Dr Waiton on Rangers, Free Speech and Sectarianism

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Who exactly is allowing sectarianism to pass without comment TPB? From what I can gather from the various conversations so far, we all agree that sectarianism and bigotry is rife. What we don';t seem to agree on is that you seem to think it's only superficial and that it doesn't reach as far up the echelons of politics and religion as myself and others do. From the top down, the RC Church's mission in this country (and all other compliant states) is to keep the numbers up and to place it's followers in as many positions of influence as it possibly can.

 

It's not a conspiracy theory dreamed up by folk like me because of football, it's right there, in your face. If you think that religion's in this country are all altruistic benign entities then I'm afraid I have bad news for you. We're far from secular in this country, we have clergy in the House of Lords, the Queen's other title is Supreme Governor of The Church of England and those are only the high profile links. We all know that "Celtic minded" individuals have great difficulty being objective when it comes to matters of the perceived enemy.

 

So, if I can summarise; Since this country is far from secular we should all be worried about the extend of Catholic infiltration into positions of power, because the head of State is also the head of the (protestant) Church of England and the House of Lords has permanent seats for Bishops of the (Protestant) Church of England?

 

Nope, you've lost me there.

[amms 0]

I love that some people are under the misapprehension that Andy is some kind of West End lovey, cosseted away from life's harsh realities. Hah!

 

Whilst not in favour of faith schools I don't think it is fair to lay the blame for sectarianism purely at their door. I've known many Roman Catholics who don't have a bigoted bone in their bodies, likewise I've known plenty bigots who were the product of a non-denominational education. 'Catholic' schools don't create bigots, they create catholics, the two aren't synonymous you know.

 

I've issues with the funding of faith schools but I've no problem with them existing or with parents choosing to send their children there.

I see racism, misogyny and homophobia fairly regularly in Glasgow and the surrounding area, seeing as there aren't separate schools for black or Asian kids, girls or gays what are we blaming for that then?

 

As an aside I know for a fact that the prevalent view in the Church of Scotland is wariness of independence. They believe their status as the 'official' church will diminish if it comes to pass and that the current SNP 'government' is far too secular for their liking. At the same time I know individual ministers and members of the church who are strong Scottish nationalists.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I love that some people are under the misapprehension that Andy is some kind of West End lovey, cosseted away from life's harsh realities. Hah!

 

Whilst not in favour of faith schools I don't think it is fair to lay the blame for sectarianism purely at their door. I've known many Roman Catholics who don't have a bigoted bone in their bodies, likewise I've known plenty bigots who were the product of a non-denominational education. 'Catholic' schools don't create bigots, they create catholics, the two aren't synonymous you know.

 

I've issues with the funding of faith schools but I've no problem with them existing or with parents choosing to send their children there.

I see racism, misogyny and homophobia fairly regularly in Glasgow and the surrounding area, seeing as there aren't separate schools for black or Asian kids, girls or gays what are we blaming for that then?

 

As an aside I know for a fact that the prevalent view in the Church of Scotland is wariness of independence. They believe their status as the 'official' church will diminish if it comes to pass and that the current SNP 'government' is far too secular for their liking. At the same time I know individual ministers and members of the church who are strong Scottish nationalists.

 

By Andy's own admission he's middle class, no problems with that i'm middle working class with aspirations myself haha. I never knew many middle class people in Easterhouse.

[der Berliner 3,749]

So, if I can summarise; Since this country is far from secular we should all be worried about the extend of Catholic infiltration into positions of power, because the head of State is also the head of the (protestant) Church of England and the House of Lords has permanent seats for Bishops of the (Protestant) Church of England?

 

Nope, you've lost me there.

 

That indeed seems to be the case, you've lost him. The stark contrast we see right now - and let me take this stuff back towards the OF - is that football authorities and media have their very own definition of what is "sectarian"/"bigoted" or not. And we all know that the authorities are rife with the Celtic-minded (facts that can be all too easily verified). Now, I don't see a vile Catholic conspiracy hanging over Scotland or indeed Rangers. But I do see that Celtic-minded authorities - and partly the media too - is working an anti-Protestant/anti-British/anti-Rangers (in general) agenda, covered under the "sectarian" umbrella. Or, indeed, their inactivity untowards anything the Yahoos do.

 

Now, don't put the above on "gold scales" or cry paranoia. These machinations work on various levels and with various strengths. It is sure not of Illuminati-proportions, but I would assume that everyone see and is abl to judge for him-/herself what happens to us (and them) week in and week out. There sure is a glaring double standard at work, not driven by Catholics or the like, but by hardcore Yahoos. And the latter more often than not hide behind imagined religious or, as is vogue now, racist shields.

[Thinker 887]

So, if I can summarise; Since this country is far from secular we should all be worried about the extend of Catholic infiltration into positions of power, because the head of State is also the head of the (protestant) Church of England and the House of Lords has permanent seats for Bishops of the (Protestant) Church of England?

 

Nope, you've lost me there.

