Offensive garments not allowed in the Chamber during sensitive debates

Slogan in video: Fans not criminals
Slogan in photograph: SNP Shame on you

No one expected the Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Bill not to be voted into law yesterday, and so it came to pass. The Bill was voted in this afternoon. Also:

Today, the SNP-appointed Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick instructed Parliamentary security to prevent members of FAC entering the debating chamber of the Scottish Parliament. We intended to do no more than wear t-shirts spelling out the message 'FANS NOT CRIMINALS'. 

I joined up with this group outside the Scottish Parliament. We were led to a committee room by Hugh Henry MSP, who welcomed us to the debate: several MSPs also came to this room, including some of the Bill's supporters and a lively discussion ensued – more of a shouting match. It was clear that no understanding between the two sides would result, and in any case within ten minutes it was nearly time for the stage 3 debate. The MSPs drifted off and we were about to follow, when the message reached us that people wearing garments with slogans would not be admitted to the Chamber, although they would be admitted if the garments were removed.

It remains unclear exactly what actions, songs and so forth will be criminalised by the Bill – I heard one member offering the explanation that this was 'context-dependent'. This seems to offer little assurance to fans. Opponents of the ban point out how few people have been arrested over the years. The test is whether 'reasonable people' might find specific behaviour or songs offensive. Since so few people have been arrested for so-called sectarian offences at football matches over the last 30 years, many 'reasonable people' might find it hard to identify many offensive actions or remarks. It seems that the trend is to make crimes out of actions and utterances that might have caused trouble rather than those that do cause trouble.

Scotland has recently seen the jailing of a Rangers fan for threatening communications before the Bill was even passed.

During the debate itself (videos here), I noted a point from David McLetchie MSP (18.32 minutes in). He says that government attempts to imply that opponents to the Bill are somehow in favour of offensive behaviour and sectarianism. He urges that both sides should treat each other's positions with respect. He is not the only person who has made this point in the hearings and debates leading to the passing of this Bill (see also 36.19 mins into the video). Of course such tactics are very familiar to us in the smoking debate: we are accused of being indifferent  to smoking rates, disease from smoking, discomfort from smoke, if not actually being in receipt of tobacco company payments. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terrorism," said President Bush, setting a poor example in democratic leadership, but a good example in browbeating opposition. I hope that those MSPs who feel insulted and undermined by this tactic will remember not to use it themselves in the context of the smoking debate.


Edit: Herald comment on the new Act
Coverage from Fife: Academic delivering 3,000-name petition in last-ditch bid to halt Offensive Behaviour bill
Protesters banned from chamber as SNP use majority to pass anti-bigotry bill

Protest the Offensive Behaviour at Footbill Bill

The Stage 3 debate will take place on Wednesday 14 June, in the session beginning at 2 pm. A rally is expected to gather outside the Scottish Parliament around 1 pm.

Opposition to the Bill is growing:

Number-crunching and sectarian offences in Scotland

Following a report entitled 'Religiously aggravated offending in Scotland' comes a blog post that is well worth reading, as it argues effectively against the government's case for bringing in legislation on offensive behaviour at football matches on the available evidence.

Using figures from the official report (2010–2011), Chris Graham shows how small the problem is with sectarian aggravation in Scotland, compared with other categories of hate crime. The figures run as follows:

Crimes labelled racial aggravation numbered 693 charged (compared with 6, 452 racially aggravated crimes), less 106 who were not prosecuted. Less 303 who were not found guilty, leaving 390 convictions.

Offences on police accounted for 41 per cent of all the charges. Breach of the peace, as opposed to assault, accounted for 72.5 per cent of the charges. Custodial sentences were handed down on only 70 individuals out of  693 charged.

Chris points out further that this it is very hard to define the crimes recorded as sectarian. As many people have pointed out, the word sectarian does not appear in the drafting of the Bill. As with this report, it appears that the target's religious affiliation is unimportant: it is enough that the behaviour is offensive in the eyes of a third party:

this report does not present any information about the religious beliefs or affiliations of the people targeted by the offensive conduct. The legislation defines a religiously aggravated offence as an incident where the offender evinces towards the victim “malice and ill-will based on the victim’s membership (or perceived membership) of a religious group or a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation”, or, the offence is motivated by the same. There is no data held by Police or COPFS on victims’ membership of religious or cultural groups with a perceived religious affiliation as this is not relevant to the definition of the crime in law.

Since the target's religious affiliation is irrelevant to the definition of offensive behaviour, it seems a peculiarly messy definition of a crime. It seems beyond absurd to attempt to frame a law around perceived offensive behaviour aimed at football-related sectarianism, but refuse to admit that the religious faith of the person offended against bears any weight, especially bearing in mind that nearly half of the targets were police officers. Doing this on the basis of a conviction rate of 400 convictions in a country that recorded over 150,000 crimes in 2009–2010 adds to the absurdity.

