One Scotland, Many Cultures & 2 Tier "Justice"

[D'Artagnan 173]

are you surprised that you, as a leading figure in a Rangers community that is seen as aligning itself with British nationalism, loyalism and reactionary politics and which is vocal in its detestation for, in no particular order, Alex salmond, the SNP, Scotland and independence, are subject to abuse yourself?

 

1. It appears to makes an assumption that all members of the Rangers community, particularly the more high profile members of that community, are aligned with British Nationalism/Loyalism/Reacionary Politics & hatred of the SNP etc and thus unprovoked abuse should come as no surprise ie almost akin to guilty by association.

 

2. It completely disregards the diverse nature of our support in terms of political allegiance - which was well illustrated in the Book Born Under a Union Flag.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

1. There was no dig - just a valid and necessary pointing out of inconsistency.

 

2. I wasn't talking about them per se but the people discussed in the original post and this thread (not all of which I've read right enough). Would you agree O'Hara and the fella dismissing RFC's proud history are equally moronic. Yet they weren't suspended? I guess some members are dispensable....

 

3. I've no time to send on daft folk's childish tweets that are easily ignored. A bit like naughty songs at football matches that we waste millions of pounds on via flawed SNP legislation on what I feel is an exaggerated issue. Again, this is where Professor Bruce's comments are valid taking us back to the original post again.

 

4. My Twitter account and/or this website has no (or at least the bare minimum) political allegiances so, while I may not be surprised at people's immediate prejudice therein, I am disappointed by it no matter where it originates. Moreso when it's echoed and excused by our own fans.

 

5. Now, more and more people may well be voting SNP and/or favouring independence. That's fine and that's why democracy is our system of choice. However, that doesn't answer the points I made about the SNP's lack of consistency in some matters. Perhaps you should stand as a candidate given your ability to avoid rebutting in full?

 

6. Again, I've no specific gripe against the SNP and have tried my best to avoid the political intrigue of late on the forum, but it's a shame political allegiance seems to be conflating itself more with football. That reflects badly on all of us and it's not going to end well IMHO.

 

 

1. you see an inconsistency in approaching a party political debate from a party political standpoint whilst not allowing one's choice of sports team to influence one's political choice? Ehhm. OK.

 

2. Comments about Rangers being deceased or calling us huns in a football sense are stupid, but part of football 'banter' and in no way as moronic as getting involved in trying to drown out a political opponent, even though much of what Murphy was spouting was lies and fear mongering. Every time that lying toe rag opens his mouth the SNP vote increases, so the moronic part of their actions was getting involved in the first place. The only people listening to Murphy were the press and his collection of schoolkids that he carries around with him; Until the brians trust arrived there was nobody else there.

 

The entire thing was a set up designed to engender sympathy for Murphy and create an anti-nationalist backlash in his own constituency, where he is facing defeat. Otherwise, why would Murphy's campaign manager have been the one to alert the rent-a-goons to the location of his speech?

 

3. If you're going to ignore the childish posts, fine - but don't then accuse the SNP of doing nothing about them.

 

4. Perhaps it would help if you thought about the difference between 'understand' and 'excuse'. I don't excuse people who abuse others on twitter, or elsewhere for that matter, but I understand why they do it.

 

5. I have, about half a dozen times now, answered the accusations of what you and others call SNP inconsistency. If you refuse to read those, then there's nothing more I can do.

 

6. Agree entirely. And yet it is only happening among Rangers fans. AFAIK no other group of fans is allowing their sporting allegience to inform their political choice.

Edited May 6, 2015 by The Real PapaBear

[barca72 440]

You would think that because of your hatred of the SNP. I would disagree that just about anyone outside the poisonously claustrophobic and tiny world of SNP-hating Rangers supporters would find hypocritical the decision not to suspend someone for something which wasn't an offense when it happened.

I think most people, irrespective of party politics, would understand that the term 'hun' was and continues to be widely used by footbal fans of all teams to describe us, the fans, and Rangers, the club In the majority of cases in which the term is/was used sectarianism is not the motivating factor. Where Mr O'Hara was being sectarian when he used the term is something only he knows.

I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, since the only truly sectarian Celtic fans I have ever met have all been supporters of the unionist Labour party, which they tend to regard as 'theirs'. There is no place in the SNP for sectarianism or bigotry; something which cannot be said for either of the two main unionist parties and particularly the closet fascists of UKIP.

 

As for Findlay, there is no equivalence between the term 'hun' and the 'F' word, the use of which is always sectarian. To pretend they are equivalent terms is, at best, disingenuous.

 

 

Au contraire. Far from being in a pickle, I would seem to have identified the weakness and self-contradictory nature of your argument.

 

You suggested that my objection to retrospective punishment for a crime which did not exist at the time of the offense was 'dangerous' because "many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed." (I presume you omitted the words "prosecutions of" by mistake after "successful"?).

 

Yet, in your next post you admit that the sexual offenses were also illegal at the time they were committed. Illegal then; illegal now.

The same is NOT true of O'hara's use of 'hun'. At the time he used the term, 4 years before the law changed, it was perfectly legal to do so.

 

Fiscals were follow the law; they don't interpret it and thus cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

 

 

I would offer you this blog; detailing and bemoaning the facts of a case concerning the word 'hun' - and as you can see it comes from a CFC-supporting blog

 

http://www.celtic-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/scottish_football_fans_must_beware_of_the_hword_police_413448/index.shtml

 

"dirty horrible huns" - the words on a tee-shirt worn by the youth

 

"religiously aggravated breach of the peace" - what the sheriff found him guilty of

 

"the hun hordes have succesfully won their fight to have the term 'hun' deemed sectarian by the law of the land" - the author's conclusion.

