Nil By Mouth:
So I took it upon myself to visit the much quoted Nil By Mouth (NBM) website at www.nilbymouth.org. The movement, we all know, was started in tribute to a young Celtic supporter who was tragically murdered in his teens. The site announces that “NBM is an anti-sectarian charity which seeks to challenge religious bigotry in Scotland….sectarianism runs deep in Scottish society. Violent clashes after an Old Firm are the most obvious manifestations of the problem, but sectarianism is often much more subtle……NBM's campaign focuses on attitudes and language”.
Immediately, the claim that violent clashes after an Old Firm are its most obvious materialisation can be called into question. In my experience of many Old Firms, particularly in the last decade, there is relatively little danger to individual supporters. This is borne out by the 2002 'Report of Cross Party Working Group on Religious Hatred's report at paragraph 2.15 which states “Football can, of course, be a focus for disorder whether or not sectarianism is involved. We understand, for example, that other fixtures can cause greater difficulties for the police in Glasgow than Old Firm matches.” Other local derbies, for example, the seemingly innocent Arbroath v Montrose match can cause, on a pro-rata attendance scale, more bother, violence and arrests than an Old Firm and not one person attending will care a jot about religion. So it is impossible to say where the line between sectarianism and normal local rivalry in a tough city like Glasgow lies so out of convenience its easier to classify all OF bother as sectarianism.
What is a Crime?
NBM's campaign focuses on 'attitudes and language'. Lets consider the latter; language. For some time now the authorities have been reluctant to define unacceptable language. In light of a statement by Tayside Police after the last visit of Rangers I wrote to them and asked exactly what language may cause me to spend a night in the clink. The reply was “I have been in discussion with the Match Commander regarding your message. It depends not only what is said but also what context it is said in. The general advice is not to sing or say anything that may cause offence on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender. It is always advisable to exercise restraint, as what may not be offensive to you personally may be grossly offensive to someone else. It is impossible to draw up a specific list of acceptable and unacceptable songs etc., but people are generally well aware of what could potentially be offensive to others and should act accordingly”.
Not very enlightening is it, but unsurprising given the Working Party's comments at paragraph 2.11 ”The fans' rivalry is expressed in many ways: chanting, singing, insults, gestures and banners. Some of these crystallise the difficulty of defining an offence of religious hatred. For example, gestures include Celtic fans ostentatiously making the "sign of the cross" at the Rangers fans. The sign of the cross in itself is an expression of the Roman Catholic faith; however, using it to alarm, upset or provoke others might be a breach of the peace at common law. Similarly, the singing of loyalist songs like "The Sash" or "Derry's Walls" which celebrate the triumph of William of Orange, could be viewed as an expression of cultural solidarity, or as an attempt to insult and intimidate the opposition"
So beyond the more explicit examples such as 'f... the pope' or 'soon there'll be no protestants at all' the offence of religious intolerance cannot truly be defined – any charge will always be subjective. Where does the burden of proof lie, with the accuser? Does the accused have the right to defend himself with the counterclaim that the alleged ‘offence' was a sign of cultural solidarity or faith? How can such a subjective point ever be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law? Are the ‘thought police' sovereign? Without defining and making public the proscribed actions or sayings then surely we have an unenforceable law. And this is without trying to conclude if fenian, hun or 'dirty orange' are sectarian insults, or just descriptive precursors like 'sheepshagging' or 'English' to the undeniable but unshattering insult 'b'tard'.
NBM also promote an 'Old Firm Action Plan' - it can be found at: http://www.nilbymouth.org/oldfirm.shtml In it's list of 8 recommendations, which vary from vague to direct, from sensible to sledgehammer it does include this interesting action point for both clubs at number 4. “Identify the type of singing and chanting which is and is not acceptable”. That's all well and good, but why leave the clubs to be the interpreters of a subjective and vague law? Why should either club be forced to proscribe songs which are genuinely important cultural anthems for their supporters, for example, correctly sung Soldiers Song or the Sash? Frankly they should not.