Pinning this on to football is also provoking, says Chris Graham:

Perhaps the most important statistic in relation to football and this proposed bill is that only 12.9% of these reported charges took place at football matches. So why then, Mr Salmond, do we have a bill which specifically targets football fans? Even if there was a sectarian issue in this country it certainly hasn’t been taking place predominantly at football.

It is heartening to see the level of signatures creeping up on this petition, but even more to see intelligent pieces like this from Chris Graham and more.

The new elitism, surveillance and the harm principle

More from Stuart Waiton on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill, this time writing for The Free Society. He describes how social attitudes to football fans among the chattering classes has changed:

Today we no longer have overt elitism. It is unlikely, for example, that the Times will talk about football as a ‘slum sport played in slum stadiums watched by slum people’ as they did in the 1980s. Like the modernisation of the stadiums, today’s elitism is new and shiny, and as with modern prejudices, they are not seen as such. Football fans are now racist, sectarian, homophobic and so on, and the new elite, trained in 1980s radicalism, uses the power of the state to enforce their political correctness.

We are no longer physically caged into grounds, but our mouths are increasingly being clamped shut. Authoritarianism is growing in Scotland in particular, with more fans every week being locked up for singing songs or writing offensive words online. The latest case has seen one fan, Stephen Birrell, sentenced to eight months in prison for mouthing off on the Ban Neil Lennon Facebook page about ‘fenian scum’. 

Again it appears football fans are being used as guinea pigs for policing. In the 80s CCTV was developed as a ‘response’ to fans’ behaviour, and ID cards were proposed as a way to monitor this perceived mob. Today CCTV cameras are everywhere and ID cards for everybody are on the political agenda. Joining the extensive and growing use of cameras at grounds we now have listening equipment, because modern authoritarianism is less about controlling what we do than what we say – as Stephen Birrell and others are finding to their cost.

The presence of listening equipment on the grounds is certainly an interesting phenomenon, suggesting that perceived insults are more serious than actual violence. As Dr Waiton pointed out when giving evidence to the Justice Committee, perpetrators of violence can't excuse their actions by blaming chanting by the other side.

What may have started as a legitimate excuse for concern – people's abusive behaviour to one another  – becomes an excuse for excessive social control and ultimately legislation, whether at a football match or in the wider community. During the evidence session convenor Christine Grahame MSP suggests that football matches are the 'last port for sectarianism' in Scotland (39.05 mins). By contrast, Dr Waiton suggests (extract above) that the surveillance begins at football matches and extends to the wider community.  What the drafter of the offensive football bill and the Scottish Government see as necessary legislation to sort out verbally abusive footballers, Dr Waiton sees as a testing ground for wider society, and an abandonment of the harm principle, which he explains in the evidence session.

Dr Waiton also suggests that if this is indeed the 'last port' of Scottish sectarianism and there is limited evidence of real sectarian divisions in Scottish society, then the 'problem' is simply the way footballers behave to each other everywhere. The arguments between those who 'simply want to make things better for everyone', by banning expressions of sectarianism, smoking or whatever the mood of the moment suggests, and those who oppose puritanical cleaning up efforts will probably always be with us.  Personally I prefer policies that don't  make criminals out of people pursuing everyday activities.

Rangers fan jailed for being offensive on Facebook

Before the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill has even been passed into law, a Rangers fan has been given an eight-month sentence for offensive communications on Facebook.

The most extreme thing he appears to have said is: "Hope they (Celtic fans) all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha." 


This is an imprisonable offence? Blogger Dick Puddlecote  has for some time now been collecting offensive comments about smokers, by way of evidence of social hatred whipped up as a result of governments' treatment of smokers. I can add one more from last week: 

I honestly belive (sic) that these despicable odious creatures with their fags n cans of ale, who come to sponge off the proper folk of Blackpool; produce more fatherless kids at the expense of the taxpayer need a readjustment of attitude and edification of personal their (sic) ethics through the teutonic application of ZYKLON B. Problem solved, for EVER.

This is closer to inciting murder than Birrell's wish to see Celtic fans die. The writer has suggested a weapon, not simply expressed a wish. Should we ask why Sir Hubert Obadiah Finkleton is free while Stephen Birrell languishes in jail?

We're not asking for people who say stupid things to be jailed. Although the two insults arise from different places (the animosity expressed by Finkleton wouldn't have been fashionable six years ago, whereas bad feelings between rival football fans seem to be part of the national heritage), they are both  verbal abuse. Anyone taking the life of a murder or a Celtic fan would have to take full responsibility and would not be able to hide behind the fact that someone else said they wanted the victim dead.

Before the Act is even law, they imprison somebody for saying something. This will get worse: please sign the petition against the Bill and pass it around everyone who can get more signatures.


PRESS RELEASE FROM DR STUART WAITON

Thought Crime: Is Scotland becoming the most authoritarian country in Europe?

