Poor wee Rangers

[TRVMP]

Or people could just use common sense to realise that you can't sing about f*****s, t***s, t*****rs, the famine, the Pope or killing Catholics. Likewise Celtic fans shouldn't sing about killing innocent civilians or people being orange *insert adjective here*. Believe it or not, the two clubs have other songs which their fans can sing free of religious bile.

 

In your first post you said they couldn't sing about Catholics, now it's about killing Catholics. These are two different things.

 

Like I said, none of this is about actual "sectarianism", which barely exists. It is, in its absolute, 100% entirety, about two sets of fans and their accompanying charities and NGOs seeking to punish each other by any means necessary, whether in the criminal courts or via sporting penalties. So Rangers, not wanting to be punished, are exactly right to seek clarity, for their own self-preservation.

[so72]

In your first post you said they couldn't sing about Catholics, now it's about killing Catholics. These are two different things.

 

Like I said, none of this is about actual "sectarianism", which barely exists. It is, in its absolute, 100% entirety, about two sets of fans and their accompanying charities and NGOs seeking to punish each other by any means necessary, whether in the criminal courts or via sporting penalties. So Rangers, not wanting to be punished, are exactly right to seek clarity, for their own self-preservation.

Except its UEFA who are punishing Rangers because they don't want that bile pouring out of the stands whilst trying to market their competitions. There is no substantial action being taken by Scottish footballing authorities to rid the game of this so not really sure what you're getting at.

 

P.S.don't really understand why anyone from outwith the bigot brothers would be so keen to protect the right of OF fans to sing bigoted songs.

[TRVMP]

Except its UEFA who are punishing Rangers because they don't want that bile pouring out of the stands whilst trying to market their competitions. There is no substantial action being taken by Scottish footballing authorities to rid the game of this so not really sure what you're getting at.

 

P.S.don't really understand why anyone from outwith the bigot brothers would be so keen to protect the right of OF fans to sing bigoted songs.

 

Who do you think is lighting the fire under UEFA? I doubt anyone at UEFA knows or cares about the subtleties around Glaswegian "bile". It's the NGOs and charities, formerly Nil By Mouth, now Fare, who actually make the calls here. They are the experts - self-appointed, but experts nonetheless - on what constitutes sectarianism, racism, being sufficiently deferential to "migrants" etc., and they show up with the PowerPoints and tell UEFA what's what, and UEFA act on it. It's a perfectly sound strategy for people who actually care about these things, but it's one that incentivizes those with an eye on punishing their enemies to use them to get punishment from UEFA and the courts. This is, predictably, exactly what's happening.

 

Given that until around 20 minutes ago you were a dyed-in-the-wool Rangers fan, that's really rich. My motivation is, as with every form of free speech, is that if you let these various NGOs set the agenda, they will take a mile from every inch, and I don't really like it when society's hall monitors start deciding what is and isn't A Sectarianism, because they will not only suffer from internal mission creep but (and this I will now say for a fourth time, since you are having trouble getting it) also incentivize punishment between actors. That is, Rangers fans learn they can get Celtic fans banged up for using a word, so they get the word "****" banned. Celtic fans learn they can spam UEFA with emails to get Rangers punished, so they do it. And the reason the busybodies won't offer any actual clarity on what is and isn't allowed is that they need these punishment mechanisms to be arbitrary so that they can keep on doing this in future. This completely and utterly erodes any meaningful right to expression, both normatively within the sport, and eventually legally as well (as laws are downstream from culture.) Local community standards are a far more robust way of policing free expression and, most importantly, reduce the means by which hypocritical little oiks can crown themselves Lord Protector of the Sects.

[Hej]

You can't excuse bigoted language by saying "oh but they're not ACTUALLY bigoted!!!". It's the 2nd hand equivalent of "I'm not racist, but..."

 

And where does it end? Say hypothetically there were no black people living in Scotland, would that make it acceptable for fans to sing songs containing racial slurs? Afterall, there would be no actual societal systematic or cultural racism. 

