Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Tory]

Any chance of answering Tory?

 

There's a difference between hatred and freedom of speech.

[Jacksgranda]

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.

 

Probably because it doesn't fit the tune.

Fifth line - "We will follow Rangers" would work better.

 

ETA: According to Solitaire there's no such team as "Glasgow Rangers", so that's maybe another reason why it never caught on...

Edited May 17, 2016 by Jacksgranda

[John Lambies Doos]

There's a difference between hatred and freedom of speech.

So which one is the Billy boys then?

[Ad Lib]

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.

No that's a ridiculous definition of unworkable. A zero percent conviction rate would be the ultimate proof of something being unenforceable, not of being unworkable.

Incidentally the presence of a prosecution rate of barely 1% is absolutely evidence that the law is both unworkable and unenforceable.

The reason people weren't arrested before was, of course, because they weren't committing a crime or because breach of the peace wasn't being enforced.

The unenforceability of breach of the peace doesn't justify the passing of another, even more unenforceable, law.

[itzdrk]

So if I were to stand up at a ground and shout "Gas The Jews" repeatedly you would find that acceptable behaviour?

In comparison to a child screaming in public at a restaurant or supermarket i would say they are around the same.

Aparently one would get arrested and the other sweets.

Edited May 17, 2016 by itzdrk

[Tory]

So which one is the Billy boys then?

 

It's a song.  The same way you're FTP and FTQ song is a song, the same way Aberdeen fans singing about Simpson halfing Durrants knee is a song, the same way Celtic fans singing about their "gallant Boaby Sands" is a song, the same way Hearts being up to their knees in Hibs blood is a song.  If you're offended by a song, I dread to think what sort of life you live.

[Ad Lib]

Such things. There was an atmosphere of hatred and that was a contributory factor.

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!111

So if I were to stand up at a ground and shout "Gas The Jews" repeatedly you would find that acceptable behaviour?

No it's completely unacceptable behaviour which is why any Club with an adequate stewarding operation would have you removed from the ground and would ban you from future games there. You are of course free to do what you like after you have been chucked out onto Firhill Road, as long as you aren't inciting public disorder.

[John Lambies Doos]

It's a song. The same way you're FTP and FTQ song is a song, the same way Aberdeen fans singing about Simpson halfing Durrants knee is a song, the same way Celtic fans singing about their "gallant Boaby Sands" is a song, the same way Hearts being up to their knees in Hibs blood is a song. If you're offended by a song, I dread to think what sort of life you live.

The song glorifies sectarian hatred.. may I suggest it's not just a song.

[Tory]

The song glorifies sectarian hatred.. may I suggest it's not just a song.

 

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. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Tory

[williemillersmoustache]

The gallant, brave, universally respected, Scotland international and double European trophy winning Neil Simpson, should not be dragged into this ridiculous conversation. Please withdraw that comment, stand in front of the mirror, give yourself a row and repeat after me:

 

"singing about an admittedly robust challenge, which was only a borderline yellow, is not the same as glorifying a foreign conflict irrelevant to Scottish society and now as culturally significant as the teletubbies. It has no place in society, and especially no place in football."

 

Then write it out 300 times, do 25 hail mary's and I think we'll be done. OK m8?

[StreetwiseHercules]

Yes. Offence should not be a crime. You don't have a right not to be offended.

I totally agree. Offensive behaviour should not be a criminal offence. Ever.

People who believe it should are dangerous.

[Tory]

The gallant, brave, universally respected, Scotland international and double European trophy winning Neil Simpson, should not be dragged into this ridiculous conversation. Please withdraw that comment, stand in front of the mirror, give yourself a row and repeat after me:

 

"singing about an admittedly robust challenge, which was only a borderline yellow, is not the same as glorifying a foreign conflict irrelevant to Scottish society and now as culturally significant as the teletubbies. It has no place in society, and especially no place in football."

 

Then write it out 300 times, do 25 hail mary's and I think we'll be done. OK m8?

 

Oh, I think you'll find he should be dragged into this because like it or lump it, singing a song praising that animals challenge on Durrant can be classed as offensive under this ridiculous law.   I wont get drawn into the rest of the bullshit in your post in this section of the forum.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Tory

[williemillersmoustache]

Oh, I think you'll find he should be dragged into this because like it or lump it, singing a song praising that animals challenge on Durrant can be classed as offensive under this ridiculous law. 

 

Scotland International, double European trophy winning, bastion of truth fair play and respect, animal in the sense he's not flora sense of the word, if you please. As utterly irrelevant to this conversation as you are still utterly seething about that strong, but probably fair challenge on Durrant. Whose career wasn't going anywhere anyway. Shame for the lad but he was a damp squib of a player, typical OF puffed up, all PR no substance type. Probably better for him that the injury happened, he should thank Neil Simpson as otherwise, we'd barely know his name.

[HaikuHibee]

I totally agree. Offensive behaviour should not be a criminal offence. Ever.

People who believe it should are dangerous.

 

No-one is saying that should be a crime. Inciting racial and sectarian violence is a crime. You can argue whether that should be a law or not.

