Thumper Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I honestly don't think it'll get repealed. It doesn't make any sort of electoral sense to repeal a popular piece of legislation: nor does it help the Greens at all to support repeal based on the merits of said legislation when the people proposing it are doing it for no reason other than craven political calculation. If said legislation could be altered so as only to criminalise misspelled political banners at games, though, this would still directly target the Green Brigade while leaving the theoretical Motherwell and Partick fans Cat Boyd always invoked instead of her own lot. I'd support that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I honestly don't think it'll get repealed. It doesn't make any sort of electoral sense to repeal a popular piece of legislation: nor does it help the Greens at all to support repeal based on the merits of said legislation when the people proposing it are doing it for no reason other than craven political calculation. If said legislation could be altered so as only to criminalise misspelled political banners at games, though, this would still directly target the Green Brigade while leaving the theoretical Motherwell and Partick fans Cat Boyd always invoked instead of her own lot. I'd support that. Criminalisation of spelling. Magnificent. I like the cut of your jib, Sir! Own up. How many times did you read that post to be absolutely certain there were no spelling errors? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) No. Changing the law is not always a justifiable last resort. There are aspects of a liberal democracy which should never be infringed upon regardless of the social problems that exist in a territory. You manage to be wrong on additional levels here. There is no evidence that: 1. We are at the last resort 2. That the law even as the last resort has in fact successfully "policed" where society was "unable" or "unwilling" We do not need to solve sectarianism. I would like us to, but we do not "need" to. It is not as great a moral imperative as the protection of the founding values of a liberal democratic society, including that freedom of speech should prevail over censorship on the basis of offence alone. There is no evidence that this law does anything whatsoever to "solve" sectarianism. The burden of proof to justify its repeal, therefore, is not whether there is a non-legislative solution to sectarianism. This imposes a double-standard that is plain for anyone to see. I categorically blame Rangers and Celtic for perpetuating and sustaining sectarianism in our society. I also blame the footballing authorities for not punishing clubs harshly enough if they fail to remove and ban supporters who sing sectarian songs. They are absolutely to blame for a lot of things. But they are not to blame for the totally unwarranted, disproportionate and cynical something-must-be-done criminalisation of football fans. The fault for that lies squarely with those who voted for the legislation. I've consistently blamed Rangers and Celtic for creating the over-zealous licencing laws for football stadiums. I've called for the booze ban to be rolled back and for decisions to be made for licences on a case-by-case, game-by-game basis, in consultation with the Police. But I am not interested in feeling morally superior over Rangers and Celtic fans for the sake of it. That's a criminally low bar for our society to set itself (in this case, actually rather than merely figuratively). I'm interested in protecting freedoms first and foremost. That's what any self-respecting liberal does. There is nothing "libertarian" about my argument. It is as classically liberal an argument for free speech as you will ever find. Libertarians would oppose the criminalisation of incitement. I don't. I categorically support it. You have got yourself into the silliest of twists over me, jokingly calling people fascists. Absolutely everyone on the thread could see that it wasn't serious, it appears, except for you. On drug decriminalisation and prostitution I answered a very simple question from strichner who asked if those things should be legal in private places. I said they absolutely should be legal in private places. I don't think the state should be allowed to criminalise indiscriminately the selling or buying of drugs or sex. Even if someone can construct a public order justification for these things being banned in public places, which on balance I don't think can be supported, that is not a justification for criminalising them in private places. Which was the original point. And of course I'm a gobshite. 99% of the people on here are gobshites. You are a gobshite. 99% of people on here, don't 'call for things' or 'categorically support' anything. It takes a special kind of gobshite to do so. As for we don't 'need' to solve sectarianism. It's just a strawman. You don't really believe the police should passively tolerate people throwing bananas at black players. There is nothing 'classically liberal' about that position. In fact, it is the opposite of being liberal. The fact of the matter is that your position is all over the place, and you are standing hand in hand with the far-right zoomer brigade because the SNP are in government. The legislation has brought out a huge range of Old Firm fans who are furious at the law. If the law does nothing, why are they so raging? Edited May 17, 2016 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) 99% of people on here, don't 'call for things' or 'categorically support' anything. It takes a special kind of gobshite to do so. As for we don't 'need' to solve sectarianism. It's just a strawman. You don't really believe the police should passively tolerate people throwing bananas at black players. There is nothing 'classically liberal' about tolerating that kind of behaviour. In fact, it is the opposite of being liberal. The fact of the matter is that your position is all over the place, and you are standing hand in hand with the far-right zoomer brigade because the SNP are in government. The legislation has brought out a huge range of Old Firm fans who are furious at the law. If the law does nothing, why are they so raging? For one criticising straw men, you're good at raising straw men. Throwing a banana at a black player is a racially aggravated assault. That's a crime. The police should arrest and charge someone for doing that. Even if it weren't a crime, any self-respecting football club should have that person removed from their stadium. With police assistance if they resist. The law does worse than nothing. It actively criminalises people that shouldn't be criminalised and it fails completely to tackle its principal objective. ETA: indeed, the consistent application of it to absurd situations gives rise to a grievance culture that allows actual sectarian bigots to play the victim. That harms our ability to stamp out sectarian