Do as we say, not as we do on addiction

The British Medical Association has advised Celtic and Rangers to cut its ties with e-cigarettes. The clubs now both have links with E-Lites, enabling the e-cigarettes to be sold and used at matches.

Clubs have been persuaded to enforce the smoking ban at matches, even though a substantial number of fans are not standing or sitting under cover during matches. They have bought into the idea that smoking should be avoided at any cost, an ambition that e-cigarettes have attempted to capitalise on.

The clubs and companies have together formed a partnership to allow people access to a product that allows an experience mimicking smoking to be carried out at matches. It might even make the difference between some fans attending or not attending matches, But their anti-tobacco stance does not satisfy the BMA, which is interested only in complete cessation or pharmaceutical alternatives to smoking, because anything else 'encourages addiction' (why e-cigs do this more than nicotine patches is anybody's guess.

Two readers' comments seem quite apposite:

Is this the same BMA that is quite happy to give methadone to opiate misusers as it "lowers the death rate"?

The other appears in an earlier version of the story, announcing the double deal between E-Lites and both Rangers and Celtic (Herald, free registration required):

The MHRA says ecigs will be regulated as medicines in 2016 with all flavouring to be banned and strengths to be limited. It's spokesman Jeremy Mean says that no current devices would would gain medical approval (even if the importers could afford the million pound cost of licensing their device). Now ecigs have the backing of huge businesses such as Celtic and Rangers, it will be interesting to see whether the MHRA persists with its policy – a policy likely to result in tens of thousands of extra future lung cancer deaths when people find the approved devices, ironically likely to be owned by tobacco companies, unsatisfactory and switch back to tobacco [emphasis added]

The idea that medics are anxious that the economic power of Rangers and Celtic might ultimately dilute the MHRA decision on e-cigarettes is sadly believable. It makes one wonder if giving up smoking is as high up their list of priorities as they would have us believe.

Far from not wanting people addicted, it looks as if all parties are anxious to make money out of addictions, even if only to prevent their evil competitors from making money out of addictions instead!

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)

Criminalising football fans: Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill (Scotland)

Controversy continues to follow the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill 2011 on its passage through the Scottish Parliament. The essence of the Bill is to make criminal acts of songs or gestures that are perceived to threaten others at or in relation to football matches. At its root is the historically tense relationships between fans of the 'Old Firm' (Rangers and Celtic), but the terms of the Bill would apply to perceived sectarian aggression anywhere in Scotland (or even in some cases abroad, see section 7).


The Bill is vague to a fault:

(b) the behaviour— 

(i) is likely to incite public disorder, or
(ii) would be likely to incite public disorder. 

(2) The behaviour is— 
(a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on 
their membership (or presumed membership) of— 

(i) a religious group,
(ii) a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,
(iii) a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4), 

(b) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the 
individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any 
of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a), 
(c) behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in 
any of those sub-paragraphs, 
(d) behaviour that is threatening, or 
(e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

Indeed it takes the shape of an unquantifiable threat: as described here by Roger Cassidy of the Ballingry Celtic Supporters' Football Club:

Strathclyde Police Assistant Chief Constable Campbell Corrigan has recently admitted that he could not publicly state which songs would get you arrested ... In conclusion, it is this ambiguity of the draft legislation that most concerns our membership – with the possibility of a law being introduced that you won't know you're breaking until the police arrest you for it.

Opposition has come from several quarters, on the basis of civil liberties concerns and the absurdity of locking people up for singing songs. Among those expressing concern have been Index on Censorship and John Downie at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. The SCVO's line acknowledges the problem of outlawing players from crossing themselves on the pitch. However, Downie's solution to sectarianism (getting rid of denominational schools) seems at best an indirect route to addressing the issue of perceived sectarianism at football matches and at worst irrelevant or even counter-productive.

By contrast Stuart Waiton (a sociologist from Abertay University) argues that Scottish football is not the hotbed of sectarianism that promoters of the Bill make out. In the video below he gives evidence to the Justice Committee on a range of issues: people who take pleasure in taking offence, issues of incitement, to what extent sectarianism really features outside football, and what is or should constitute criminality at a football match.



Waiton welcomes the demonstrations that have so far taken place against the Bill and would like the clubs to show that the legislation isn't needed:

If Rangers and Celtic supporters, bloggers and associations came out in support, not of their own right to sing what they like, but their opponents’ right to do so, the case against the Bill would be strengthened immeasurably.

The focus of the campaign must be along these lines (a petition is also available).