 

Even the BNP toned down their rhetoric from the glory days of the 1980s when the Northern Irish working-class and National Front were 'expressing their freedom'. They're not stupid enough to argue that they were 'expressing their freedom'. Them and Islamic State fanatics in the UK do not even argue for a right to shout about fighting people of minority faiths. I remember folk throwing bananas on the pitch at black players. I take it that's just some lolz.

 

It is ludicrous for non-Old Firm supporters after decades of moaning in pubs about the Old Firm cashing in on Northern Irish problems to now argue that these bellends are just celebrating their freedom. The fact this 'Tory' has joined to express his displeasure at a law banning him from singing about Catholics is all you need to know. The law, flawed as it may be, has rattled them. Argue for another solution, but any non-Old Firm supporter should be ashamed of themselves for defending 'Tory's' right to be a bigot at a football match in Scotland.

Edited May 17, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[vikingTON]

Freedom of speech and freedom to offend are fundamental to any democracy. When you criminalise expression you silence dissent and any future advancement of ideas.

 

Free speech is not denied by targeting sectarian hate crime that already fell under the boundaries of BOTP legislation. And absolutely no ideas were being 'furthered' by the gormless morons who were partaking in it. Thanks for playing anyway. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by vikingTON

[RedRob72]

Hiya RedRob, hiya pal!

Hiya, whit's up?

[Ad Lib]

No-one is saying that should be a crime. Inciting racial and sectarian violence is a crime. You can argue whether that should be a law or not.

 

Even the BNP toned down their rhetoric from the glory days of the 1980s when the Northern Irish working-class and National Front were 'expressing their freedom'. They're not stupid enough to argue that they were 'expressing their freedom'. Them and Islamic State fanatics in the UK do not even argue for a right to shout about fighting people of minority faiths. I remember folk throwing bananas on the pitch at black players. I take it that's just some lolz.

 

It is ludicrous for non-Old Firm supporters after decades of moaning in pubs about the Old Firm cashing in on Northern Irish problems to now argue that these bellends are just celebrating their freedom. The fact this 'Tory' has joined to express his displeasure at a law banning him from singing about Catholics is all you need to know. The law, flawed as it may be, has rattled them. Argue for another solution, but any non-Old Firm supporter should be ashamed of themselves for defending 'Tory's' right to be a bigot at a football match in Scotland.

 

You very clearly are saying that it should be a crime if you don't support the repeal of the Act. Incitement of violence and public disorder is and always was a criminal offence long before this Act came along, and racial, sectarian and other forms of aggravation could justify harsher punishment at sentencing. Incitement isn't an exercise of freedom of expression. It doesn't actually require any words or message to be communicated. It relates to an aspect of the conduct not reliant upon the fact that words or expressions used could be or are offensive.

You are consistently and cravenly conflating being against the criminalisation of actions with people believing that they are "acceptable" or "for the lolz". Clearly there are a lot of exercises of free speech that involve the saying, doing and singing of really offensive and hurtful and discriminatory things. And society absolutely should do something about that. But it does not justify criminalising the mere act of expressing of those views, simply because it could offend people or because it would have provoked public disorder but for the fact that there was no one there to incite.

Free speech is not denied by targeting sectarian hate crime that already fell under the boundaries of BOTP legislation. And absolutely no ideas were being 'furthered' by the gormless morons who were partaking in it. Thanks for playing anyway.

If it were merely targeting things which were already crimes there would be no need to create a new criminal offence. This is obviously bollocks. We don't need to create the crime of "conducting yourself in such a way as the reasonable person would consider you to have killed another person" when "murder" and "culpable homicide" already exist.

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act is very clearly directed at expanding the scope of what constitutes a criminal offence. There are actions, both hypothetical and real actual prosecuted actions, that would not have stood-up to a charge of breach of the peace.

You are talking shite.

[HaikuHibee]

 

You very clearly are saying that it should be a crime if you don't support the repeal of the Act.

 

Which is complete nonsense.

 

Changing the law is always a last resort when society cannot or is unwilling to police itself. As I and many others have said is that you simply cannot think of a credible way to stop it that doesn't require a law change.

 

Instead of addressing that fact or blaming Rangers and Celtic fans, who are to blame for the creation of the legislation in the first place and the lack of booze at the football, you have gone on a mad libertarian rant because it is the only intellectual framework that can justify the hole you have dug for yourself.  You have labelled anyone who disagrees fascist. you have claimed TripAdvisor should sort out pubs who tolerate racism and secterianism. You have also said that this is similar to drug decriminalisation and prostitution legalisation, which is clearly bollocks. In other words, you're a gobshite.

Edited May 17, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[NotThePars]

In comparison to a child screaming in public at a restaurant or supermarket i would say they are around the same.

Aparently one would get arrested and the other sweets.

looooool

[Ad Lib]

Which is complete nonsense.

 

Changing the law is always a last resort when society cannot or is unwilling to police itself. As I and many others have said is that you simply cannot think of a credible way to stop it that doesn't require a law change.

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.

Instead of addressing that fact or blaming Rangers and Celtic fans, who are to blame for the creation of the legislation in the first place

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.

and the lack of booze at the football

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.

you have gone on a mad libertarian rant because it is the only intellectual framework that can justify the hole you have dug for yourself.  You have labelled anyone who disagrees fascist. You have also said that this is similar to drug decriminalisation and prostitution legalisation, which is clearly bollocks. In other words, you're a gobshite.

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.