely known for using overtly racist language. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 An independent reasonable person could also be offended by someone screaming that another individual is a f*cking penis. Thay may well be the case but the reasonable person test is not based on any specific individual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Genuinely can't understand the mentality of anyone who would sing the Billy boys. It's fukin absurd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 (edited) Because the law should protect people from actual or threat of harm not hurt feelings and the extremely low and completely subjective barometer of "being offended". Should comedians be banned from making jokes in bad taste? Should the law intervene for people farting on trains? How about revealing clothing? Offensive behaviour should be regulated through informal societal sanctions- such as criticism, ridicule or avoidance not formal police measures. To criminalise people because you don't like what they say is an affront to any democracy. Liberal authoritarianism in action it is just Intolerance of anyone perceived to be not adhering to the liberal, middle class dominant mindset. The point is though if you are going to legislate for it then singling out one section of society only seems a ludicrous way to go about it.Sectarian and obscene behaviour happens outwith football matches - it's about time that some people realised that. Edited May 16, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.