[TRVMP]

You can't excuse bigoted language by saying "oh but they're not ACTUALLY bigoted!!!". It's the 2nd hand equivalent of "I'm not racist, but..."

 

And where does it end? Say hypothetically there were no black people living in Scotland, would that make it acceptable for fans to sing songs containing racial slurs? Afterall, there would be no actual societal systematic or cultural racism. 

 

I've yet to hear the bigoted language in question, since I didn't watch the game(s) and wasn't party to UEFA's report on the subject.

 

Your second point is a category error. There are both Protestants and Catholics in Scotland and sectarianism barely exists, and for the purpose of 'punishment' in football terms literally doesn't exist at all. Your example would only work if fans were being punished for singing about killing, say, Zoroastrians (of which I assume there are none, or nearly none, in Scotland.)

[so72]

Who do you think is lighting the fire under UEFA? I doubt anyone at UEFA knows or cares about the subtleties around Glaswegian "bile". It's the NGOs and charities, formerly Nil By Mouth, now Fare, who actually make the calls here. They are the experts - self-appointed, but experts nonetheless - on what constitutes sectarianism, racism, being sufficiently deferential to "migrants" etc., and they show up with the PowerPoints and tell UEFA what's what, and UEFA act on it. It's a perfectly sound strategy for people who actually care about these things, but it's one that incentivizes those with an eye on punishing their enemies to use them to get punishment from UEFA and the courts. This is, predictably, exactly what's happening.

 

Given that until around 20 minutes ago you were a dyed-in-the-wool Rangers fan, that's really rich. My motivation is, as with every form of free speech, is that if you let these various NGOs set the agenda, they will take a mile from every inch, and I don't really like it when society's hall monitors start deciding what is and isn't A Sectarianism, because they will not only suffer from internal mission creep but (and this I will now say for a fourth time, since you are having trouble getting it) also incentivize punishment between actors. That is, Rangers fans learn they can get Celtic fans banged up for using a word, so they get the word "****" banned. Celtic fans learn they can spam UEFA with emails to get Rangers punished, so they do it. And the reason the busybodies won't offer any actual clarity on what is and isn't allowed is that they need these punishment mechanisms to be arbitrary so that they can keep on doing this in future. This completely and utterly erodes any meaningful right to expression, both normatively within the sport, and eventually legally as well (as laws are downstream from culture.) Local community standards are a far more robust way of policing free expression and, most importantly, reduce the means by which hypocritical little oiks can crown themselves Lord Protector of the Sects.

We aren't going to agree here so there is no point going in circles. I do understand where you're coming from, we just don't share a similar view and I don't think there is any benefit of me repeating the same arguments again.

[Hej]

The point was that when you start excusing one form of bigoted language, you're going down a very slippery path.

 

You're essentially saying bigotry is OK as long as it has no tangible effect on the life of the recipient.

[TRVMP]

The point was that when you start excusing one form of bigoted language, you're going down a very slippery path.

 

You're essentially saying bigotry is OK as long as it has no tangible effect on the life of the recipient.

 

You're not wrong - it is a slippery path. But so is letting a bunch of malcontents - who are incentivized to punish their enemies, either through sports or courts - define the parameters of speech. A more robust way of ensuring the rights of speech are balanced with the rights of society (and groups within society) is a long-term evolution of community standards, preferably via common law. What we have now, in UEFA, could hardly be worse.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. "Bigotry" isn't a crime, nor should it be.

[TRVMP]

We aren't going to agree here so there is no point going in circles. I do understand where you're coming from, we just don't share a similar view and I don't think there is any benefit of me repeating the same arguments again.

 

Yes, you got completely bodied.

[so72]

Yes, you got completely bodied.

Aye bodied by someone who wants to be able to use words like f*****s, t***s, t******s, h*n and then, one can assume from your free speech word salad, a whole shedload of other slurs. How will I cope

[TRVMP]

Aye bodied by someone who wants to be able to use words like f*****s, t***s, t******s, h*n and then, one can assume from your free speech word salad, a whole shedload of other slurs. How will I cope

 

Given that you were giving it laldy in the Copland Rear until last week, I'm sure you'll manage.

