MORE than three-quarters of those who spoke out over Scotland's anti-sectarian football law repeal bid have backed scrapping the controversial Act.
The SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Act has been criticised by Labour as it publicised figures showing the level of opposition to the Act, which was brought in following the Old Firm “shame game” between Rangers and Celtic in 2011.
A wide range of organisations submitted evidence to the parliament, a majority of whom back the law’s repeal, raising concerns over the Football Act’s contribution to legislation, its impact on freedom of speech, and questioning its role in tackling sectarianism, Labour said.
Holyrood's Justice Committee has received over 200 individual responses to its call for evidence as it examines James Kelly MSP’s member's bill to repeal the Act, with over 75 per cent in favour of the proposal.
Read more: Trio jailed for 28 months after cocaine and drink-fuelled attack on Celtic fans after cup tie
Among organisations to speak against the law are the Glasgow Bar Association, which supports full repeal and rejects claims that it would create a gap in the law, while human rights group Liberty states that the Act should be repealed and that it is a “heavy-handed solution to a problem already targeted by existing criminal law provisions” which “represents a real threat to freedom of speech”.
Official fans group Supporters Direct Scotland report that 74 percent of fans backing the proposal to repeal.
The Law Society of Scotland submission earlier raised concerns that "the 2012 Act has not been fundamental to tackling sectarianism”.
Among those cited as against the outright scrapping the Act are Victim Support Scotland which is "opposed to the repeal of the 2012 Act unless there is a viable alternative to support victims of threatening communication and religious prejudice".
Read more: Trio jailed for 28 months after cocaine and drink-fuelled attack on Celtic fans after cup tie
The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities "urge the extension rather than the repeal of this legislation”, while Stonewall Scotland said repeal "may send a worrying message" and the Equality Network is "very concerned about the potential effects of repealing the Act without other clear measures being implemented in its place".
James Kelly, Glasgow Labour MSP, said: "The Justice Committee has been told in the clearest of terms that the Football Act should be scrapped.
“Major organisations like the Law Society state that the law is entirely unnecessary while human rights group Liberty calls it a threat to freedom of speech.
"It is difficult to see how the Nationalists can continue to defend this condemned legislation.
Read more: Trio jailed for 28 months after cocaine and drink-fuelled attack on Celtic fans after cup tie
"The Football Act was a PR stunt pulled by a government abusing its majority at the time. It has failed to tackle sectarianism and simply served to draw a divide between fans and the police, reversing years of progress.
“Legal experts, human rights groups and countless supporters continue to speak out against this illiberal and ineffective legislation.
"It’s time the Football Act was scrapped.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The vast majority of football supporters are well-behaved and the Act is a clear statement that no section of society is exempt from standards and behaviours that are considered acceptable.
Read more: Trio jailed for 28 months after cocaine and drink-fuelled attack on Celtic fans after cup tie
"As groups representing victims and equalities campaigners have also indicated, repealing it would send entirely the wrong signal to both football and wider society.
“The Act strengthens the law and allows for a more effective response by police and prosecutors to an issue which many appear resigned to accept as the status quo.”
Police used the Act 377 times in 2016-17 to deal with actions.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the Scottish Government found that 82 per cent of respondents agreed sectarian singing or chanting at football matches is offensive; 83 per cent supported laws to tackle offensive behaviour at and around football matches and 80 per cent directly supported the Act. The poll surveyed 1,044 Scottish adults during June 2015.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel