| Incidents, Events & Controversies | About Celtic |
Details
Ref: Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act
aka: OBFA Act
Dates: 2012-2018
Summary
| "The most illiberal and counterproductive act passed by our young Parliament to date" and a "stain on the reputation of the Scottish legal system for fair dealing" Professor Sir Tom Devine on The Act |
It was a crude law brought in by the ruling SNP to paper over cracks in their own inability to show any real strength. They had already shown their incompetence in supposedly handling football matters of late, and this was another PR stunt.
In practise, the law was a license for abuse by various authorities (most notably the police) on general football supporters, especially against young fans.
An infamous episode saw a mass kettling by police officers on Green Brigade supporters as they made their way to the ground. It was abusive, heavy handed and reflected poorly on authorities.
Incredibly, the only real achievement of the law was it actually united supporters across the whole of the Scottish football world, without even attempting to, against the government and authorities.
Many groups, in particular at Celtic, fought against the bill. Most notably, The Celtic Trust were at the forefront of this, on podcasts, rallies, meetings and online. That must be recognised.
The Fans Against Criminalisation Group was set up by various Celtic groups to push against the bill, and various groups across the footballing sphere in Scotland were in support.
Unreliable surveys were used by supporters of the law to back the bill, but they the evidence was clear that it was abusive. There were already regulations to tackle any disruptive behaviour. The showboating by the govt clearly illustrated their arrogance, especially their insistence to retain the law.
Various MSPs supported repeal, but it took six years. That is unforgivable.
The legislation was introduced by the governing Scottish National Party and passed by MSPs by 64 votes to 57 without any opposition support. Labour, the Tories, Lib Dems and the Scottish Greens said the bill was "railroaded" through by the SNP, and the Scottish Government has since faced calls for an early review into how the legislation is working.
A drive to repeal the Act which began in 2017 was successful, removing it from the statute books in April 2018.
Links
Scottish law banning ‘offensive behaviour’ at football matches repealed
SNP defeated over curbs on sectarianism that were seen as hitting freedom of speech
Sectarian abuse is common at matches between Celtic and Rangers © Andrew Milligan/PA
FT.com
Mure Dickie in Edinburgh March 15, 2018
Print this page
14
Scottish opposition parties scored a rare legislative victory over the Scottish National party government on Thursday by scrapping a controversial law banning “offensive behaviour” at football matches.
Members of the Scottish parliament voted 62 to 60 to repeal the 2012 law, which was aimed at addressing sectarianism among football supporters but has been strongly criticised as an intrusion on freedom of speech that unfairly targets fans.
The repeal bill, which was introduced by a Scottish Labour MSP and backed by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens, highlights the vulnerability of the governing SNP to united opposition action since it lost its parliamentary majority two years ago.
The repeal is likely to spur calls for other action to curb sectarian behaviour among fans of Glasgow arch-rivals Rangers and Celtic — traditionally known as the Old Firm — as well as supporters of other football teams associated with historically hostile Catholic and Protestant traditions.
The SNP had argued that other laws did not sufficiently guard against behaviour at football matches that was liable to incite public disorder, such as racist or sectarian singing or banner waving.
The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act also criminalised similar behaviour by fans travelling to a regulated match, or at venues where one is being broadcast.
But the law was denounced by supporters’ groups at both Celtic and Rangers and by Liberty, a UK civil liberties organisation, which said the act extended the reach of criminal law “too far into the realm of free expression”.
Hundreds of people have been charged under the law, but critics said it failed to fundamentally shift sectarian attitudes among supporters.
Recommended
James Kelly, the Labour MSP who brought the repeal bill, said the law was simplistic and badly written, and he was delighted by the result.
“Sectarianism is a problem in Scotland that goes back generations. It can’t be solved in 90 minutes on a Saturday,” Mr Kelly said after the vote. “The way to fix it is in classrooms and community groups.”
But Annabelle Ewing, SNP minister for community safety, said repeal was foolhardy, particularly following “a number of incidents over the course of this season where the shadow of sectarianism has again been cast over our national game”.
