The Failure of the ââ?¬Ë?Sectarianism in Football Working Groupââ?¬â?¢

[Frankie 8,552]

Long read this but worth a look over lunch...

 

http://www.gersnetonline.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=670&Itemid=1

 

As is usually the case after a Rangers win against Celtic, itââ?¬â?¢s not the excellent football and resounding victory of last Sundayââ?¬â?¢s match the media are talking about but the desperate claims of offence from the usual quarters. The tedious attempts of one-upmanship from the supporters, the mischief-making lies told by reporters (see Waddell and Spiers) and the usual appearance of Neil Lennonââ?¬â?¢s victim-status when it comes to the subject of sectarianism ââ?¬â?? all have been prevalent again in the last week.

 

Before you start yawning, the one subject that did interest me in the debate surrounding the assault of Neil Lennon, was that of Jack McConnell raising the issue in Holyrood last Tuesday. Apparently he felt not enough was being done to stop the disgraceful events of last week ââ?¬â?? namely the Lennon assault (no matter what we think of this manââ?¬â?¢s questionable character he does have the right to be safe in his own city) and the Novo threats (see the shameful address publication of a player who has done nothing to warrant the hate festooned upon him by the Celtic support). And, for once, McConnell is right.

 

Unfortunately as a man who used the issue of sectarianism as a political football (sic) during his time as First Minister, heââ?¬â?¢s just as guilty for paying lip-service to the problem as every other politician, football administrator and journalist who have gained out of the ever burgeoning anti-sectarianism industry (for thatââ?¬â?¢s what it is) in this country. Itââ?¬â?¢s easy to point the finger of blame. Itââ?¬â?¢s even easy to accept responsibility. But itââ?¬â?¢s much more difficult to remove it ââ?¬â?? especially when football is often wrongly blamed as the sole reason for the controversy.

 

After all, thatââ?¬â?¢s the clear inference from most actions by McConnell previously. Not to mention it served as a decent divisionary tactic for the likes of Scottish Labour when people are talking about controversial football songs instead of the real problems within Scotland ââ?¬â?? crime, health and poverty. Iââ?¬â?¢m sure the SNP will soon need a similar red herring to deflect from the same and with Salmond also having previous for inaccurate and premature comment on the subject (see Boruc caution), one would hope heââ?¬â?¢ll enter the debate from a more neutral and informed position.

 

So what did McConnell do to address the problem? Did he succeed, have the SNP continued the work and is there a solution in sight?

 

In late 2006, a publicly funded ââ?¬Ë?Sectarianism in Football Working Group (SIF)ââ?¬â?¢ consisting of the Scottish Executive, the SFA, sportscotland, ACPOS, the SPL and the SFL - along with contributions from Rangers FC, Celtic FC and Glasgow University ââ?¬â?? reported on the effect Scottish football had on the social problem of sectarianism in Scotland. A wide range of action points were agreed by all parties involved to help address the issuea. Despite their obvious relevance to the subject, no fans were invited to take part other than the main office holders of fan associations which donââ?¬â?¢t always accurately represent the views all supporters.

 

In addition, as a result of the SIF Working Group, in August 2007, at domestic level, the SPL also introduced new ââ?¬Ë?Unacceptable Conductââ?¬â?¢ Rules for their member clubs. SPL Rules H7.5, H7.6 and H7.7b which state that any alleged failure to discharge these Rules, the SPL Board or Commission, shall have the powers to investigate and censure the club involved.

 

Let�s have a look and see how successful these initiatives have been.

 

[CONTINUED in Post 2]

[Frankie 8,552]

Scottish Executive Working Group Action Points

 

As seen from reference ‘a’, several action points were agreed in December 2006 after the working group published their findings. Most people would agree some positive work was done and the action points were a fair attempt to address the problem of sectarianism in football. It is therefore important to examine the relative success (if any) of the following relevant points:

 

 

ACTION 1:

 

To establish a new body to focus effort, develop and deliver activities to tackle sectarianism associated with Scottish football.

 

Comments: Obviously this was done to a reasonable degree via the working group initially but it is very disappointing that, given the high profile of the alleged bigotry problem at the time of the group formation, no independent supporters’ groups were invited to be part of the debate. Immediately, some fans would have an issue with the credibility of the body created and their ability to relate to the average Scottish football fan. That has been confirmed by little or no interaction with such supporters groups or the filtering of information to those that were not consulted.

 

 

ACTION 2:

 

To undertake a nationwide anti-sectarianism awareness raising campaign at the beginning of 2007.