[so72]

Given that you were giving it laldy in the Copland Rear until last week, I'm sure you'll manage.

Hopefully when I am there next week they will have a wee songbook for me

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

Hopefully when I am there next week they will have a wee songbook for me

Come back on so72, come back on and keep on singing!

[Hej]

You're not wrong - it is a slippery path. But so is letting a bunch of malcontents - who are incentivized to punish their enemies, either through sports or courts - define the parameters of speech. A more robust way of ensuring the rights of speech are balanced with the rights of society (and groups within society) is a long-term evolution of community standards, preferably via common law. What we have now, in UEFA, could hardly be worse.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. "Bigotry" isn't a crime, nor should it be.

 

 

Do you not think that the reason societal bigotry has existed in civilisations and had tangible manifestations on people in the first place is due to the unchallenged permeation of said bigotry? But you don't think bigotry should be challenged UNTIL it reaches that stage? And that judging where this tipping point is should just be left to society's conscience?

[TRVMP]

Do you not think that the reason societal bigotry has existed in civilisations and had tangible manifestations on people in the first place is due to the unchallenged permeation of said bigotry? But you don't think bigotry should be challenged UNTIL it reaches that stage? And that judging where this tipping point is should just be left to society's conscience?

 

1. In some cases, yes.

2. No.

3. Yes.

[capitanus]

It's pretty ironic that UEFA are forcing a Scottish club to display a banner stating #equalgame whenever they never show equality to the champions of Scotland by making them play around 4 rounds of qualifiers to enter the European Cup or the UEFA Cup proper.

[Glasgowguy.90]

Can this shite be moved to general nonsense as it has nothing to do with Morton anymore.

[vikingTON]

It's pretty ironic that UEFA are forcing a Scottish club to display a banner stating #equalgame whenever they never show equality to the champions of Scotland by making them play around 4 rounds of qualifiers to enter the European Cup or the UEFA Cup proper.

Scotland’s champions were treated equally with the other tinpot entrants and proved the wisdom of that by getting knocked out by a bunch of Romanian cabbage-howkers.

[BishopBrennan]

You're not wrong - it is a slippery path. But so is letting a bunch of malcontents - who are incentivized to punish their enemies, either through sports or courts - define the parameters of speech. A more robust way of ensuring the rights of speech are balanced with the rights of society (and groups within society) is a long-term evolution of community standards, preferably via common law. What we have now, in UEFA, could hardly be worse.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. "Bigotry" isn't a crime, nor should it be.

 

For all I may be splitting hairs here, common law is never going to be an effective way to tackle an interpretive issue such as sectarianism. Common law has a much heavier reliance on prescient, which I don't think will be an effective manner to deal with an ever-evolving issue. For all the Scottish Government made an absolute cunt of the OBFA, statute law allows for more pro-active legislation to be implemented and adapted as necessary. While the process of determining and writing legislation is open to criticism (partly due to self-appointed experts as you state), statute law means that we are using more modern decisions and prescience when trying to convict someone. This essentially means that societal shifts are represented more in the legal process of charging, trialing and potentially convicting someone of an offence.   

 

I think what we've seen in the last decade or so is a shift in the paradigm of sectarianism and it's place within Scottish society; I would argue that until the last 10-15 years sectarianism was a society issue displayed mainly through the prism of football. I think the scales have now tipped in such a way that sectarianism is now more of an issue in football than in society. Society has (largely) moved past these issues, but football means the issue will never be far from the headlines. This doesn't mean a laissez-faire approach should be adopted, it simply highlights the importance to have pro-active legislation to deal with it. 

[BishopBrennan]

Can this shite be moved to general nonsense as it has nothing to do with Morton anymore.

 

Aye, because we're forcing you to open the thread.