Joan McAlpine’s column in the Scotsman this week is uncharacteristically unpersuasive. Since she decided to defend the SNP’s plans for so-called anti-sectarian legislation she was backing a losing horse from the start. Still, it speaks well of her loyalty. Nevertheless, her piece is useful since, in large part, it outlines a kind of consensus that is deemed to exist and from which it is unwise to deviate. Certainly it is hard to think of many opposition politicians who have distinguished themselves in this affair. Even those who question the SNP’s plans do so on grounds of efficiency, not ethics or principle. If the government’s plans are woeful; the opposition remains fearful. How can it be otherwise given they also subscribe to the dreary theory that Something Must Always Be Done?
Remember this: extraordinarily, our elected representatives are now debating what songs may be sung in public and what is or is not perceived to be a sectarian declaration of religiously-aggravated hatred or conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace. This is, in buzzword bingo land, “granular” stuff and liable to be well beyond the wit or ken of MSPs at Holyrood. This, naturally, does not matter even half a jot. As Joan says:
One could argue that the Irish national anthem, The Soldier’s Song, was supportive of the IRA, while The Boys of the Old Brigade was played this year when The Queen visited Dublin. Exactly the same argument could be made for some Ulster unionist songs too. An old favourite such as The Sash is a celebration of religious and political identity which does not advocate attacking Catholics.
But there are circumstances in which these songs, for pragmatic reasons of public safety should not be sung. That includes a football match. The heated atmosphere of the Old Firm means “folk songs” take on a far more sinister tone. And these are the borderline ballads – straightforward chants of “Up the ‘Ra” and “F*** the Pope” as well as The Billy Boys really shouldn’t be the subject of any discussion whatsoever.
On the contrary and damn your Overton Window Ms McAlpine! Up the ‘Ra and Fuck the Pope* are precisely the kinds of declaration that need to be discussed and, yes, defended. Doing so scarcely requires one approve of the sentiments, far less dote on those belting out these or any other “Hymns of Hate” at Ibrox or Parkhead or wherever the Gruesome Twosome’s marauding bands of supporters may be found. Nevertheless, the plain fact of the matter is that a civilised society must tolerate behaviour it finds distasteful.
Plainly, it is a nonsense to pore through these football hymnals in search of ditties that may be deemed “political” (and therefore acceptable) and those condemned to be “sectarian” (and thus proscribed). Any sensible examiner would conclude that each of these anthems are meant as triumphalist provocations and, consequently, they are political and sectarian.
Implicit in all this is the suggestion, lurking even in the recesses of the prohibitionists’ minds, that “political” speech probably ought to be kind of, sort of, more or less protected in some way. No such quarter need be offered to anything deemed “sectarian”. That’s fair game.
Unfotunately, a football competition is definitionally a tribal, and thus sectarian, thing. Concentrating on the songs is, at best, to look at symptoms not causes. If violence and discord associated with the Old Firm is such a problem it cannot be contained by existing (often sweeping) legislation then the causes of all this trouble cannot credibly be addressed by arresting men for singing the wrong kind of song.
This bill’s apologists ask us to believe that across the West of Scotland men are stung to beat their wives by the songs they sang at the fitba earlier that day. Really? Do we suppose that arresting people for singing the wrong kind of songs will lessen the mutual antipathy enjoyed by the two halves of Glasgow? Really? For that matter, who really believes even lowlife think like this: I hate Tims so ah’m gonnae batter ma burd? Yet this is what we are asked to believe. Proscribing songs cannot reduce hatred. Nor can it persuade West of Scotland Man to drink less. Even a generously charitable view of these proposals leads one to notice that their goals outstrip their means.
Aye, well, so what? This is just meant to send a message, don’t you know? Perhaps so, but since it cannot possibly be applied consistently it must be capricious and, consequently, inherently unjust. This is another kind of message and not one that reflects well upon our parliamentarians. Nor, evidently, does their hostility to anything even resembling an argument based on a quaint appreciation of free speech and that expresses even a modest disinclination to go around criminalising thoughts and speech.
Certainly context matters and the context of a football match is that it’s an arena in which difference and belonging are all. You can ban the songs all you want but where do you stop? Don’t be fooled into supposing there are no slippery slopes. If a song can be considered a religiously-aggravated incitement liable to cause a breach of the peace then so can other symbols. In the context of Celtic and Rangers that means other badges of affiliation must, by the logic of these proposals, be considered offensive. These must surely include the Union Flag and the Irish Tricolour. These, just as much as the songs, are declarations of tribal, sectarian affiliation. Waving them can be seen – indeed is sometimes meant – as a provocation too. Can they be banned too? And how long until they are? (Next: banning the wearing of the green and the sporting of the blue!)
Opposing this bill does not mean one favours wife-beating or pub-stabbings. There are, properly, laws agin this kind of thing already and they should and can be enforced without any of these additional, plainly ill-conceived pieces of legislation. But criminalising speech. even speech that’s distasteful, is not the answer. It cannot possibly address the actual causes of violence and mayhem. It is instead designed to show a willingness to do something and, like most such feebly-inspired bills, is liable to be a mess and a nonsense in equal measure.
Finally, it may well be the case that the best way to stoke sectarianism is to talk about the problems of sectarianism. The more you make it an issue, the more you may exacerbate the very problems you’re trying to resolve. It could be that ignoring “offensive” behaviour at football grounds is the best way to reduce its long-term appeal. It is also my suspicion that there may be some correlation between the poverty of the football played in Glasgow and the appeal of an ultra-sectarian identity. If we took football more seriously in Scotland – that is, if we were better at it – we might not need to take all the bluster and bullshit that swaddles the Old Firm as a comfort blanket designed to divert attention from the fact that none of these mugs can actually play the game. It’s serious because the football is hopeless; if the football were serious then the off-field situation might not be hopeless.
*I modestly suggest that Up the Ra and Fuck the Pope be the ecumenical t-shirt slogan of choice when it comes to sporting opposition to the government’s plans.
Comments