 

Comments: Again, while we will all have seen media coverage of these campaigns, communication therein has been very poor where upon the fans do not appear to be consulted constructively on the issue. Promoting the ‘Football For All’ message is all well and good but the fans must be worked with – not continually lectured to – for genuinely positive awareness to be made. Strangely, none of the publicly funded charities in the project reply openly to fair, reasoned and balanced emails. What exactly are they doing as objective debate with Joe Taxpayer is not happening?

 

 

ACTION 3:

 

N/A

 

 

ACTION 4:

 

To strengthen the National Club Licensing Scheme to require clubs to demonstrate policies and actions undertaken against sectarianism and other forms of discrimination.

 

Comments: Obviously I can only comment from how Rangers FC have worked with our fans which currently suffers from having various splintered fan groups. Even so, in many ways because our club and fans have had direct experience of being censured, pressure was on our club to improve relations quickly and positively to address any problems immediately. Fortunately, the club was willing to work with a wide range of fans on this matter by taking and offering advice, while helping to co-ordinate communication with the support at large.

 

Rangers FC have also been proactive in their measures to avoid further problems. However, communication can still be improved and we would like to see the club have a much more positive relationship with the fans in this key area.

 

 

ACTION 5:

 

To introduce a new disciplinary offence of unacceptable conduct in football grounds in Scotland which will carry potential sanctions against clubs, officials, players or spectators engaging in sectarian behaviour.

 

Comments: As we’ve seen from various inconsistent responses from the SPL there appears to be an immediate paradox with regard to the new Unacceptable Conduct Rules. Without a detailed and comprehensive investigation of what terms/chants/songs/behaviour are deemed to be ‘unacceptable’, surely it is impossible to understand how the rules can be enforced consistently across the board? Obviously arguments of context, culture, history and politics can be put across by all parties but essentially it’s down to the SIF Working Group to take this into account (via the other action points) and compile a list. Until then, no real progress can be made and the whole exercise is undermined by a lack of leadership from the people who are employed to police Scottish football and society itself. The status quo is claim and counter claim of breach, bias and inaction. Little seems to be being done to change that by way of genuine clarification and enforcement of the rules. Therefore, as it stands, the SPL ‘Unacceptable Conduct’ rules have completely failed.

 

 

ACTION 6:

 

To encourage football clubs to develop standardised and consistent approaches to stewarding matches across Scotland.

 

Comments: Recent problems at Celtic Park (as well as other grounds across the country) suggest the stewarding and policing of football matches is inconsistent at best – perhaps even dangerous in many ways. The vast majority of football supporters attend matches to watch their team and enjoy the experience as safely as possible. However, because of poor stewarding and overly aggressive policing, this is not always achievable. Inconsistent application of the laws between home and away fans; poor policing of the locality immediately out with the stadium environs; and minimal communication between stewarding companies, club security officers and police forces with the fans means many problems remain evident at Scottish football grounds. Again, there appears to be no evidence of this action point working consistently. What’s worse is that some police forces steadfastly refuse to acknowledge problems exist or address them via dialogue. That is unacceptable.

 

 

ACTION 7:

 

To ensure that Football Banning Orders are used by police forces across Scotland in a consistent way so that those who persistently indulge in sectarian abuse can be excluded from football.

 

Comments: Again the obvious ongoing examples of alleged sectarian abuse not being removed from large elements of certain supports means these orders do not appear to be being applied consistently in conjunction with the other action points above. Retrospective criminal action is to be welcomed and supported but consistent application of the law (without definitions of what is actually breaking the law) means it’s difficult to show this action point is successful. Such banning orders have increased generally but there is little evidence of them solving the actual problem.

 

 

ACTION 8:

 

To put in place processes to effectively monitor, evaluate, review and report on the effectiveness of the actions which are contained in this strategy.

 

Comments: Given the concerns above and the change of Government in 2007, it is worrying the original aims of the working group have not been met. I have attempted to find out more regarding the future of this project but no information has been forthcoming. Certainly the interim progress reports promised in the publication don’t seem to have been made available to the general public and it’s difficult to try and obtain further dialogue with organisations who apparently feel supporter debate is not agreeable. The working group must be pressured into absorbing taxpayer criticisms in order to provide a successful and representative working group which does actually consult supporters – some of whom have shown they can actually help fix the problem.

 

[Continued in Post 3]

[Frankie 8,552]

Discussing the Responsibilities of the Scottish Media in Regard to Sectarianism in Scottish Football

 

One thing that also interested me was part of the key findings of the initial fan consultation on sectarianism in Scottish football. In this, the report recommended that elements of the SIF Working Group hold meetings with editors/sports editors of major Scottish media companies c. It is unapparent if this has happened – certainly recent polemic and completely unsubstantiated articles from the usual unqualified commentators suggests it hasn’t.

