BY Ian Dunn | December 15 2011 | 1 COMMENT print
No consensus on anti-bigotry bill
Publication Date: 2011-12-15
Opposition parties unite to condemn the SNP’s actions after the Scottish Government passes The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill
The SNP used its majority at Holyrood to pass The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill yesterday, over the objections of all the opposition parties.
Under the new law will two new offences will be created targeting sectarian behaviour in and around football matches and on the internet. Those convicted under the new lawcould spend as long as five years in jail.
Community Safety Minister Roseanna Cunningham said that the bill was designed to help the 91 per cent of ‘decent, law-abiding’ Scots who had had enough of sectarian behaviour.
“This simple point seems to have been lost in what I think is a fog of denial and sometimes apparently wilful misunderstanding,” she said. “These are clear and specific improvements to the existing law.”
Opposition condemnation
After the bill was passed Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens and Independent MSP Margo MacDonald issued a joint statement condemning the SNP’s actions.
“Members of all political parties are determined to wipe the blight of sectarianism from Scottish society. It is of real regret that the first piece of legislation passed by this new Parliament has been railroaded through by the SNP,” it said. “The SNP has used its majority to force through bad law that risks doing more harm than good. It sets a worrying precedent for this Parliament.”
The only amendment to the legislation accepted by the SNP came from Patrick Harvie of the Green Party pledging the Government to consult with other parties as part of the review of how the new legislation would work in practice.
Labour justice spokesman James Kelly was particularly critical of Roseanna Cunningham’s handling of the legislation.
“We all know that throughout this process, it has not been competently handled by the minister,” he said. “What we need is a properly thought-out strategy on sectarianism, one that is informed by real people, not civil servants in St Andrew’s House.”
Church position
Before the bill was passed Catholic Church representatives said they had told the government that the bill is but the starting point in finally bringing anti-Catholicism in Scotland to an end.
Peter Kearney, director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, said the Scottish Government had still to commit to tackling the root causes of the problem.
“For all the talk about football, or Catholic schools or even Irish migration, John Ogilive was killed in Glasgow for being a Catholic long before any of those things,” he said. “There is a deep seated animosity to Catholicism that has its roots deep in the past and what Scotland needs to do is have a serious conversation about its religious history, which is violent and tumultuous. But until that happens we are merely looking at the symptoms of the problems rather than homing in on the cause.”
John Deighan, the Scottish Bishops’ parliamentary officer, said that there also needs to be a change in the way society sees people of faith.
“There needs to a recognition that religion is a civilising factor in life and this is why we have been pushing for a charter of religious freedom,” he said.
Free speech
The Christian Institute has welcomed the late addition of a free speech clause to the legislation, but expressed concerns about the Government’s ability to amend the legislation in future.
“We are absolutely delighted that the Scottish Government has moved to protect freedom of speech and religion from its anti-sectarianism legislation,” Colin Hart, director of The Christian Institute, said. “This follows a huge letter writing campaign.
“However, we remain concerned that Ministers have awarded themselves the ability to add additional grounds to the religious hatred offence at a later date.”
Re the last sentence: Failing to make provision for ways to amend legislation has, in the past, allowed ingenious ruffians to circumvent laws on techicalities; of specific wording of an Act for example. This has allowed crimes to go unpunished until laws are amended, sometimes decades later or not at all. Any such amendments would still need just cause and public support.