The question to be asked of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication (Scotland) Act 2012 is whether it is iniquitous, merely pointless or, perhaps paradoxically, both. I vote for both. Here’s why:
Two Hibernian fans caught chanting offensive songs on the train back from a cup quarter-final have become the first people convicted under controversial new anti-bigotry laws.
[…] The pair were travelling home after watching Hibs beat Ayr United on Saturday, to progress to the Scottish Cup semi-finals*, when the incident happened.
They had boarded the 6:13pm train from Ayr to Glasgow Central when they were seen by British Transport Police officers chanting and singing songs that were “of a racially derogative nature” and were arrested.
They pled guilty during an appearance at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Monday. Police said the convictions should act as a warning to others.
Indeed it should! Just not in the manner the police suggest. Why so? Because of this:
Police were not able to say exactly what chants and songs were being sung.
So here we have it: the new law is pointless, at least in this instance, since it is hard to see how the offence – to which the men pled guilty – could not have been covered by existing Breach of the Peace legislation and it is iniquitous since, in this instance at least, the police, according to this report (with all the caveats inherent in that) were unable to say “exactly” what it was the men had done wrong apart, presumably, from behaving in a racous or uncouth or distasteful fashion.
What evidence have the police mustered against the accused? On the face of it, in this instance at least, it seems as though the police charge amounted to not very much more than we don’t like the way in which you are behaving. Is that, or should that, be enough? I rather doubt it. What kind of justice is that? What limits will be drawn on what is considered “offensive”? The bill, however well-intentioned it may be, remains a shambles and a nonsense.
Again, there are already plenty of laws governing behaviour in public; there is no need to introduce new ones and, most especially, no need to pass laws that infringe upon speech in quite this manner, not least since as best as can be known no-one has a clear idea of what is and what is not actually proscribed by the new legislation. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.
It would be interesting, would it not, to see what happens if or when people start pleading not guilty. I suspect those cases will end up proving that this is a misconceived, unworkable, thoroughly rotten piece of legislation. The sooner that happens, the better. This unecesary, illiberal, speech-restricting bill remains the SNP’s most embarrassing legislative own goal.
Previous concerns about these issues can be found here, here, here, here and here.
UPDATE: In the comments, Andrew Kerins makes a good point that should not have escaped me: the police might have been able to present some evidence had a not guilty plea been entered. If so then aspects of this post may be less persuasive than I’d like them to be. Nevertheless, what part of this behaviour was not covered by existing legislation?
*The Aberdeen-Hibs semi-final is the most important (Scottish) game of the year. It is important that the Dons prevail to maintain Hibs impressive record of not winning the Scottish Cup since 1902. Anything can happen in a one-off final and while it would be droll to see Hibernian fail so close to what passes for glory in the Scottish game, the risk that something dreadful might happen and they could take the Cup back to Leith is too great to allow that to happen. Better that they lose safely in the semi-final.
Comments