The only absolute solution for the many commentators would be to completely eliminate any form of cultural expression as highlighted by the increasing and ludicrous condemnation of national flags, national anthems etc. The picture has been muddied in people's minds that they now consider anything connected with Rangers, and to a lesser extent Celtic, as sectarian. There is absolutely no need or justification for someone's British, or indeed Irish, culture to be quashed altogether because the natural extension of this line must surely be to quash Scottish identity? You simply cannot draw an ambiguous line between acceptable and unacceptable national identity and culture.
It is hard to comment on NBM without addressing the matter of credibility. Unfortunately this is one key asset that NBM have frittered away over time by showing a willingness to become embroiled in the trivial, ridiculous and hysterical. Furthermore NBM have a proven willingness to engage more with one 'tradition' and an unwillingness to take any meaningful action on sectarianism beyond football chanting. It is a largely unaccountable near monopoly who dares anyone to question the sentiment of their mission statement by investigating its rather patchy performance. I mean, deary me, only a bigot could question an anti-sectarian charity's performance? NBM draws support from both the naive and manipulating collaborators within the media and political establishment. Without credibility, it no longer has the potential to make any meaningful impact on society.
Media Hysteria:
There are too numerous examples of media hysteria where commentators scramble to outdo themselves in the most pious condemnation of sectarianism. It's a disgrace, evil, pathetic, a stain on the nation they cry while citing that Rangers TV had a white Christmas tree, not a green one - and in this day and age too, tut, tut. But what they are really just condemning is abusive football chanting.
In its substantive form sectarianism is worthy of condemnation. But too many of the social amateurs concentrate their efforts on perfectly legal or acceptable acts such flying of legitimate national flags, the union flag, the Irish tricolour. And most hysterically, the flag of Northern Ireland, a democratically constituent part of the United Kingdom which seems to have taken on a dastardly meaning somewhere between the Jolly Roger and the swastika. It is not the act of flying these flags that should be questioned - it is the attitude of the offended that needs examined.
A media that can give a platform to the overblown views of James McMillan, but dare not give equitable air time to views that may highlight the flaws of Mr McMillan's own tradition. A media that abides by the victim/oppressor model and dismisses inconvenient, yet credible, academic research that proves that society is increasingly integrated in marriage (a positive sign of the loosening grip religion has on the heart) and equality in the job market (except is some small specific sections where the victim/oppressor model has been unapologetically turned on it's head e.g. education and local politics).
In truth, the media lack the intellectual depth and/or desire to deliver a sensible broad analysis or investigation into sectarianism - maybe this is understandable as to concentrate on the more emotive (as football is) stirs the passions and is good for sales. But ultimately it does not heal sectarianism, it just strengthens resentments.
Beyond Football:
Too much of the focus on sectarianism focuses on the Old Firm verbals and only glib reference is made to it being a problem in wider society. But let's imagine OF fans did cease to sing whatever songs are the ‘root cause', will sectarianism go away? Of course not. Sectarianism can manifest itself in terms of mistrust, violence, discrimination in the job market etc. In many ways, these can be far more observable, substantive and insidious than a football chant. After all, you can muzzle the dog at the football, but it's still the same dog when it goes home.
As society is a catch all term for, well pretty much everything, we need to concentrate on the more prominent issues. As Fred Shedden, head of the NBM trustees notes at www.nilbymouth.org/files/StatesofScotland.rtf “For many people the simple answer to sectarianism is to abolish Catholic schools. Anyone who comments on this topic has to tread carefully…… It may be that if our politicians and educationalists were starting today with a blank sheet of paper to create a new school system in Scotland they would end up with something very different from what we currently have. But that's not where we are. The reality is that provision of state-funded Catholic schools is enshrined in the 1918 Education Act and it would take primary legislation to abolish them. In the 2003 elections to the Scottish Parliament none of the major political parties put forward such a policy and I cannot see that position changing in the foreseeable future.”. Fred then reminds us that 'Since his appointment as First Minister Jack McConnell has demonstrated his willingness to face up to Scotland's sectarian problems”
Well isn't Mr McConnell in a prime place to promote primary legislative change to tackle our nation's shame? This is the man who has 'demonstrated his willingness to tackle sectarianism, after all.