Hundreds of Rangers fans took part in a march ahead of a game against Celtic last weekend that was led by men wearing masks and balaclavas holding a banner that appeared to feature someone kicking a Celtic player or supporter in the head.
Strict Liability not the OBFA is the Answer
- by Dave Scott 29th May 2016
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/05/29/strict-liability-not-the-obfa-is-the-answer/
Football has dominated the headlines this week with events at last Saturday’s Scottish Cup Final once again fuelling a degree of public debate on how the sport deals with the anti-social behaviour it can generate. I say a degree because, as always seems the case in Scottish football, there is much more heat than light in the round of recriminations, finger pointing and playing of the blame game we have witnessed this past week. Indeed, if Scotland’s players passed the ball as well as its clubs, fans and officials passed the buck perhaps we’d be enjoying the European Championships from the stadiums of France rather than the comforts of our armchairs. Now I should state at the outset I believe the majority of Scottish fans of all clubs are decent people. I’m not writing this because I hate the game, the fans or any club. I’m writing this because I want to see Scottish Football made accountable to these very people. If the scenes witnessed on Saturday had taken place in a pub with staff being assaulted, bouts of sectarian chanting breaking out and violence taking place on the doorstep the licensee would be hauled before the licensing committee and face serious sanctions. Football has no such problem as it seems to be only accountable to itself despite the tens of millions of pounds of public money which have been pumped into it over recent years. Part of the problem is the perception that the Scottish game doesn’t do enough to tackle its demons and this was reinforced back in June 2013 when Scottish clubs voted overwhelmingly against implementing UEFA’s ‘Strict Liability’ principles without any real public debate or, more importantly, any fan involvement in the decision making process. ‘Strict liability’ is UEFA’s standard for fan behaviour and can see sanctions imposed, such as fines, points deductions or closing sections of a ground where offensive behaviour or crowd disorder has taken place. It has been used to great effect in European matches and over the last decade this has included fines for Scottish teams in European competition. In possibly the most serious sanction imposed under the principles, CSKA Moscow, having seen fans charged with racist behavior on three separate occasions during 2014, were forced to play three Champions League games behind closed doors and were banned from selling tickets for away fixtures. No one is advocating that, in Scotland, we should simply leap into a round of ground closures but Strict Liability provides a clear framework for reporting and dealing with instances of disorder and offensive fan behavior including sectarianism and racism. Something you’ll struggle to find in the nearly two-hundred-page SFA rulebook. Over the last few years we have been campaigning for ‘Strict Liability’ to be introduced into the Scottish game. Sadly, clubs have been running in the other direction and offer up, un-costed and unworkable ideas such as ‘facial recognition’ rather than embrace UEFA’s standards. Strict Liability would not replace the law of the land; those who carried out cowardly assaults on Saturday would face the full legal consequences. Nor will it be a ‘magic bullet’ to solve all the problems. What it will do is provide a positive direction of travel for the game in terms of tackling anti-social behaviour and a framework to support or punish clubs as required. By introducing it the game has the chance to stand up and be counted and give encouragement and a voice to the thousands of real fans who turn up to support their teams. Nil by Mouth aren’t alone in calling for this change in thinking. Last year, the Scottish Government’s Advisory Group on Sectarianism published its report and made a number of recommendations for Scottish football to implement to create change in this area. These included implementing European-style sanctions. Over a year has passed and this report appears to be gathering dust on a Hampden shelf. Given the millions of pounds of public money pumped into the game politicians should not be slow to make football honour its responsibilities in the debate which lies ahead on the future of the Offensive Behavior at Football Act. If Scottish football continues to forfeit on its moral obligations Holyrood should establish a panel, independent from the game and modelled on UEFA tribunals, to hear cases brought under strict liability with the power to force sanctions. Indeed, we need only look over Hadrian’s Wall for encouragement: in 2014 the English FA successfully implemented Strict Liability after consultation with campaigners, clubs and fans. There is no reason the Scottish game cannot follow this example. So if you are one of the vast majority of decent fans who are sick and tired of seeing your game being dragged through the mud drop your club secretary an e-mail asking them to ballot season ticket holders on whether or not they support ‘Strict Liability’. Or e-mail all eight of the MSPs who represent your constituency and region asking them if they will ensure that ‘Strict Liability’ is properly debated and considered during the debate on the OBFA. Because no longer can we allow football to pick and choose the issues it wants to have a conscience on.
