Dr Waiton on Rangers, Free Speech and Sectarianism

[Zappa 0]

there is no such thing as "the catholic vote" - that's an invented bogeyman. Any study on this subject show that Catholics vote in almost exactly way and in the same proportions as the rest of society.

 

I think you're probably right under normal voting circumstances, but I'm not so sure if that will apply this year when it comes to the Scottish independence referendum.

 

I also think that if you were to look at politics in Glasgow over the past decade, there's a fairly large body of evidence to suggest that the Catholic community have repeatedly voted MPs of their own persuasion into office.

[Hildy 0]

I missed this earlier on, Hildy, but I must take issue. I'm not in any danger of being arrested for a sectarian offence anywhere near a football ground because I don't take religion into Ibrox with me; and I wouldn't get arrested elsewhere talking about it because I prefer to dismantle theological arguments by intellect rather than shouting insults.

 

Luckily, in a secular country, you can do that without being burned at the stake.

 

If we really are in more danger of being arrested at Ibrox for sectarian issues, that's a pretty damning indictment of us as fans. I can see the problems with the bill, I supported it and have watched dismayed as it is implemented in a most haphazard manner, but even if it is the worst piece of legislation in the history of the world EVER that's no excuse for dragging religion through the turnstiles.

 

On the RC Church and Scotland's legislation, the local minister in my Mum's church fought tooth and nail against the normalisation of marriage laws. She also fought and continues to fight against the ordination of gay clergy in the CoS. Ironically, it was only about a decade earlier that she, as a female, was considered good enough to preach The Word. Sauce for the goose...it's certainly not just Rome which has issues with equality, although I suspect the amount of people of that faith in the media gives them a platform far above their relevance...which, again ironically, is what they frequently accuse groups such as Stonewall Scotland of doing.

 

Finally from me, I fail to see why a political party seeking to avoid pissing off potential voters is even comment worthy. It's a charge we could lay at the feet of every party on every issue...that's how politics works. Highlighting the SNP & religious education as if it's some kind of shock is a bit disingenuous.

 

Merely joining in with the singing can mean running a heightened risk of arrest.

 

Is The Sash sectarian? A court of law decreed that it wasn't - in particular circumstances - but on another day it might be deemed to be criminal behaviour.

 

Why is there no published list of what is and isn't sectarian in the song repertoires of Rangers and Celtic fans?

 

The other lot believe that IRA utterances are not sectarian. Are they, or are they not?

 

If sectarianism is a problem, why is the state funding it in our schools? If 'right thinking' people have a problem with sectarianism, why do they tolerate it in our education system?

 

You might be unhappy at the songs sung at Ibrox and on our travels, but is criminalising people an appropriate way to change habits - or is it a clumsy and dictatorial act by a government which has no real concept of free speech and civil liberties?

 

I don't think we portray ourselves as well as we might when we sing certain songs, but I am certain that criminalising people for giving vent to songs and chants which irk 'right thinking' people is absolutely intolerable.

 

The government put bad law on the statute book.

 

It should now remove it.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

The rights and wrongs of segregated schooling to one side (and for what it's worth I am vehemently opposed to any division in sate sector schooling, be it based on religion or otherwise) there is no such thing as "the catholic vote" - that's an invented bogeyman. Any study on this subject show that Catholics vote in almost exactly way and in the same proportions as the rest of society.

 

Now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody outside the RC church is sayng that they have any right to involve themselves in gay marriages - but that's not the point. The fact is that the RC church believe they do have the right and obligation to involve themselves and so they trumpeted their opposition to the SNP legislation long, loud and hard.

If your claim that the SNP panders to the RC Church because they are scared of offending the (mythological) Catholic vote was true, then the SNP would have dropped this legislation.

However, in spite of the RC church being vehemently opposed to equal marriage, the SNP still went ahead and legalised it, How can that possibly be regarded as an "easy win" or "pandering".

 

There is a lot of Horse trading going on behind the scenes, the Catholic Church made their opposition known to gay marriage, The SNP ignored that opposition, but at the same time turns a blind eye to the apartheid schooling, i would say that's a trade off imo.

[barca72 440]

Good morning, I'm back again. Let's bring this discussion back to the point where it took off.

We had ...

Originally Posted by bluebear54

"It's a question of the tail wagging the dog. The driving factor is the self styled "Irish/Catholic" lobby.

