One Scotland, Many Cultures & 2 Tier "Justice"

[barca72 440]

Did I say that ?

 

It seems though that you are attempting to do exactly that with O'Hara and his use of the word Hun.... right ? As there was no legislation in place when he said it you are defending his right to say it. You are also saying that he shouldn't be punished as there was no legislation in place at the time he said it. Now you are saying that a word doesn't need to be enshrined in statute to be deemed sectarian (which of course makes sense) - so, which side were you defending again ?

 

Fen!an - no need to enshrine in statute as it is deemed sectarian (presumably because it wasn't uttered by an SNP candidate)

Hun - only sectarian when included in legislation and only post-legislation

 

You don't see the hypocrisy ?

 

 

You are falling into his trap of accepting that there was not any legislation that could have dealt with O'Hara when he made his 'hun' remarks.

There was - section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into effect in June 2003 - http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1003667.aspx#.VUuLA-l_lD-. Many people were in fact convicted under this Act.

O'Hara fell through the cracks or got lucky. He could have been charged and convicted and that is what the SNP should be addressing.

Up to and until you get RPB to accept and admit that there was legislation that existed to charge and convict O'Hara, he will lead you on a merry dance of semantic gymnastics.

[craig 5,199]

You are falling into his trap of accepting that there was not any legislation that could have dealt with O'Hara when he made his 'hun' remarks.

There was - section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into effect in June 2003 - http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1003667.aspx#.VUuLA-l_lD-. Many people were in fact convicted under this Act.

O'Hara fell through the cracks or got lucky. He could have been charged and convicted and that is what the SNP should be addressing.

Up to and until you get RPB to accept and admit that there was legislation that existed to charge and convict O'Hara, he will lead you on a merry dance of semantic gymnastics.

 

Not really barca. I'm by-passing whether or not there was legislation in place or not. And going straight for the hypocrisy that one word (Hun) needs to be etched in stone in legislation before anyone should be chastised over it whilst the use of another word (fen!an) needs none of the same legal formality around it.

 

No wonder we are fighting a losing battle on the sectarian debate when our own willingly defend that one is sectarian whilst the other isn't... the one they accept is the one that casts us as the bigots.... where is the parity in dealing with two similarly offensive words ?

[barca72 440]

.... where is the parity in dealing with two similarly offensive words ?

 

 

Well I think one word ( f*nian ) had the uncontested eloquence of one, Prof. Tom Devine, arguing the case for the word to be sectarian, while the other ( hun ) only had a lowly sheriff ( Steele ) convict a transgressor for using the word in a religiously aggravated manner.

No comparison, one is too inconvenient, eh? Sweep, sweep.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Not really barca. I'm by-passing whether or not there was legislation in place or not. And going straight for the hypocrisy that one word (Hun) needs to be etched in stone in legislation before anyone should be chastised over it whilst the use of another word (fen!an) needs none of the same legal formality around it.

 

No wonder we are fighting a losing battle on the sectarian debate when our own willingly defend that one is sectarian whilst the other isn't... the one they accept is the one that casts us as the bigots.... where is the parity in dealing with two similarly offensive words ?

 

The problem here is not hypocricy on my part, but rather willful ignorance and false outrage on yours - and by *you* I mean everyone who spouts this nonsense about the H & F words being equivalent. The F word was always a term of religious and cultural abuse. The H word was not and has only recently become unacceptable.

 

Barca's dog-with-a-bone harping on about the legislation is utterly irrelevant since the use of Hun did not have religious or cultural conotations in the vast majority of instances it was used. To pretend that it did is just self-delusion.

 

When any one of you can explain how my Jambo son-in-law (Protestant), Motherwell business partner (protestant) or a variety of friends and relatives of both persuasions and many teams can call me a Hun in a way that is sectarian, I'll re-visit the subject.

[craig 5,199]

The problem here is not hypocricy on my part, but rather willful ignorance and false outrage on yours - and by *you* I mean everyone who spouts this nonsense about the H & F words being equivalent. The F word was always a term of religious and cultural abuse. The H word was not and has only recently become unacceptable.

 

Barca's dog-with-a-bone harping on about the legislation is utterly irrelevant since the use of Hun did not have religious or cultural conotations in the vast majority of instances it was used. To pretend that it did is just self-delusion.

 

When any one of you can explain how my Jambo son-in-law (Protestant), Motherwell business partner (protestant) or a variety of friends and relatives of both persuasions and many teams can call me a Hun in a way that is sectarian, I'll re-visit the subject.

 

I have Rangers-supporting Catholic acquaintances who call Celtic fans fen!ans - they aren't saying it in a sectarian manner either (particularly when his younger brother is a Celtic fan and he calls him that too) - what is your point ?

[Frankie 8,652]

It's called context.

 

Fen!an has many non-sectarian contexts as does hun. However, both can and are are used in a sectarian fashion. For example, of course it's unlikely a Protestant Hearts fan calling you a hun is unlikely to be perceived as such - however from a Catholic Celtic fan, it may well be depending on the situation.

 

It's not difficult to grasp or offer a balanced opinion on any specific example in that regard. Mr O'Hara's usage may be historic and may not have been sectarian in nature but the point continually being missed is that it harms the SNP's reputation given the stance they've employed in recent years.

 

Generally the obvious problems in attempting to prove intentions just shows how bad the law is. The original was more than adequate to address the usual whataboutery around the issue in football.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Frankie

[Bluedell 5,679]

The H word was not and has only recently become unacceptable.