Scotland seeks to define sectarianism in lawMove follows repeal of legislation banning offensive behaviour at football matches
FT.comMure Dickie in Edinburgh March 25, 2018Print this page12The Scottish government hopes to define sectarianism in law for the first time, potentially making it easier to bring legal action against sectarian behaviour following the repeal of a controversial law that banned offensive behaviour at football matches. The move suggests a changed approach by the minority Scottish National party government after opposition groups this month forced repeal of the 2012 football law, which critics said offended against freedom of speech and unfairly targeted fans. SNP ministers fiercely opposed repeal, saying it would undermine efforts to end friction between people of Catholic and Protestant background in Scotland, a phenomenon with roots in 17th century religious civil wars and later large-scale Irish immigration. Annabelle Ewing, Scotland’s community safety minister, said she was establishing an independent working group to look at defining the term “sectarianism” in Scots law, as called for by a cross-party parliamentary committee. “Sectarianism must be tackled with the same conviction as every other hate crime,” Ms Ewing said in a statement published on Monday. Sectarian sentiment is on regular public show at football matches involving Celtic and Rangers and other teams associated with Catholic and Protestant traditions, but experts differ on how widespread the phenomenon remains in Scotland. A study published last year found that Catholics in Scotland were at greater socio-economic disadvantage compared with Protestants than they were in Northern Ireland. The study concluded that the gap might be explained by “a lack of explicit equality legislation that has decreased inequality by religion in Northern Ireland during recent decades”. But the research was dismissed as “historically illiterate” by Sir Tom Devine, one of Scotland’s most celebrated historians, who told the Scotsman newspaper: “The sectarian beast is in its death throes and is the least of Scotland’s modern social problems.”The effort to establish sectarianism in law will be led by Professor Duncan Morrow, who previously chaired a government advisory group on tackling sectarianism.That group said in 2015 that sectarianism could be defined as perceptions, attitudes or actions that involved “overlooking, excluding, discriminating against or being abusive or violent towards others on the basis of their perceived Christian denominational background”.The renewed focus on sectarianism comes alongside calls for stronger action to eliminate racism from Scottish public life. In recent weeks Humza Yousaf, SNP transport minister, and Anas Sarwar, former deputy Scottish Labour leader, have both revealed incidents of racist abuse.
Alex Salmond's comments on Scots football behaviour act repeal "a disgrace", say campaigners
Martin Williams @MWilliamsHT Senior News Reporter
Alex Salmond's comments on Scots football behaviour act repeal
The Herald Newspaper
Alex Salmond's comments on Scots football behaviour act repeal "a disgrace", say campaigners
235 comments
LEADING opponents of laws which criminalise offensive behaviour at football matches have criticised former First Minister Alex Salmond for linking the debate to sectarianism.
Supporters group Fans Against Criminalisation which has led the campaign for the repeal of the Scottish Government’s controversial Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act said Mr Salmond's comments were "a disgrace."
And University of Abertay senior lecturer Dr Stuart Waiton, who was author of Snobs Law: Criminalising Football Fans In An Age Of Intolerance, said Mr Salmond's had started to sound "more like Ian Paisley than a liberal tolerant person".
The legislation, which aimed to tackle football-related sectarianism, was brought in under Mr Salmond's watch as First Minister following the Old Firm “shame game” between Rangers and Celtic in 2011.
It outlaws the singing of songs which "a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive" and which "would be likely to incite public disorder".
MSPs on Holyrood's justice committee recommended support for the repeal bill in January. It is now to progress through the Scottish Parliament, where it may be amended, before a final parliamentary debate and vote.