 

This all took place in 2008, four years before the Act came in.

 

Now, remind me again if O'Hara said what he said in 2007 or 2008, or if he still supports a team, the fans of whom, weekly chant this kind of word at almost every game. This means that the laws were there and in effect when O'Hara used the language he did. Why he was not prosecuted , who knows?

 

I would remind you of D'Art's statement -

"I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regard to O'Hara."

 

A few weeks ago the SFA, have now officially stated that the use of the word 'hun' is offensive.

Whether O'Hara used the term 8 years ago, last week or perhaps one day in in the future in parliament; he like you, will still remember what he thinks in his mind when the term is remembered.

[WATP_Greg 0]

it really does not mean that at all. For heaven's sake, I've been a Rangers supporter for longer than most on here and an SNP supporter for almost all of my adult life - are you saying I think I should be abused by fellow SNP members?

 

The fact is that the vocal element of the Rangers support, the ones chanting about sticking independence up your arse, hating alex salmond or throwing bottles in George Square and waving fascist and loyalist flags get up the noses of the vast majority of the wider non-Rangers aligned population. Until we recogise that, and unless those of us of a different political mind set make our voices heard then it can be no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush.

 

I never stated that you said we should be abused - but instead that we should expect to be abused. Which is what it appeared you suggested.

 

Further your second paragraph above puts the blame of others bigotry and hypocrisy in our own court ('no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush').

 

I don't believe that pandering to extremists helps anyone, and I don't think its acceptable to tar hundreds of thousands of people - that is discrimination.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

1. It appears to makes an assumption that all members of the Rangers community' date=' particularly the more high profile members of that community, are aligned with British Nationalism/Loyalism/Reacionary Politics & hatred of the SNP etc and thus unprovoked abuse should come as no surprise ie almost akin to guilty by association.

 

2. It completely disregards the diverse nature of our support in terms of political allegiance - which was well illustrated in the Book Born Under a Union Flag.[/quote']

 

And you make the mistake of assuming that these are my views. For clarification, I have highlighted the part of teh text that you appear to have overlooked:

 

"are you surprised that you, as a leading figure in a Rangers community that is seen as aligning itself with British nationalism, loyalism and reactionary politics ..."

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I never stated that you said we should be abused - but instead that we should expect to be abused. Which is what it appeared you suggested.

Bear with me here, because this may seem like hir splitting but it's really not. I didn't say that I expected we should be abused, but rather that being abused should not be unexpected. There is actually a fair difference.

 

Further your second paragraph above puts the blame of others bigotry and hypocrisy in our own court ('no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush').

 

Well, to a large degree we are the authors of our own misfortune by the great bulk of us remaining silent when the right wingers and loyalists speak in our name.

 

I don't believe that pandering to extremists helps anyone, and I don't think its acceptable to tar hundreds of thousands of people - that is discrimination.

 

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[D'Artagnan 173]

And you make the mistake of assuming that these are my views. For clarification, I have highlighted the part of teh text that you appear to have overlooked:

 

"are you surprised that you, as a leading figure in a Rangers community that is seen as aligning itself with British nationalism, loyalism and reactionary politics ..."

 

I didnt for a minute think those were your views - hence why I said "It appears" rather "You appear".

 

Nonetheless its mentalist.

[craig 5,199]

I'll ignore the dig as being infra dig.

 

If you're talking about the two numpties who shouted down Murphy in Glasgow their actions were moronic and obnoxious, mirroring as they did the actions of Murphy himself. The two have been widely condemned on SNP forums and, rightly, suspended from the party for bringing its nae into disrepute.

 

If you're talking about individuals who send you sectarian or other abuse, send their details to SNP headquarters. You'll find that the party has no tolerance for those who beak the law and, if they are members and if there is a case, they will be suspended pending investigation. Oh, that any of the unionist parties were half as consistent.

 

If, however, you're talking about any of the 1.5 million Scots who voted for indpendence and who are not SNP members, are you surprised that you, as a leading figure in a Rangers community that is seen as aligning itself with British nationalism, loyalism and reactionary politics and which is vocal in its detestation for, in no particular order, Alex salmond, the SNP, Scotland and independence, are subject to abuse yourself?

 

So every Rangers supporter should be tarred with the same brush and it is acceptable ? So we are all knuckle-dragging sectarian bigots then ? That is exactly how your sentence above seems to be constructed.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Bear with me here, because this may seem like hir splitting but it's really not. I didn't say that I expected we should be abused, but rather that being abused should not be unexpected. There is actually a fair difference.

 

 

 

Well, to a large degree we are the authors of our own misfortune by the great bulk of us remaining silent when the right wingers and loyalists speak in our name.

 

 

 

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

 

I think your first point is semantics tbh - the definition of unexpected is not expected.

 

I disagree with your second point that we are to blame for others prejudices - I could make any analogue of religious or racial bigotry where we'd have to prove that we don't conform to a derogatory stereotype, surely that isn't what's right.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I didnt for a minute think those were your views - hence why I said "It appears" rather "You appear".

 

Nonetheless its mentalist.

 

you keep saying that, but you haven't yet said with what it is you disagree. Are you claiming that we are not seen in this light by much of the rest of Scottish society?