In my opinion they are the most powerful, most organised and most motivated political force in Scotland today."

Then we had ...

Originally Posted by barca72

"Why are the Protestants lacking in leadership, organization and motivation ( sounds almost like the Rangers support ), and why are the catholics so well marshalled? Is this leadership they have, the influence of Reid?"

And Pete replies ...

"I would say it is what they are taught at school. they are taught that they are an apart race and learn to stick together and we are not really busy with those kind of lessons."

Which led to barca72 saying ...

Observing from this side of the pond, it almost appears like a have/havenot thing. We have it, they want it; they're taking it we don't care. Reid had said a while back that the time has come for them not to sit at the back of the bus anymore. It seems to me that if the non-catholic population does not waken up to this power grab then there won't be a bus.

 

Now to prevent any confusion and to restrain any more eclectic arguments, these posts were talking about the "Irish/Catholic" lobby ( they ) and the non-catholic lobby, which for want of a better word was described as Protestant ( us ).

Now Andy, whether you like it or not, the "Irish /Catholic" lobby sees only one opponent - us ( the h*ns, the non-catholic group ). 'They' considered that 'we' were oppressing them and whatever it was that 'we' had 'they' wanted it.

'They' were accepted into Scotland in a time of need and slowly but surely bettered their position in life. This is as it should be, and 'they' are to be admired for their hard work and diligence in improving their standing. However, to the dismay of the apathetic 'us', 'they' are not satisfied with middle class standing 'they' want more. Political power, no doubt.

Pete has said that "they are taught that they are an apart race", 'they' seem to take that seriously.

Who controls - GCC; many University faculties; many editorial and main stream media positions; many MP, MSP, councillor, sheriff, and mid-level management positions, charities and so many other examples? I would suggest 'they' do.

From our point of view, and more serious for 'us', 'they' control the Scottish football authorities.

Now my point was, that the same apathy that runs through general non-catholic society has caught up with us in the football world, and if we don't waken up to it, the chance to have an equal say in the governance of our football destiny may be gone forever.

I should say that just previous to posting in this thread I had been reading this article from another thread and it may have impacted my thought process ...

 

http://uk.news.yahoo...16.html#4eOqrsO

 

The equality tribunal awarded €750 to the parents of a young schoolboy who was discriminated against on religious grounds by his primary school.

The Equality Officer in the case also ordered that the Gaelscoil in question to review its policies and procedures to ensure that they are in line with the Equal Status Acts.

The case was taken against the national school in 2011 and was concluded last month.

The complainants contended that their son was discriminated against because he was of the Church of Ireland faith.

The school was set up with an Interdenominational ethos to include by the Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland faiths. The parents were told all faiths were welcome in the school and the RC and COI faiths would be actively taught.

Problems emerged in 2008 when the complainant’s class was preparing for First Communion. The parents asked if their son could sit out of practice but were told by the Principal that if he was in school he had to participate.

According to the case file, the complainant’s parents took no further issue that year as they believed the difficulties would not arise again until 6th year when there would be preparations for Confirmation. However, by Third Class, it was apparent that all pupils were required and expected to take part in choir practices for both Communion and Confirmation.

The complainant’s parents said they questioned the amount of time spent on Roman Catholic education and were told that if they did not like it, they were perfectly within their rights to remove their child from the school and enrol him in another school.

According to their complaint:

The parents questioned why only RC teaching was covered in religious education and were told by the Principal that as the RC and COI religions are 95 per cent the same that only covering the RC religion would be sufficient for both.

 

 

The schoolboy and his parents did not attend a First Communion ceremony on a Saturday in May 2009. The tribunal heard that the following Monday, the Principal visited his classroom, asked anyone who did not attend to stand at the wall, and continued to praise the sitting children, giving them two nights off homework.

The parents said their son was upset by these events and believed he had done something wrong.

In a subsequent meeting, the parents claim that the Principal told them they were part of the “rebel crowd” who broke away from the one true religion.

In its response to the complaint, the school said it rewards students who attend events outside school hours and behave in an “excellent manner”. It noted that pupils had given up their Saturday morning, with many “missing out on swimming lessons, GAA, rugby coaching or just ‘chill out’ time”.

On the day of the hearing last year, however, the Board of Management apologised to the parents in relation to the alleged treatment by the Principal, who is now currently on administrative leave.

