I know that I got it in the neck for criticising the SNP’s anti-sectarianism legislation, so this post itself won’t make many readers that happy.
I equally know that I won’t write about the legislation nearly as eloquently as Iain Macwhirter has done this morning (though I mightn’t exaggerate for effect quite as much as he has!). Thus, this is almost a “for my views, see his” post.
I don’t see eye to eye with Mr Macwhirter on much, but on this bill his view is spot on, particularly this section here:
“This legislation is otiose, contradictory, authoritarian, subjective, illiberal, anti-democratic and contrary to internationally accepted definitions of basic human rights. It is threatening and offensive to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought and to personal liberty. It hands discretionary powers to the police that are wholly inappropraite in any civilised society, effectively giving individual officers the power to deprive people of their liberty if they don’t like the way they are behaving.”
He’s wrong about rugby though…
Dec 15, 2011 @ 09:30:13
In my opinion it depends on how it is applied. If it is applied wrongly I wont stick,and chances are it will be an utter failure. On the other hand if it is used to back up existing legislation I think it has a chance of success.
I also think that it will be amended as it progresses.. We will just have to see? But in my opinion it is a start at the least in tackling something which should have been eradicated long ago.
Dec 15, 2011 @ 11:05:03
While I broadly agree with McWhirter, there are a lot of “could”s in his article.
Regarding rugby, their fans just have the sense to cause trouble in the Grassmarket several hours later rather than at the match.
Dec 15, 2011 @ 11:12:06
The hysteria surrounding this legislation is ridiculously overblown. For a start, I’ve never in my life heard “Flower Of Scotland” sung at a club match anywhere, and quite rightly so. (Even then, calling it a song “which celebrates violent behaviour against English people” is absurd – it celebrates the DEFENCE of our own land against brutal invaders.)
Almost every law in the land already CAN be intepreted in ludicrous, oppressive ways if police and judges lose their minds – the Robin Hood Airport case unwittingly proves that very point. Or the people who were put under surveillance designed to deal with terrorists in order to show they were putting the wrong sort of rubbish in their wheelie bins, or trying to get their kids into schools they weren’t entitled to. So dreaming up the most extreme hypothetical cases under the OBaF Act and then fainting in horror over them is a completely pointless pursuit.
If people actually DO start getting sent down for five years for calling somebody a bluenose, then fine, I’ll be marching on the streets with everyone else demanding the law be repealed. Until then, this bill is a desperately-needed attempt at tackling a corrosive, shameful blight on Scottish society that’s been ignored for far too long. If it terrifies the Old Firm bigots into behaving themselves, into shutting up about ancient Irish religious wars at Scottish football matches, into ending the celebration of mass-murdering terrorists and into putting away the flags of foreign nations, that’s just fine by me