singing, violence and attitudes. Edited May 17, 2016 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Even if it weren't a crime, any self-respecting football club should have that person removed from their stadium. With police assistance if they resist. Right, and if clubs refuse to do so, you are arguing we should just shrug our shoulders. You don't really believe that. See this major issue of sectarianism anyway? How does it manifest itself in Scottish society? Where is the great social harms that are being caused by it? A large group of fat men, drunk chanting about how they hate Irish people. What harms are caused by that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Right, and if clubs refuse to do so, you are arguing we should just shrug our shoulders. You don't really believe that. If a Club refuses to remove someone who throws a banana onto the pitch in such a way as it cannot be construed as an "assault" within the meaning of the law, and in a way which also does not constitute a "racially aggravated breach of the peace" for which the police should alternatively arrest the individual, then there is no function for the police in that situation. The football authorities should impose points penalties and force the club to play games behind closed doors, and individual fans should boycott the club, but if no crime is committed and the club does not seek the removal of the person from the ground, and the police have no reason to believe that public safety or order is at risk by allowing the individual to stay in the ground, then the police shouldn't do anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Much like how every conversation with a Celtic fan about the naughty songs act starts with them saying "this has nothing to do with Bobby Sands" and goes within five minutes to "what's wrong with singing about Bobby Sands anyway", Ad Lib is now arguing against the existence of any hate crime legislation in principle. The free market will definitely solve that in a sane time frame, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergie's no1 fan Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 What offends you about the song? Are you offended when your fellow supporters sing a song about fucking the pope and the Queen? Oh and both are just songs. The difference between me calling a Morton fan a Greenock b'stard or a Morton fan calling me a Paisley b'stard is after the game it's all over and done with. On the day of Old Firm games the bile spills into the pubs and clubs all over the country and a wives all over the country walk into countless doors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) Anyone who thinks that singing songs about spilling catholic blood should not be forcefully and legally banned is a fukin dick.. end of, it's incitement of hatred and truly appalling. I'm ashamed that so called people on this forum think otherwise. Sad inditement of Scottish society Edited May 17, 2016 by John Lambies Doos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMDP Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 This thread is a good example of what StandFree was talking about regarding Ad Lib on the "Posters You Would Ban" thread. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) 69% of all OBFA convictions are successful. Define unworkable and unenforceable for me. And how many others who should be prosecuted are not? Edited May 17, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Hullo Hullo We are the Rangers Boys Hullo Hullo You'll know us by our noise We'll give anything to see our team, At Ibrox or away For we are the Glasgow Rangers Boys Never quite caught on despite the club's best efforts. Oh sweet Jesus. That would make American soccer chanters who heard it cringe and feel embarrassed for the folks singing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Oh sweet Jesus. That would make American soccer chanters who heard it cringe and feel embarrassed for the folks singing it. No it wouldn't. Anyone that has been to an MLS game will have heard much more cringeworthy chants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Much like how every conversation with a Celtic fan about the naughty songs act starts with them saying "this has nothing to do with Bobby Sands" and goes within five minutes to "what's wrong with singing about Bobby Sands anyway", Ad Lib is now arguing against the existence of any hate crime legislation in principle. The free market will definitely solve that in a sane time frame, of course. Again, you're simply wrong. I am not against the existence of hate crimes. I completely agree with sectarianism and racism being aggravating factors for breach of the peace, assault, and inciting both of the same. What I oppose is the criminalisation of offensive words and actions on the grounds that they are offensive alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 So called people? 😂😂 Are you a bigoted clown also? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Anyone who thinks that singing songs about spilling catholic blood should not be forcefully and legally banned is a fukin dick.. end of, it's incitement of hatred and truly appalling. I'm ashamed that so called people on this forum think otherwise. Sad inditement of Scottish society I assume you are absolutely outraged by the anti-English chants from the Tartan Army? Have you self-policed these people, on any visits to Hampden? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I assume you are absolutely outraged by the anti-English chants from the Tartan Army? Have you self-policed these people, on any visits to Hampden? What about people that got utterly humiliated on a public forum,that have to re register under another username and pretend its not them?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I assume you are absolutely outraged by the anti-English chants from the Tartan Army? Have you self-policed these people, on any visits to Hampden? And what would these specific chants be.. I'm very pro English btw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) And what would these specific chants be.. I'm very pro English btwOne would be a homophobic chant about Jimmy Hill. Another would be accusing Alan Shearer of paedophilia.And there's 'If you hate the fucking English clap your hands' I have heard Scottish fans sing all three. As well as 'I'd rather wear a turban than a rose' Is this where you claim you are astonished at the very suggestion? Are you claiming, very specifically, that you haven't heard offensive chants about specific Englishmen, and about English people, from Scotland fans? Yes. Or No? And is this a 'sad indictment of Scottish society?' Do you wish the Tartan Army to be given criminal convictions? And not just for crimes against fashion. Edited May 17, 2016 by ScotSquid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 "Very specifically " 😂 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.