Ah, but faith schools do not promote religious intolerance, defenders of the system cry. Well,
no one actually thinks that there are scheduled class lessons on how to be intolerant. But this is a disservice to the ingenuity and tribal instincts of children. Separate them, on an increasingly tenuous basis (as church attendances show), and the children will learn to be 'one of us' and not 'one of them'. Mr Shedden himself proves this point beautifully, but it sadly it seems without recognising it, with fulsome praise for a Glasgow school janitor thus “One of my favourite projects involved a school janitor in Glasgow who applied to Sense over Sectarianism because he was fed up with the level of sectarian abuse being exchanged by primary school children in neighbouring Catholic and non-denominational schools. He received a grant to start a joint football team drawn from both these schools. After initial hesitation from some parents the janitor got the project up and running with training sessions taking place on a mixed basis in both schools. The idea was very simple but reports indicate that there has been a marked reduction in sectarian behaviour amongst the children concerned. At a micro level these types of project can make a significant difference and when SOS comes to an end in a few months' time Nil by Mouth will be asking the Scottish Executive to fund a successor scheme.”
Mr Shedden et al, you have just stumbled across a major long term solution to dismantling tribal ‘sectarian' attitudes. Integrate the schools, deal with the initial hesitation, and reap the rewards in years to come.
One would think that the willing Mr McConnell would relish these rewards and pay the price necessary. But Mr McConnell does not have that freedom, his lords and masters will not allow their vested interests be the price paid for ridding Scotland of its apparent shame'. Martin Luther King said in his famous 1960s speech that “one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” And thanks to sweeping reforms they did join hands and a new enlightened America awoke. No one is suggesting America is free of racism, but compared to the 1960s the phrase 'leaps and bounds' seems so inadequate.
Surely a Scottish 'cancer' and a nation's shame deserve the same ballsy and radical therapy if it has proven results. There are lessons from America and Scotland that are not being heeded in England where the move towards Muslim schools will, at a stroke, reintroduce segregationist racial tensions. The keenest promoter of faith schools is none other than Premier Blair, a man who currently sends his children to a faith school.
Mr McConnell's lords and masters, an emotive phrase? Not when the facts are examined and I have yet to see a more eloquent or concise explanation of Mr McConnell's shackles than an article by ‘Number Eight' which is available at: www.freewebs.com/mediahypocrisy/scotlandssecretshame.htm This excellent article highlights the comments of former First Minister in Scotland, Henry McLeish who claimed, by drawing on facts and experiences, that his own Scottish Labour party was tainted by sectarianism where the upper hand was held the infamous 'Lanarkshire mafia', a group of largely Celtic supporting MPs and MSPs who are reliant on with their largely catholic bloc vote. A mafia that acts as a clique, preserves power by ensuring like-mindedness in key political positions and occasionally flaunts its sectarian monopoly. Mr McConnell's reaction to a former national leader's accusations of sectarianism at the heart of the Scottish establishment? Mocking indifference to ensure his political longevity in the clique. Remember this is the man who has 'demonstrated' his willingness to tackle sectarianism. The media have the power to expose this, and the other major clique in local Glasgow city politics. Why haven't they? As Toyah said, it's a mystery. Mythtery actually.
Martin Luther King further commented “We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only." But 'For Celtic Fans Only' is tolerated? It certainly is a mystery.
Religion
There is a perversely inverse correlation between the decreasing importance of organised Christian religion throughout the UK and the increasing reverence being afforded to those who still believe. And there is another perverse inverse correlation within faith where the minority authoritarian religions are afforded more prestige and leeway than the fragmented indigenous protestant churches. This is illustrated by British author Clifford Longley comments in his 2005 book 'Chosen People' that when the Queen last met Pope John Paul II, it was to bask in the reflected glory of HIS status. This may be attributable to the catholic church's undoubted global span of influence and stature but it is unnecessary at the national UK level. If only the dowdy yet liberal Churches of England, Scotland and Ireland could command the same respect and affection in the media or at the centre of politics.
So the more dictatorial the religion, the greater the political correct protect it. Indeed, the more authoritarian, restrictive (and occasionally absurd) a religion is the more trendy it has become to be a vocal adherent to it. Isn't this a bizarre way of getting approval to maintain bigoted views against women, homosexuals or the agnostic, a different faith? And as a recent low level media a figure showed recently (My Crucifixion) its so much easier to claim to be religious than prove it.
