Tory Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 This is a private forum, there is no free speech here. You can't use the language you used in your first post, in a similar way to how you can't use it at the football. And I think it's fair to say there is a strong suspicion that this is not your only account? Go on go for 5 posts, make hay while you can. Not that I need to explain myself to anyone, admin can check my IP address, that should confirm this is my first time on this forum. I'm a regular reader, just never joined until I read through this thread and it got my back up a little. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 The SFA for decades have said it is a matter for the police whenever they put pressure on them. The police have been given responsibility. Rangers and Celtic are decrying it as completely unfair and you have a few Unionist party hardcore that are more than happy to play to the bigot crowd to get a few votes. You have people like Ad Lib now coming up with mad arguments because they are too stupid to come up with solutions. We are actually in a terrible position now. We have Lib Dem candidate on here explaining why sectarianism is fine and any action against them constitutes fascism. We have had a parade of Unionists explaining why sectarianism is just lolz. We will get back to a situation where once in a while a Labour MP can come on TV and shake his head at the camera about how shite it is there is still 'No Irish' pubs and go back to his constituency and pretend to be a civil rights campaigner. I will blame c***s like Ad Lib, who are young and stupid. Tying to chase votes no matter the repercussions. Pat a head on a bigot, and say "no-one understands you like I do, you're a victim in all of this" - the Unionist strategy. You are quite possibly one of the densest people on this forum and that's some achievement. I did not say that "sectarianism is fine". I said that its existence does not justify the use of criminal sanctions on the exercise of freedom of expression. Obviously sectarianism isn't "fine" but the existence of problems and the failure of others to solve problems isn't, in and of itself, a justification for the state to prosecute people. I was not seriously contending that supporting this Act constitutes fascism. If you couldn't tell that that was a joke, then you're a little bit thick. I do believe, however, that it is an instance of unwarranted and substantial authoritarianism and an attack on freedom of speech, something we should value and which we should not interfere with even if and especially when it involves the communication of unpleasant, bigoted and offensive beliefs. The idea that this is "chasing votes" is laughable. As vikingTON is so eager to repeat, most Scots, when presented with a leading question saying that this legislation aims to get rid of sectarianism, say they support the Act. The defence of minorities who are persecuted by discriminatory laws is not something that wins votes. Liberal Democrats know that all too well. The reason the Scottish Government passed this legislation in a way which only targeted football fans was because they knew if they tried to pass a law that applied to everyone in the same terms, there would be massive uproar and outcry at the assault on fundamental freedoms it involved. So instead, they kept it narrow, to a group of people whose rights most people don't care about, and knew that some football fans would be inclined to support it instinctively, basically because they think this law will only affect the football fans they don't like (I.e. Old Firm fans). Instead, we've had a law that has led to prosecutions of fans of other clubs for the most benign and even non-sectarian of reasons. A Thistle fan was prosecuted for singing "Hello Hello, How do you do, We hate the boys in Royal Blue, We hate the boys in Emerald Green, so f**k your Pope and f**k your Queen" under this Act at a game at Firhill. Literally a song that is anti-sectarian. But because "the reasonable person" "could" find this "offensive" this is now a crime. But only if he's at a football stadium, or going to or from a football match. If this chap bumped into a friend on Maryhill Road, and that friend was going into town instead of to the game, and they both sang that song together, he could be charged but his friend couldn't. That is fucking nonsense to any fair minded person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Not that I need to explain myself to anyone, admin can check my IP address, that should confirm this is my first time on this forum. I'm a regular reader, just never joined until I read through this thread and it got my back up a little. Then you should know better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 .... What a load of absolute shite! See if the SNP actually cared about the people of Scotland, it would accept the democratic will of its people when 55% of the country voted to remain within the United Kingdom, instead of repeatedly calling for a second referendum and attempting to break up more families and more friendships in Scottish society. There is already a lot of hatred and animosity in Scotland over unionism and nationalism, and instead of being a party to try and build bridges, it's doing the opposite, it simply creates more divides. It's not even a political party built to care for the people of Scotland, it's an independence at all costs party, f**k the damage it causes. The comment about endanger the lives of Scottish children I had to laugh about aswell, because as I said this "party" is quite happy to do that by it's continuous beating of the independence drum. .... 5. Accepting the democratic will is one thing, and it was: after all Scotland is still a part of that benighted state. Still, they key to the democratic part of democratic will is the fact that people can change their minds and enough people keep voting for parties for whom Scottish sovereignty reposed in a Scottish state is a worthy cause. Thus the issue remains alive. Deal with it. It's only the ten commandments that are set in stone - anything else is fair game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Reasonable people don't take offence at people singing songs, tbh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tory Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 1. Every society constrains freedom of speech in some way or another in terms of how people can express an opinion on another. You should not and cannot discriminate against someone based on race, religion, gender etc. Perjorative terminology for those classes is included here. That's because while freedom of speech is integral to a functioning free society, the bar should not be set at where folk are ghettoised and the threat (if not the reality) of violence is present. That's because a free society not only requires that people can have freedom of thought and expression but also that they should be free from violence for that expression. Only by mutual respect and consent can you get a truly free society, and therefore there will always be mandated limitations on certain expressions in order to create a space where mutual respect can flourish. Your god given right to insult someone on the basis of their religious sect can go f**k itself. Violence on anyone should be punished and deservedly so. Any man women and child should be free to speak their opinion regardless of who it offends. 2. Given the unique history of each and every society it's the case that no two will ever be the same or formulate the same laws. Given the West of Scotland's unique historical ties with Northen irish politics as seen through the lens of football culture, it's inevitable that some focus will be given to that arena. Whatever you think of the law as it is today, sectarianism is an issue (though one that is thankfully less today than ever before) with very real consequences. Scotlands sectarianism issue is over exaggerated. Our problems run far beyond what someone sings for 90 minutes at a game of football. 