When exactly was it acceptable to use it about Rangers?

 

Here's a post of mine from 7 years ago on the subject, for example.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?8339-UEFA-deem-Huns-acceptable&p=118908&highlight=psni#post118908

 

let's go further back. Alan Brazil used it on Talksport in October 2005 and after a barrage of complaints, Mike Parry gave assurances that it would never be used again.

 

 

 

the use of Hun did not have religious or cultural conotations in the vast majority of instances it was used. To pretend that it did is just self-delusion.

Sorry, but that just shows your ignorance about the use of the word as has been shown on this thread, rather than anything else.

 

When any one of you can explain how my Jambo son-in-law (Protestant), Motherwell business partner (protestant) or a variety of friends and relatives of both persuasions and many teams can call me a Hun in a way that is sectarian, I'll re-visit the subject.

 

And there are RC fans of other teams that call Celtic fans fen'ians. Does that make the use of the word OK?

 

Is your jambo son-in-law happy to be called it by Celtic fans?

 

I'm sure that there are Celtic fans who are happy to be called fen'ians but that doesn't make the use of the word acceptable.

 

If you're happy to have people call you it and for you to be the "house hun" then that's your prerogative but it doesn't make the use of it any more acceptable anywhere else.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

It's called context.

 

Fen!an has many non-sectarian contexts as does hun. However, both can and are are used in a sectarian fashion. For example, of course it's unlikely a Protestant Hearts fan calling you a hun is unlikely to be perceived as such - however from a Catholic Celtic fan, it may well be depending on the situation.

 

It's not difficult to grasp or offer a balanced opinion on any specific example in that regard. Mr O'Hara's usage may be historic and may not have been sectarian in nature but the point continually being missed is that it harms the SNP's reputation given the stance they've employed in recent years.

 

Generally the obvious problems in attempting to prove intentions just shows how bad the law is. The original was more than adequate to address the usual whataboutery around the issue in football.

 

See, if you hadn't put that first part in, I'd be agreeing with most of what you write. Outside of academic studies of Irish history I have never, and I mean never, heard the F word used in a non-sectarian context. Hun, as you say, covers the range from familial footballing contempt to naked sectarian bigotry and its use is much more difficult to identify as being sectarian at any given time. I do suspect, however, that had sectarianism been O'Hara's motivation, he would have joined the Labour party (remember them?) rather than the SNP

 

Whether it harms the SNPs reputation outside of the Rangers bubble is open to debate after last night's astonishing result.

Edited May 8, 2015 by The Real PapaBear

[The Real PapaBear 0]

When exactly was it acceptable to use it about Rangers?

 

Here's a post of mine from 7 years ago on the subject, for example.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?8339-UEFA-deem-Huns-acceptable&p=118908&highlight=psni#post118908

 

let's go further back. Alan Brazil used it on Talksport in October 2005 and after a barrage of complaints, Mike Parry gave assurances that it would never be used again.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but that just shows your ignorance about the use of the word as has been shown on this thread, rather than anything else.

 

 

 

And there are RC fans of other teams that call Celtic fans fen'ians. Does that make the use of the word OK?

 

Is your jambo son-in-law happy to be called it by Celtic fans?

 

I'm sure that there are Celtic fans who are happy to be called fen'ians but that doesn't make the use of the word acceptable.

 

If you're happy to have people call you it and for you to be the "house hun" then that's your prerogative but it doesn't make the use of it any more acceptable anywhere else.

 

 

To answer your three points, whilst ignoring your childish jibe:

 

1. As a derogatory term for Rangers and the fans, it's always been 'acceptable' however unpleasant.

2. If you say so. I have never heard it used in that way.

3. No, because anyone calling a Hearts fan a hun is using the word as a sectarian insult.

 

Do you now begin to see the complexity of this? The easiest solution is the one reached by the SNP, a blanket ban on them all but to pretend that both terms were historically always as bad as each other is either ignorance or hypocricy.

[Bluedell 5,679]

To answer your three points, whilst ignoring your childish jibe:

 

1. As a derogatory term for Rangers and the fans, it's always been 'acceptable' however unpleasant.

 

I thought that you said it had become unacceptable? How can it always have been acceptable?

 

When you say it's always been acceptable, are you referring to those who complained about it 10 years ago? Was it acceptable to them then?

 

If it was unacceptable 10 years ago then it proves that your statement is totally wrong and the whole premise of your argument is wrong.

 

The fact is that it's always been acceptable to you perhaps due to either ignorance of the use of the word or lack of interest but to thousands of other Rangers fans it has always had a sectarian meaning and has always been unacceptable.

 

 

3. No, because anyone calling a Hearts fan a hun is using the word as a sectarian insult.

 

So it's a sectarian insult to call a Hearts fan it but not a Rangers fan? Wow.

 

That's because Hearts are known as a mainly Protestant team whereas Rangers aren't? No, that's not it........

 

I think you're proving my argument for me.

 

Do you now begin to see the complexity of this? The easiest solution is the one reached by the SNP, a blanket ban on them all but to pretend that both terms were historically always as bad as each other is either ignorance or hypocricy.

There's no pretence on this subject just ignorance.

 

Where you are correct is that fen'ian has been used to describe RCs a lot longer than hun has been used to describe Protestants. However when hun did start getting used in that way then it instantly became unacceptable. When it was subsequently used to describe Rangers fans that didn't suddenly make it OK.