HeraldScotland: ALEX SALMOND: Scotland’s First Minister is pushing for full independence from the United Kingdom
Mr Salmond told The National: "It is totally shameful. It is perfectly legitimate to say such legislation could be improved, or changed in certain aspects – that is what happens as legislation beds down.
“To know what’s going on all you have to do is listen to what is being sung during certain televised matches, so why on earth in Scotland in 2018 should we accept sectarian singing in our living rooms, and anybody who does anything which sustains that and allows it to continue should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves."
He added: “Labour is greatly to blame, and I don’t expect anything from the Tories who have little regard for eliminating sectarianism in Scotland as we have seen from the antics of some of their councillors and candidates."
“But you would hope that progressive parties would want to eliminate sectarianism and its manifestations as surely as they should want to eliminate sexism and racism – it is in the same category of evil things, and the only way to defeat it is to confront it, so to run away from that battle is a dreadful thing.
HeraldScotland: Fans Against Criminalisation hold a protest in Glasgow earlier this yearPicture: Jamie Simpson
“To do it for political purposes is pathetic and the irony is that they won’t get any thanks for it because the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland want to have done with this.
“It is putting a stain on Scotland’s reputation as a country in order to give a bloody nose to the SNP – what could be more pathetic than that?”
But the FAC said: "Alex Salmond’s comments on the OBA are a disgrace. For this man who caused so much damage due to his arrogance and unwillingness to listen, to still peddle the line this is about sectarianism is appalling."
The FAC in calling for the Act to be repealed, said that all charges made under it should be dropped and that all fans convicted under the law, who could not have been convicted under any other legislation should "at least" have the right to appeal.
It argues the Act wrongly targets fans and is "fundamentally illiberal and unnecessarily restricts freedom of expression".
Mr Waiton accused Mr Salmond of "virtue signalling" by using an issue that everyone agrees about and "trying to present yourself as the MOST anti-racist or anti-sectarian".
He said: "Just because you don’t want football fans to be arrested for singing certain songs doesn’t mean you agree with what is being sung.
"I haven’t come across one politician who defends sectarianism – quite the opposite in fact. What we are seeing here, from Mr Salmond is essentially virtue signalling: using an issue that everyone agrees about and trying to present yourself as the MOST anti-racist or anti-sectarian.
"This reflects a form of narcissism and self-aggrandisement rather than serious mature politics.
"The use of language is also interesting, ‘eliminate’ sectarianism, something that is ‘evil’. Here we start to get in even more dangerous quasi-religious territory – where Mr Salmond starts to sound more like Ian Paisley than a liberal tolerant person.
"Indeed there are many arguments and examples where banning things have made a situation worse. In fact, allowing people to speak or sing and NOT arresting them has until very recently been seen as the bedrock of tolerance for progressive people. To arrest people for things they say because you find them offensive is backward, authoritarian and reactionary.
"The reality is that by using the law, by using the police and prisons, by threatening to lock people up if they say things you don’t like, you, Mr Salmond are running away. It is the job of politicians to challenge people’s ideas. Once you start using the police to do this you have given up and simply become an authoritarian."
Here is the detail suggested by the legal eagles scrutinising the bill as regards the reasonable offence bit etc.
Behaviour expressing hatred or which is threatening or a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive
The offence does not refer specifically to sectarian behaviour as the term is not defined in Scots law. The offence instead refers to behaviour which constitutes an expression of or incitement to or is motivated by religious or other hatred, behaviour which is threatening, and behaviour which a reasonable person would find offensive and is likely to lead to public disorder.
The singing of songs and chants or the display of banners, that is clearly motivated by hatred on racial, religious, cultural or social grounds or by hatred of a group based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability or which is threatening are examples of the type of behaviour that will be caught by this offence if they are likely to cause public disorder. Such conduct is unacceptable and has no place at a football match.