 

I think criticism is aimed at hierarchical religions (which would include the CofE) rather than just specifically Catholicism. I can see the point - any institution (and I'm not just talking about religious ones) that has a non-democratically-elected authority figure who tells his/her followers what they ought to believe has the potential to mess with a country's democracy - especially when the institution in question runs its own educational facilities which attempt to instil obedience from a very early age.

 

I don't think that it has anywhere near reached that point in Scotland, but on the other hand I absolutely hate the notion of indoctrination and I don't think you can classify faith schools as anything other than attempted indoctrination.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

That indeed seems to be the case, you've lost him. The stark contrast we see right now - and let me take this stuff back towards the OF - is that football authorities and media have their very own definition of what is "sectarian"/"bigoted" or not. And we all know that the authorities are rife with the Celtic-minded (facts that can be all too easily verified). Now, I don't see a vile Catholic conspiracy hanging over Scotland or indeed Rangers. But I do see that Celtic-minded authorities - and partly the media too - is working an anti-Protestant/anti-British/anti-Rangers (in general) agenda, covered under the "sectarian" umbrella. Or, indeed, their inactivity untowards anything the Yahoos do.

 

Now, don't put the above on "gold scales" or cry paranoia. These machinations work on various levels and with various strengths. It is sure not of Illuminati-proportions, but I would assume that everyone see and is abl to judge for him-/herself what happens to us (and them) week in and week out. There sure is a glaring double standard at work, not driven by Catholics or the like, but by hardcore Yahoos. And the latter more often than not hide behind imagined religious or, as is vogue now, racist shields.

 

This is what i would have liked to have said on the thread at points, if i use the word ****** i don't mean Catholics, i mean those murdering IRA supporting bassas, when i say Celtic-minded authorities i mean Celtic supporting MP's, MSP's, GCC Councillors and Mhedia types. They do what they do for Celtic not for Catholicism,. Sometimes it does run in tandem though and they work for the greater glory of both. You don't see that amongst Rangers minded and the Protest Church, least i don't see it, but i'm prepared to be corrected.

[Juancornetto 1]

So, if I can summarise; Since this country is far from secular we should all be worried about the extend of Catholic infiltration into positions of power, because the head of State is also the head of the (protestant) Church of England and the House of Lords has permanent seats for Bishops of the (Protestant) Church of England?

 

Nope, you've lost me there.

 

Secularism is not about one religion or the other, what is it you don't get about that? It makes no difference whether politicians, educators or those in offices of power follow the teachings of the Pope or Kermit the Frog, they should not use their positions to further the aims of their chosen organisation. You think that they can put aside their religion and do the job purely objectively, I disagree.

 

We should be worried about any group who abandon reason and logic in favour of a supernatural belief having any influence in any kind of office in a civilised and progressive society. Religion is a personal choice and one you can only make when you're in possession of enough knowledge to accept or reject it. Five year old kids are certainly not equipped with that yet we allow them to be indoctrinated into such an organisation for the next ten years of their lives. Madrassa's, Catholic Schools any kind of faith school is an affront to a secular society. My whole point all along is that Scotland is not a secular nation, i think I've given enough examples and information to suggest that I was 100% correct in my point.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Secularism is not about one religion or the other, what is it you don't get about that? It makes no difference whether politicians, educators or those in offices of power follow the teachings of the Pope or Kermit the Frog, they should not use their positions to further the aims of their chosen organisation. You think that they can put aside their religion and do the job purely objectively, I disagree.

 

We should be worried about any group who abandon reason and logic in favour of a supernatural belief having any influence in any kind of office in a civilised and progressive society. Religion is a personal choice and one you can only make when you're in possession of enough knowledge to accept or reject it. Five year old kids are certainly not equipped with that yet we allow them to be indoctrinated into such an organisation for the next ten years of their lives. Madrassa's, Catholic Schools any kind of faith school is an affront to a secular society. My whole point all along is that Scotland is not a secular nation, i think I've given enough examples and information to suggest that I was 100% correct in my point.

 

See, you had me with you all the way up until the last sentence. Being a secular society doesn't mean eradicating all traces of religion or religious belief from public life - it means not allowing those beliefs to influence public policy or debate so in that respect Scotland is very much a secular nation.

[Juancornetto 1]

 

Whilst not in favour of faith schools I don't think it is fair to lay the blame for sectarianism purely at their door. I've known many Roman Catholics who don't have a bigoted bone in their bodies, likewise I've known plenty bigots who were the product of a non-denominational education. 'Catholic' schools don't create bigots, they create catholics, the two aren't synonymous you know.

 

I've issues with the funding of faith schools but I've no problem with them existing or with parents choosing to send their children there.

I see racism, misogyny and homophobia fairly regularly in Glasgow and the surrounding area, seeing as there aren't separate schools for black or Asian kids, girls or gays what are we blaming for that then?

 

As an aside I know for a fact that the prevalent view in the Church of Scotland is wariness of independence. They believe their status as the 'official' church will diminish if it comes to pass and that the current SNP 'government' is far too secular for their liking. At the same time I know individual ministers and members of the church who are strong Scottish nationalists.