 

Any reasonable fan would agree with the working group with concerns in how certain sections of the media portray and amplify the sectarianism problem – often without offering serious debate in how the problem can be addressed. As can be the case with many of the other relevant parties, condemnation and not education appears to be the main aspect of their input and this certainly doesn’t always help our chances of success in communicating with fans.

 

There is no doubt that there exists in the Scottish media an element of disappointing opportunism in terms of erratic commentary on the bigotry problem in football. This has created a severe problem for the authorities in that many sides of the debate feel they are unfairly targeted while others are not – leading to time being wasted on unsubstantiated claims of bias or inaction. There is also distinct evidence of incongruent behaviour from different media platforms and the working group should, as a matter of urgency, establish a coherent strategy to ensure media coverage of the bigotry issue is fair, consistent and balanced. This would help avoid the current climate of complaint after complaint based upon unjustified and inaccurate media reporting.

 

[Continued in Post 4]

[Frankie 8,552]

Conclusions

 

Frustratingly, one can only conclude that the SIF Working Group now appears to be stagnant – perhaps even redundant.

 

Despite some reasonably positive (although incomplete) initial work and agreed action points, it seems few of these points have been met and problems still exist with regard to the main aims. As such, I offer the following conclusions/recommendations:

 

 

1. Sectarianism/’Unacceptable Conduct’ in football is still prevalent and unpunished throughout the country.

 

Songs about ‘huns’, sectarian terrorist groups and other offensive content are regularly heard and little or no action appears to be taken to remove/prevent them. This applies to more than the ‘Old Firm’.

 

 

2. A clear definition of what is unacceptable is required.

 

If we are to progress in this regard, it is vital a clear definition of what is and what is not offensive is found. As such, all relevant parties should be working together to compile such a document which can then mean clubs and fans can work towards their removal instead of not knowing what is suitable or not.

 

 

3. Supporters organisations must be invited to take part in the process

 

Much work needs to be done in improving trust and relations between all parties. Until supporters are invited to indulge in positive, constructive dialogue with the SIF Working Group members, and each other, genuine progress will be slow and arguably doomed to failure.

 

 

4. The SIF Working Group must be revamped.

 

The SIF Working Group must be revamped to include further in-depth consultations with supporters and other suitable parties such as the Irish Football Association. A full public debate would also be agreeable. McConnell complained of ‘secret shames’ but to find out more information on the subject seems similarly difficult for the individual.

 

 

5. Organisations must take responsibility or else the process is doomed to failure.

 

The author of this article has attempted to speak with all parties in this issue. What is obvious from the replies is that no-one is taking ultimate responsibility for the actions of the working group. The aims of the group have not been met adequately – who is responsible for ensuring that is addressed? What does the future hold for the group?

 

 

6. Football is not to blame for sectarianism.

 

It’s obvious that many commentators on Scotland’s sectarianism problem blame it solely on football. While that is certainly a symptom of the disease, if other more important factors are not also highlighted and debated (eg separate schooling) then the whole argument becomes disingenuous.

 

 

References

 

a: ‘Calling Full-Time on Sectarianism’ - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/12/11144623/0 ;

b: SPL ‘Unacceptable Conduct’ Guidelines – no longer available from SPL website;

c: ‘Discussing the Responsibilities of the Scottish Media...’ - http://tinyurl.com/5bvqbs

 

 

Please note a full 13 page report (PDF file) on the above is available by contacting us through the website

 

[fraser54 0]

Feck me 3 posts worth

 

Have a look at it when fully woke up

[Frankie 8,552]

It's probably easier to read via the main site link mate...

[bmck 117]

this is an excellent article.

 

those in power have an active interest in maintaining the status quo that they're supposed to be changing, as it justifies & en-nobles their time. there is much talk about talk about sectarianism, but precious few definitions because people realise defining stuff makes them responsible for their definitions.

 

everyone involved in the process has a vested interest in dramatising sectarianism because they are the ones doing the investigating, they are the moral power searching for a solution - the people who it matters to, those being defined as bigots unfairly, don't get a say because for them things really have to change. and change is the very thing that would put all these groups out of a job. talking about talking about sectarianism is their agenda, i think.

 

an immense article, one everyone should read.

[Frankie 8,552]

Great post bmck... Encapsulates everything regarding the hypocrisy of the likes of McConnell.

 

Can you post it on the main site article comments section please?

[UCF2008 0]

Excellent article.

 

With regards to the point about the need for a public debate involving supporters - one possible solution would be for them to set up an internet forum. That way we could all contribute our views on the subject over a period of time. As a result, the SIF Working Group would gain a valuable insight into the views of the supporters themselves and in turn, the supporters would get a clearer picture of what was being done to tackle the issues.

[Frankie 8,552]

Great point UCF...

 

Instead of blaming internet forums for exacerbating the problem, the medium should be used to solve it.

 

The irony is delicious. Mmmmm