Televised matches
An offence can also be committed at any public venue where football matches are
being televised, whether by outdoor screens or in public houses or other public
venues where the match is being broadcast, including commercial premises where
television screens broadcasting the match are being displayed. The legislation
provides that an offence can be committed at any point during the day on which a
match (including match highlights) is broadcast, so sectarian or other offensive
behaviour in such places both before and after the broadcast is covered. However,
the crucial element to constitute an offence is that the offensive behaviour is
connected to the football match being shown (or which has been shown or will be
shown) and that the behaviour risks causing public disorder.
While, it is a matter for the judgement of a police officer having regard to the nature
and words of the song, including any “add ons”, the surrounding circumstances and
the context in which it is being sung to determine whether a song or lyrics are
threatening or expressing hatred, the following are examples of the types of songs
and lyrics which are likely to be threatening or express hatred:
Songs/lyrics which promote or celebrate violence against another person's
religion, culture or heritage
Songs/lyrics which are hateful towards another person's religion and religious
leaders, race, ethnicity, colour, sexuality, heritage or culture
Behaviour that is offensive to the reasonable person
In order for a criminal offence to be committed, it is not sufficient that an individual or
individuals are (or claim to be) offended by a song or other behaviour; the behaviour
must be of a character which is likely to be offensive to a reasonable person. While
it is a matter for the judgement of a police officer whether a song or other behaviour
is likely to be offensive to a reasonable person having regard to the nature and lyrics
of the song, including any “add ons”, the surrounding circumstances and the context
in which it is being sung, the following are examples of the type of songs and lyrics
which are likely to be offensive to a reasonable person.
Songs/lyrics in support of terrorist organisations
Songs/lyrics which glorifies or celebrates events involving the loss of life or
serious injury.
It should be noted that in order for a criminal offence to be committed under this
offence, in addition to proof that the song/lyrics are threatening or offensive, it must
be proved that the conduct was likely to incite public disorder.
General Approach
In determining whether the offensive or threatening behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder, it is not a defence that public disorder would be unlikely to occur solely due to:
because all or the vast majority of those present participated in the offensive or threatening behaviour, including where all or the vast majority of opposition supporters have left the ground.
The offence WILL NOT
threatening or offensive behaviour
threatening or offensive behaviour
threatening or offensive behaviour
Officers should have regard to proportionality, legitimate football rivalry and common sense when assessing whether the conduct would cause offence to the reasonable person.
FAQs on the OB Act
http://fansagainstcriminalisation.com/faqs-on-the-ob-act/
1. Why does FAC oppose the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act?
FAC opposes the OBA for two primary reasons.
Firstly, we believe that laws should apply universally and that is discriminatory to introduce legislation which only applies to one sector of society.
Secondly, we believe that it is both dangerous and absurd in equal measure to outlaw something as subjective as ‘offensiveness’. This is impossible to police fairly in practical terms and infringes upon the right to freedom of expression.
2. Was the OBA necessary?
Statistics prior to the enactment of the legislation demonstrated that the vast, vast majority of football fans are impeccably behaved and that the vast majority of religiously aggravated offences take place away from football stadiums.
For offences which did take place, there were adequate laws in place to deal with issues of disorder and hate crime according legal experts such as the Glasgow Bar Association, the Law Society of Scotland and legal academics such as Professor Fiona Leverick of the University of Glasgow.
3. Doesn’t the OBA just try to tackle sectarianism?
No, the Offensive Behaviour Act doesn’t even contain the word sectarian at any point throughout it and sectarian has no meaning in Scots Law in any event. As has been repeated by our campaign continually since 2011, religious aggravated criminal behaviour was already covered by existing legislation. What this Act sought to criminalise was ‘’offensiveness’’, which is a much broader concept.
4. Doesn’t the public support the OBA?
No, credible polls and consultations actually show that the public overwhelmingly opposes this legislation.