 

Catholic schools create Catholics, spot on. Non denominational schools produce young adults who have grown up mixing with and playing with other young adults on the street and on social media but who, because of the vociferous and aggressively insular nature of their parents religion have been segregated and educated at a Catholic school.

 

It took me many years to reconcile this in my own mind and to see the other guys and girls who I grew up with but who were segregated along religious lines as completely the same as me The inverse of this is also true, and they too had to reconcile the fact that they had been taught purposely or not that they were in some way different.

 

Human nature is hard wired to fear those who you perceive as different, it's an evolutionary trait that kept one tribe or culture safe from another potentially hostile one. Worldwide we have problems with groups of one race, religion or background discriminating against one another. If we could remove the biggest veil of difference our children are placed under we could side-step that process.

[Hildy 0]

.

 

Dr Waiton is well known for his extreme views; indeed it is my belief that he was only invited to give evidence in the Committee stage of the Bill so as to strengthen the SG case.

 

But it is very disappoining, if we was quoted correctly, to find an academic bending the truth to support his argument. The act does not.

 

It only makes it illegal if the behaviour "is likely to incite public disorder"

 

To constitute an offence the behaviour has to be:

 

(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),

 

©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.

 

So it is not "anything offensive" nor is it in the eyes of the so called "right thinking people".

 

Of course there are issues with what a court will consider falling within the list of offensive behaviours especially when it comes to one song or another (though the Lord Advocate did publish guidance) and there certainly is an issue about what constitutes "a reasonable person". As I said to the Minister at the time, in Scotland it may not be the proverbial "man on the no.9 Clapham omnibus"; but it was obvious that the SG did not want a tighter definition and the Law has suffered from that without a doubt.

 

However, as I said earlier in the thread I am 99% sure it will not be repealed; if anything it will be strengthened in the light of case law.

 

Today's interesting new development, and it's a very welcome one from Celtic Football Club:

 

 

Celtic FC have set themselves on a collision course with the Scottish Government after an early review of controversial laws intended to stamp out religious sectarian abuse was rejected as "nonsensical".

 

The club issued a sternly worded statement on Tuesday evening after MSP Roseanna Cunningham rejected suggestions at Holyrood that the review should be brought forward from the deadline, due in August 2015.

 

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act received Royal Assent in January 2012 and an agreement was made at the time to review the offences after two full football seasons but Celtic says the laws are "unhelpful" and should be reviewed now "as a matter of urgency".

 

The club statement said: "Celtic have called for a review of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Grounds Act to be brought forward and have labelled it 'unhelpful and counter-productive'.

 

"The Scottish Government introduced the legislation in 2012 and promised a review after two full football seasons of operation. However, Celtic believe that there is already sufficient evidence of the Act's 'unhelpfulness and negative impacts' to justify an immediate review with action to follow.

 

"Celtic have all along opposed this legislation which has been used to create a general presumption that different laws should apply to football supporters as distinct from society as a whole.

 

"This has inevitably led to a sense of discrimination across Scottish football and has brought the law into disrepute when tested in the criminal courts. It has also acted as a barrier to our own efforts to encourage supporters to behave in a way which is consistent with the club's proud history and reputation.

 

"We believe the Scottish Government should review, as a matter of urgency, the way in which this unhelpful and counter-productive Act is operating."

 

The club said they have always valued a positive relationship with the police and is concerned that they have been put in the position of enforcing legislation which is "provocative and does not command widespread respect".

 

They say that the Act has brought the law into disrepute and to report back to Parliament one year later, but concerns have since been raised by fans about police tactics and the Act in general.

 

Minister for community safety Roseanna Cunningham had earlier insisted that the review would not be moved from August 2015, when Stirling University researchers are due to publish findings.

 

She told MSPs on Holyrood's Justice Committee: "Until August 2014, they haven't got all the information. It's at that point they start to be doing all the analysis of the two full years work.

 

"We are now a good two years down the line from this being implemented and we're coming close to the end of that two-year review period the Act provided for.

 

"I just don't really see any great need for that to be changed. I couldn't now step in and ask them to do something differently to what they've been instructed.

 

"That process, because it's being done independently, because it's being done through Stirling University, is going to give a proper, comprehensive, quality-assured, evidence-based evaluation which will be — I hesitate to say incontrovertible, because nothing is ever incontrovertible — but it will be as solid a piece of work as you could possibly expect."

 

Asked if anything could happen before the 2015 deadline, such as in interim report, she replied: "No, it would be nonsensical to do something while this review was ongoing when we know the review is going to be published — they're the independent researchers, they're the ones that will be able to tell us something needs to be tweaked or not."

 

The legislation gives police and prosecutors new powers to tackle sectarian songs and abuse at and around football matches, as well as threats posted on the internet or through the mail. It created two distinct offences, punishable through a range of penalties up to a maximum five years in prison and an unlimited fine.