Unity of Identity
Why did the protestant unionist community, religiously and politically still the majority within Scotland (where nationalists get 18% of the vote), and indeed Northern Ireland, become such outsiders in the political and media leadership of the country? Maybe they didn't. What may better explain it is the complete disintegration of unity, identity and purpose within the nominally protestant community.
While Catholic leaderships in either country can enjoy community unity with it's continued public subservience to the church, its infatuation with its ‘cultural' rallying point at Celtic FC (bigotry free according to it's Chief Executive and fantasist, Peter Lawwell) and it's ability to relate to it's working class and nouveau middle class with equal ease. It comforts itself that it is not sectarian despite substantive community justification of ‘political murders'. It has to be complemented on its political savvy.
Protestants, have never enjoyed such unity. There is no common religious identity; instead there are many divisions of the protestant ‘collective'. It is emotionally further on the process of secularisation. So much so that a great number of indigenous Scots do not identify themselves in the great RC/Prod divide. Catholics have yet to shed their attachment to their 'badge', often adopting the identity of 'culturally, if not religious, catholic'.
Within the protestant/indigenous Scottish community (and this applies too in Northern Irish protestants) there is a widening social and cultural gulf between the intransigent hotheads (often working class) and those who may act as a moderating force (often middle class). There is certainly less social and cultural kinship between the working class protestants and the middle classes than within the equivalent working class catholic and middle class catholics. And the first thing the protestant middle class do, to establish their credentials as moderates, is either hide or reject their prior allegiances to Rangers FC, such has Rangers become a byword for bigotry.
A further example, away from football, is offered by Andrew Marr who wrote a rather staggering piece of self-loathing in the Observer (4 July 1999) that indigenous populations suffered a 'poverty of identity' handicap that cannot match that of the different, the immigrant, the minority, the subserviently faithful. How he wished he was Irish, trendy and catholic. Sorry, but while I have no problem with immigrants (lest this point get confused as racist) I most certainly do not feel lesser or handicapped for being an indigenous Scot.
A far greater act of leadership would be for the prominent community leaders to build bridges within the indigenous population in Scotland (and this applies to Northern Ireland too) to promote cultural identity, harmony and accommodation. This does not have to be at the expense of raised tensions with the RC or other communities. The real act of leadership would be to promise (and deliver) that we will treat others with respect and dignity but that we insist that you treat us the same. It's time to let go the crutch of past victimhood.
Summary, what does this mean for us?
The sectarian industry in Scotland is a muddle of undefined crime, confused and inconsistent messages, vested interests, hysteria, imbalance and overall lacks credibility. So much so that ministers one day can pronounce bigotry as 'Scotland's shame' and the next day spuriously pronounce 'we're beating it'. I'm sure the elderly, sick, socially marginalised and educators are delighted.
It obsesses on the verbal output of the Old Firm (usually Rangers) as the nexus of the problem. And yes, there are things the Rangers support can/should cut out or change, to better represent themselves and promote the club. Let's not kid ourselves here. But they are far from unique in this. What is often deemed offensive may be better explained as distasteful - and this is the most that can be charged at the Billy Boys. I'll consider this song gone when we see a wider attention on all distasteful chants. But as long as the debate is weighed down by juvenile and hysterical journalism that relies on the old oppressor/victim model, attitudes will polarise rather than converge. Any observer of the Rangers support can see this today, especially in light of the Scottish media prompted UEFA investigation. I desperately want us to box cleverer, but it's hard to see it soon. As the permanently offended are selective and somewhat perverse in their priorities we are questioned more for references to ancient battles or descriptive words than recent paramilitary mayhem. Odd isn't it. Can you guess why?
This mess is likely to persist in Scotland and Northern Ireland unless new leadership can command some respect from all sections of the target community. Sadly there is no leadership at the fore just now. Perhaps the disunity has made this impossible. David Murray commented that Rangers were Scotland's second most important institution behind the Church of Scotland. But both are impotent in the media and hold disproportionately insufficient influence in political circles. Northern Ireland too, has seen unionist attitudes polarise and disunity. As long as this community situation persists, Rangers will never fulfil it's destiny to be the Champion of the People. And the snipers and amateurs will persist with their hyped war on the nation's phoney shame. I do not carry the nation's shame. I just support Rangers.
Sgt Steve