An open public consultation was held regarding the repeal Bill, receiving 3248 responses making it the largest of its kind ever held in the history of the Scottish Parliament. 71.12% of respondents were strongly supportive of repealing sections 1-6, as opposed to 24.48% who were fully opposed.
https://scraptheact.com/consultation-results/
The Justice Committee took written and oral evidence from October to December 2017. This again received a very large number of responses. Over 75% of the individual responses were in favour of repeal and over half the organisations who submitted views were in favour of outright repeal. See here for independent commentary:
Commonspace article dated 23 August 2017
and here for the Justice Committee Stage 1 report which summarised the outcome of the consultation.
Justice Committee Stage 1 Report
Supporters Direct held a survey in 2017 of 14,000 fans. 71% of respondents to this survey opposed the OBA.
http://www.scottishsupporters.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Supporters-Direct-Scotland-Survey-Results-2017.pdf
Supporters of the OBA often cite an opinion poll carried out by YouGov in 2015, which seemingly demonstrated that 80% of people support the legislation.
There are however crucial problems with this research. Firstly, whilst the sample of 1044 is, in itself, large enough to make inference about the opinion of the country more broadly, more than half of the respondents admit to either being not very interested or not all interested in football. Given that this legislation only applies to football fans and society has been generally mislead about what this legislation does, these people could not be expected to provide a meaningful answer on the questions posed.
Moreover, whilst those who are interested in football in the majority proclaim support for the legislation, this number is not high enough to make an inference about broader opinions among fans across Scotland.
The arguably even greater issue however is with the questioning itself, which is deliberately designed to elicit a certain response. The question reads
‘’The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act aims to tackle sectarianism or offensive chanting or threatening behaviour at football which likely to cause public disorder. To what extent do you support or oppose this law?’’
Given the way this question is worded, it is a surprise that response rate was not 100% supportive as opposed to 80%. This question deliberately misrepresents the legislation and nudges participants to respond in support. The data gathered is meaningless and this poll is utterly discredited.
Another poll commissioned by an independence campaigner is frequently cited. This poll was conducted through an opt-in site which pays money to partipants and, as a non-random poll in which participants are self-selected, it is known to have higher errors and likelihood of bias. In fact, there is no statistically valid way to be sure that an opt-in poll is truly representative of the whole population. Further, this poll was of 1013 people of of which 511 (50.4%) declared no interest in football. See comments re the YouGov poll above in relation to this point. The question asked appears to have been ‘Do you support the Offensive Behaviour Act’. The findings report that 60% of those sampled supported the Act. The company then breaks down the sample into those who support various or any team (including, oddly, supporters of English clubs where the Act does not apply). For example, they report that 99 people who declare themselves to be Celtic supporters, support the Act. Even in a truly random poll this would be far too small a sample size to be able to infer anything about the population of Celtic supporters (for comparison, to be 95% confident that the figure was correct to between +/- 1% you would need a sample size of 8279. No real credibility can be attached to this opt-in poll which is, in any event, now considerably out of date.
The data gathered in open public consultation and by survey shows that, those who express a view, overwhelmingly support repeal.
5. Who else opposes the OBA?
The OBA is opposed by every mainstream political party in Scotland except for the SNP. This includes pro-independence groups such as the Green Party, RISE and the Scottish Socialist Party.BEMIS, the national Ethnic Minorities led umbrella body, has said that it targets ethnic minorities. Liberty (the UK’s biggest civil rights organisation) has said that it endangers civil rights. The Law Society of Scotland has said that it is unnecessary and poorly drafted law. The Scottish Human Rights Commission[1] have said that it ‘considers there is a strong likelihood that key provisions of the Act fall short of the principle of legal certainty and the requirement of lawfulness.’
The legislation has been lambasted by fans, football clubs, judges, lawyers, academics and prominent journalists. Any credible voice on this issue has spoken out against the law.
6. What is the conviction rate for the OBA?
The conviction rates published by the Scottish Government and by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service relate only to concluded cases at the time or the reporting period and are never corrected after all of the charges for that year are concluded. For reasons explained in our supplementary submission to the Justice Committee[2] this has a particular impact on data relating to the Offensive Behaviour Act because of the length of time it takes for those cases to conclude (this is recognised in the Scottish Government’s own evaluation by the University of Stirling). Using the official data, we have calculated that the true conviction rate over the whole period of the Act (2011-12 – 2016-17) could be as low as 36%.
