Jim Murphy said last week that the stain of religious sectarianism would only be gone from Scotland when it is "seen by future generations to be just as unacceptable as racism and homophobia".
Murphy was promising to get rid of the Offensive Behaviour At Football And Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act. It is safe to say a majority of football fans, particularly in Glasgow, would applaud him for that. They say, with evidence, that the police have gone over the score in enforcing the law; that existing legislation served well enough; that sectarianism is more complex than any trouble surrounding football.
Chris Graham, of the Rangers FC group the Union Of Fans, told The Herald that the implementation of the act had been "virtually impossible". He also advanced an argument that is hard to refute: there is a problem in deciding what we mean by offensive. Have you committed a criminal act just because your opinions are not to someone's taste?
On the one hand, that is patently the essence of laws against racism and homophobia. Equally, you can be accused (take it from me) of intolerance towards people of faith simply by being satirical about their beliefs and where beliefs can lead. Such folk can be dreadfully offended. Should they also be entitled to call the cops?
Joe O'Rourke, of Fans Against Criminalisation and the Celtic Supporters' Association, argued that the act was "a knee-jerk reaction". Previous restrictions "already covered anybody who misbehaved at football matches".
Meanwhile, one sheriff has described the "horribly drafted" 2012 legislation as "mince". Murphy prefers the word "gimmick". Last week, only the SNP held out against repeal in a Holyrood debate called by Labour.
So: poorly drafted, unnecessary legislation that misses the point, is unpopular, impossible to implement, and brings the threat of prosecution to the cloudy realm of personal belief and opinion. It amounts almost to a textbook definition of bad law. Hence Murphy's promise.
But hold on, as anyone who has ever witnessed or suffered bigotry and sectarianism in Scotland might interject. This issue didn't become one of our wee national trademarks for nothing.
Contrary to anything Murphy might suggest, the act wasn't conjured up with no excuse. The Scottish reputation, particularly in the west, didn't spring from nowhere. The fact that middle-class Catholic professionals are no longer contained by the old glass ceiling is not proof of a problem solved.
It is no accident that racism and homophobia are increasingly, as the MP observes, unacceptable. Times and society have changed; education has drained many old poisons. But some pretty sturdy laws - like the law being upheld by the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland - have been needed. Murphy's commitment to dump the football act if he is lucky enough to become First Minister overlooks the obvious: unacceptable is not the same as non-existent.
The East Renfrewshire MP also overlooked a couple of other things in his intervention. One involved the opinion polls showing that Scottish Labour won't be legislating for anyone any time soon. Just as important is the fact that, even should his luck turn to a remarkable degree, Murphy will not be in a position to scrap the act before 2016. In the meantime, an assessment of the legislation's impact will have been produced by the Scottish Government.
What if the law is working? After all, that was the claim made last week by Roseanna Cunningham, the Community Safety and Legal Affairs Minister. Meanwhile, a Government spokesman asserted that "religiously aggravated offending" fell by 17% last year. Are Labour opposed to that sort of result? Shouldn't Murphy at least wait until the assessment group reports next year?
Better still - for perhaps I missed it in his soundbites - shouldn't the MP tell us how he would handle the issue? He is a Celtic fan and a devout Catholic. He knows the history of this ugly reality as well as anyone. Last week, he denounced the act as an attempt to chase headlines. He said - correctly - that "sectarianism and intolerance goes far beyond 90 minutes on a Saturday or 140 characters in a tweet". Then he proposed "education". And that was it.
Meaning what? Anything that hasn't been tried for decades? Anything that would cope with the phenomenon of online bigotry for which the act was, in part, designed?
Murphy was less interested in offering a better response to sectarianism than in attacking the SNP. No-one expected otherwise, but it wasn't exactly a help in the Scotland he imagines he will one day govern.
The legislation's tendency to criminalise football fans as a type is an old story where the sport is concerned. Previous efforts to deal with hooliganism fell into the same trap. Attempts by Uefa, European football's governing body, to have clubs punished for the actions of a minority face the same difficulty.
Hardest of all, always, is the effort to evolve rules to cope with sincerely-held yet utterly horrific opinions when individuals claim a human right.
But that does not mean that the law can never help.
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 hereComments are closed on this article