[andy steel 0]

Now Andy, whether you like it or not, the "Irish /Catholic" lobby sees only one opponent - us ( the h*ns, the non-catholic group ). 'They' considered that 'we' were oppressing them and whatever it was that 'we' had 'they' wanted it.

 

That's just not been my experience in my life here in the West of Scotland. 'They' tend to want the same things 'we' do - a nice house, nice car, holidays and so on. Added to which is the inconvenient presence of a shit load of celtc fans who aren't either Catholic or Irish...where do they fit in to the evil East End plan for domination of this bedrizzl'd land?

 

It's fantasy, man, fantasy.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Dr Waiton: "This act makes it illegal to say anything offensive at football based on the say so of ‘right thinking people".

 

This law should be binned. It is 'mince'.

.

 

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

make it illegal to say anything offensive at football based on the say so of ‘right thinking people"

.

 

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.

[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.

 

The above is chattering class-inspired drivel, designed to criminalise people who do not deserve to be criminalised.

 

It is no wonder that the word 'mince' became associated with this ill thought-out and oppressive bunkum.

 

Graham Spiers, to his eternal shame, actually stated that there are sometimes circumstances where people's thoughts should be criminalised. This is the level that the debate has descended to, and the legislation was drafted after hearing from him and others like him.

 

It is a crass piece of hateful ignorance that should never have seen the light of day in a parliament that is too quick to legislate and too stupid to contemplate.

 

Frankly, it is an embarrassment to Scotland that it has so many elected politicians who wish to regulate and control people's lives to such a ridiculous degree.

 

This embarrassment of a law is the sum of the parts of the people who created it, and history will justifiably ridicule them for their crassness, their stupidity and their pompous intrusion.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[barca72 440]

That's just not been my experience in my life here in the West of Scotland. 'They' tend to want the same things 'we' do - a nice house, nice car, holidays and so on. Added to which is the inconvenient presence of a shit load of celtc fans who aren't either Catholic or Irish...where do they fit in to the evil East End plan for domination of this bedrizzl'd land?

 

It's fantasy, man, fantasy.

 

 

If you say so, man. Tell me though, how else do you explain the huge preponderance of of "them" in most of the bodies I mentioned before? Why are there questions being asked about the silence in the MSM, the number of Celtic ST holders on the committees dealing with the land deals, the makeup of the corrupt cabal in the SFA/SPL/SPFL, and more? It is way too large just to be an east end conspiracy.

If, as you try to portray things as being normal - people are people and want the best for their kids etc. I understand that - why are 'we' coming up on the short end of the straw while 'they' are gaining advantages all over the place? Just coincidence? I would think that there are warning signs all around and if 'we' don't get a bit more organized with a more representative political scene, this fantasy might take a different direction.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The above is chattering class-inspired drivel,

 

It may well be, but right now it's the law, not a very good law, I grant you, but the law nonetheless.

 

I assume you expressed your concerns at the time; if so it would be interesting to know what reply you received.

[ranger_syntax 4,330]

No disrespect to anyone, but monotheistic religion has bred and still breeds a very nasty variant of intolerance.* Against others, and against their own as well. It is hardly more vibrant than in Northern Ireland and also between the OF support when it comes to Catholics and Protestants, where politics and religion have been welded together for decades. It beggars belief that there is still an essentially sectarian school system about in this day and age, especially when you can actually see what it "breeds".

 

 

*No ifs and buts or pointing at other kinds of religion. You can go back 1.500 years of European history and will find Christian (and later on Muslim) intolerance nearly every century. I'm not here to blame or condemn them, but I would expect that either side of the modern day Christian divide "know their history" and act as if they too had entered the 21st century.

 

If only polytheism had better lions to throw the Christian to, er, wait . . .

 

Seriously though, you find plenty evidence of intolerance from pagans, polytheists et cetera in the ancient world and if you look around you find an increasingly intolerant streak of atheism. You also don't need to look far to find tolerant monotheists so I would say that there are plenty of ifs, ands and buts to consider before one makes such a sweeping generalisation.

 

As for the secular thing, I hate to break it to you guys, the Monarch is the head of the Church of England. We also have Bishops in the House of Lords. Apart from R.C. schools we also have, in my experience, regular visits from a minister in the so called non-denominational schools. It is going to be increasingly secular but it's not yet.