7. Surely there is smoke without fire, and people being arrested deserve to be arrested?
The vast majority of fans who have been arrested, in our experience, have had no previous contact with the justice system and have only been criminalised as a result of this legislation.Fans have been arrested for a catalogue of ridiculous alleged offences, such as swearing or for acts of political expression. Most fans are also found not guilty of any offence (see FAQ6).
8. Surely we can’t repeal the Act without anything in its place without leaving a gap in law?
Given that there was already legislation in place, there would be no gap in law as argued by credible groups such as the Law Society of Scotland, the Glasgow Bar Association and legal academics.Police Scotland have also noted that they would be able to continue to police football matches using previous existing legislation.
8. If the issue is about the Act singling out football fans, why not expand the Act?
You cannot expand the Act by criminalising offensiveness in wider society as this would seriously restrict people’s right to freedom of expression, which is one of the foundations of a democratic society.
9. Wouldn’t repealing the Act send the wrong message?
The only message that repealing the legislation would send is that this Act is not fit for purpose and that all people in Scotland will be treated equally before the law.
10. Shouldn’t we wait until the Bracadale review before making a decision on this?
Given that this Act is not actually hate crime legislation and that sufficient legislation exists to ensure there is no gap in law, we see no reason to delay the inevitable further.Whilst the repeal Bill is ongoing, so too are cases for many fans whose lives are still being seriously impacted on by this illiberal legislation.
11. Shouldn’t the opposition parties put forward proposals to amend the Act?
The Scottish Government has never been interested in either properly reviewing this Act or considering using their powers to vary it in any way. It is only now, with the Parliamentary arithmetic no longer being in their favour that we have heard the suggestion that amendments should be proposed. However, given the other arguments against the Act, principally that it is unnecessary and that repealing it would leave no gap in the law, it is illogical to suggest amending the Act. Our suggestion is that pre-existing legislation should be applied when necessary to any citizen in any context ie not just in the context of a regulated football match.
12. Isn’t the legislation just intended for Celtic and Rangers fans?
No, this legislation has negatively impacted fans across the country which is why fans of many clubs have protested against this Act. Non-Celtic and Rangers fans form the majority of those charged in each year of the Act except 2012-13.
13. Is this simply an issue for football fans?
No, whilst football fans have felt the brunt of this legislation it should concern all citizens who care about civil liberties and equality.
14. Do the opposition parties just want to score political points by defeating the SNP?
Whilst this has been continually suggested by disgruntled SNP MSP’s, we do not believe that the insinuation has any merit.All non-Government MSP’s voted against the legislation in 2011, making it the first law ever passed by the Scottish Parliament without any cross-party support. They have maintained this opposition ever since.This is a law which has united Celtic and Rangers fans, the Green Party & the Scottish Conservatives. A bad law is a bad law, and the only party playing politics on this is the one which is refusing to admit that they got it wrong.
15. Is the OBA compatible with the Convention of Human Rights?
As outlined in FAQ5, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, a body set up by legislation of the Scottish Parliament but which is independent from Government, has expressed very serious concern about the extent to which the Act is compliant with Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 7 (legal certainty) and 5 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights[3].
Liberty, the leading UK civil and human rights organisation, has also stated in 2011 and again during the scrutiny of the Repeal Bill in late 2017 that ‘the Act poses a threat to human rights’, saying that it is ‘deep affront to the right to free speech’ and saying that ‘the Act should be repealed’.
16. Didn’t the Walsh & Donnelly case prove that the Act is HRA compatible?
This case is the leading case relating to this Act because Counsel for the two young men convicted, appealed their conviction to the High Court. The High Court rejected their appeal but the appeal was very specific to a particular song and was not in relation to the Act as a whole. Therefore, despite inaccurate comments by the Community Safety Minister, Annabelle Ewing, in 2017, this case did not involve any test that the Act is ECHR-compliant.