Following the 8 months imprisonment of Stephen Birrell for making anti-Celtic comments online, Dr Stuart Waiton of Take a Liberty ( Scotland ) has demanded a review of existing legislation and called on all football fans to protest against this draconian measure.

Birrell’s lawyer Iain McLennan noted that Birrell knew his comments were offensive but was finding it hard to understand the severity of his actions. He’s not the only one.

This ruling makes a mockery of the law; the judge even noted that no specific threats to individuals were made. In essence this was a football guy mouthing off online – that’s it!

As Waiton argues

This is a political imprisonment – carried out on the back of the government’s relentless campaign against football fans. In essence Birrell has been locked up for a thought crime, for mouthing off and saying bigoted things. Are we going to arrest everyone who has said bigoted things online? Perhaps all racist or sectarian jokes online should be tracked down. After all, using the Sheriff’s arguments, these things are ‘offensive’, the imprisonment would ‘send out a message’ and for many, these jokes and comments are ‘not acceptable in a modern Scotland’.

Tragically Scotland is looking more like a pre-enlightenment fiefdom than a modern tolerant nation that has the moral capacity to deal with different viewpoints. This imprisonment is not only authoritarian but illustrates the weakness of the Scottish elites who appear to feel the need to imprison those whose ideas they dislike.

For anybody serious about challenging the criminalisation of football fans this case is important and the imprisonment must be opposed.

Stuart Waiton can be contacted on 07866 998154 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            07866 998154      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

http://takealiberty.blogspot.com/  

Sectarianism Bill

All football enthusiasts are encouraged to sign this petition from the Celtic Supporters' Association against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill:

Text of thePetition

The Celtic Supporters Association; along with the other major supporters groups; The Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters Clubs; The Green Brigade, The Association of Irish Celtic Supporters Clubs; The Celtic Trust; and The North American Federation of Celtic Supporters Clubs.

Totally oppose the proposed new legislation for tackling offensive behaviour at football matches in Scotland. We believe that ordinary Celtic Supporters will be criminalised by this legislation for doing what we have done for over 120 years.  

Every Celtic fan can play their part in opposing the new legislation by signing the online petition. In the coming weeks there will be more organised protests against the new Bill. Please sign the petition; and play your own part in stopping this draconian Bill.  

A new campaign group, Fans Against Criminalisation, has been formed by Celtic fans to campaign against the first part of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill.  

Following the so-called ‘Shame Game’ last March, the police and the Scottish Government called Celtic and Rangers to a summit to discuss a  range of societal problems they claimed football was responsible for. Since then, the ills of society have been laid at football’s door and football fans have been blamed for everything from sectarianism to drink-fuelled domestic abuse. The government and a hitherto compliant Scottish media have portrayed the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill as ‘anti-sectarian’ legislation.  

The reality is, however, very different from the political rhetoric.  

There is very little criminality at football matches – indeed, there has been no serious disorder in a Scottish stadium for over thirty years. The very small number of offences committed inside Scottish football grounds is a symptom of the nation’s wider problems with alcohol and bigotry, rather than a cause.   

The Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill does not tackle any of the nation’s problems. As a range of bodies from the Law Society to Nil By Mouth argue, there are existing laws that ably tackle sectarianism and other hate crimes. Instead, the proposed new legislation criminalises football fans for being football fans. The new law applies only to us and leaves football fans all over the country liable for arrest and imprisonment. Justice Minister Roseanna Cunningham suggests fans may be arrested for anything from making the sign of the cross to singing a national anthem. A whole range of acts routinely carried out by fans at football matches could be considered ‘offensive’. Any fan arrested under this new legislation will likely be subject to the nightmare of a football banning order and numerous court appearances before their case is even heard. Those convicted can be sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

As Celtic fans, we have even more reason to be fearful about the Bill, given Justice Committee Chair Christine Graham’s view that the law should be seen as an ‘evening-up’ process, allowing the criminal law to capture Celtic fans as well as those of our city rivals.  

Rather than any serious policy debate, the Scottish Government has instead engaged in political grandstanding. Football fans have barely been considered or their views consulted as Alex Salmond tries to accelerate the Bill onto the statute books.  

But fans will no longer remain silent on the issue and our voices must be heard. The Green Brigade’s recent protest at the Inverness match was given huge backing by the Celtic support and has been followed by similarly well-received protests at other grounds. It now also seems that other commentators and members of civil society are starting to see through the Scottish government’s rhetoric and realise that the Bill is a poorly crafted piece of legislation that is both unnecessary and undesirable.  

Fans Against Criminalisation will not allow the ills of Scottish society to be laid at the door of football fans, or football fans to be treated as second-class citizens, subject to a ludicrous law that applies only to us. We will not stand idly by as fan culture and football fans are criminalised. Over the coming weeks and months we will be mounting a campaign against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill.

Please sign and share. (There is another petition on this issue here)