3. The irony of your comments about a 2nd referendum being that the people most banging on about a 2nd indy ref are your mob. Davidson couldn't help but mention it every second word in an attempt to rally hard core unionists to her cause, and to be fair it worked to an extent. Do I really need to go and get the links to wee nippy bumping her gums about referendums? 4. I really can't stand the whole 'divided family' argument. It's was an honest question, asked fairly. Anyone who ended up falling out with anyone else over it is a fucknugget and you can't really legislate for that. For the most part, people were able to debate their views honestly and openly (apart from that most vicious of battlegrounds, twitter) You can't stand the divided family argument? Good for you. I can. Scotland is a divided country, anyone that can't see that is blind. We should just be thankful it's not as divided as our brother across the Irish sea. 5. Accepting the democratic will is one thing, and it was: after all Scotland is still a part of that benighted state. Still, they key to the democratic part of democratic will is the fact that people can change their minds and enough people keep voting for parties for whom Scottish sovereignty reposed in a Scottish state is a worthy cause. Thus the issue remains alive. Deal with it. Your "benighted state" comment is laughable. The issue was dealt with in September 2014, and a massive majority of Scots rejected it. Infact since then the amount of people voting SNP in subsequent elections has reduced aswell. Scotland are starting to see through the SNP's nonsense and bull. When the SNP fall in this country it will be a wonderful day for me, for Scotland and for the UK as a whole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetwiseHercules Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I am a member of the SNP and have been in favour of keeping the law on account of most people in Scotland being in favour but this morning I listened to Jeanette Findlay on Call Kaye and am persuaded by her argument. It should be repealed. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetwiseHercules Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Hey Tory, you say that Scotland is a divided country and you seem to be crying about it. I say good. Political division is entirely healthy in any democracy. What's your problem with democracy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 He's a bit like HB this boy, although plainly a bit more simple 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 As it currently stands the law is unworkable and unenforceable. It was ill-thought gesture politics at its worst. That being said - repeal of the legislation will not make one iota of a difference either. 69% of all OBFA convictions are successful. Define unworkable and unenforceable for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 5. Accepting the democratic will is one thing, and it was: after all Scotland is still a part of that benighted state. Still, they key to the democratic part of democratic will is the fact that people can change their minds and enough people keep voting for parties for whom Scottish sovereignty reposed in a Scottish state is a worthy cause. Thus the issue remains alive. Deal with it. Your "benighted state" comment is laughable. The issue was dealt with in September 2014, and a massive majority of Scots rejected it. Infact since then the amount of people voting SNP in subsequent elections has reduced aswell. Scotland are starting to see through the SNP's nonsense and bull. When the SNP fall in this country it will be a wonderful day for me, for Scotland and for the UK as a whole. Your argument is that the referendum vote in September 2014 settled forever the wishes of the Scottish people. By that logic one election is all that is needed for a UK parliament (and Scottish parliament) to last forever. Do we take the last election in May, 2015 as the 'settled will' of the UK and the May, 2016 Scottish elections as the settled will of the Scottish people? Whit dae ye say tae that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You shouldn't get a criminal record for shouting something at a football match, regardless of how offensive it is. This is what SFA/SPFL and Club bans are for. Regardless? Really? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 And what about freedom of speech that incites hatred? What are your views on this? Any chance of answering Tory? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 69% of all OBFA convictions are successful. Define unworkable and unenforceable for me. Unworkable: fails to achieve its objective of preventing the singing of sectarian songs at football matches while criminalising behaviour and leading to the prosecution of people who say sing or do things not falling within the ambit of sectarianism, the behaviour the Act intended to stamp out. Unenforceable: only a tiny minority of those breaking the law, in plain view of police officers, are arrested or charged, let alone convicted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Regardless? Really? Yes. Offence should not be a crime. You don't have a right not to be offended. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 The bill is discriminatory against football fans and was driven but political grandstanding by an egomaniac. It is totally unnecessary and was about being seen to act. It is an affront to democracy to criminalise words because you don't like them and the way it was rail tossed through the parliament was disgraceful. I thought it was driven by the media and a vocal group of supporters demanding action over such things as bullets being sent to Neil Lennon. Don't let facts get in the way of your rant though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I thought it was driven by the media and a vocal group of supporters demanding action over such things as bullets being sent to Neil Lennon. Don't let facts get in the way of your rant though.You heard it here first. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is about regulating what you can and can't send by Royal Mail 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Unworkable: fails to achieve its objective of preventing the singing of sectarian songs at football matches while criminalising behaviour and leading to the prosecution of people who say sing or do things not falling within the ambit of sectarianism, the behaviour the Act intended to stamp out. Unenforceable: only a tiny minority of those breaking the law, in plain view of police officers, are arrested or charged, let alone convicted. Unworkable: would be a 0% conviction rate. The law is workable, but needs improved. Unenforceable: more like police are unwilling to arrest anyone, which was the problem before, was it not. The "existing legislation" was not being applied either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You heard it here first. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is about regulating what you can and can't send by Royal Mail Such things. There was an atmosphere of hatred and that was a contributory factor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 You heard it here first. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is about regulating what you can and can't send by Royal Mail Such things. There was an atmosphere of hatred and that was a contributory factor. Yes. Offence should not be a crime. You don't have a right not to be offended. So if I were to stand up at a ground and shout "Gas The Jews" repeatedly you would find that acceptable behaviour? 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.