CELTIC has warned that holding football sides liable for the behaviour of fans risks being undermined by rivals “purporting to be supporters” of the club.
In its response to moves to repeal the controversial Offensive Behaviour at Football (OFBA) laws, Celtic said plans for ‘strict liability’ within the Scottish game could actually encourage “unacceptable conduct in the stands”.
Adding that clubs could bank money for fines rather than invest “in best practice” and re-affirming its “significant concerns in relation to the potential for discrimination against football supporters “ it says the OBFA creates, Celtic added: “By way of example, there is no evidence that the strict liability system operated by UEFA is effective in improving supporter behaviour or reducing the number of disciplinary cases brought by UEFA.”
Read more: Nicola Sturgeon's post-Brexit blueprint for EU deal to be published by end of 2016
The Scottish champions were one of several organisations to respond to a consultation by Labour MSP James Kelly, who is attempting to overturn the four-year-old legislation.
Mr Kelly plans to bring forward a bill overturning the Act, amid expectation in some quarters the opposition parties will use their majority to scrap the law, introduced in 2012 following a series of on and off-field incidents the previous season.
Those who made submissions in full support of the Offensive Behaviour laws include gay rights organisations Stonewall and the Equality Network, both of which called for the legislation to be used to increase prosecution of homophobic behaviour at football.
Stating that “homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are a significant problem in football”, the Equality Network said the Act had not been used effectively in dealing with such abuse, adding: “This appears to be an implementation problem rather than a fault in the legislation.”
Read more: Nicola Sturgeon's post-Brexit blueprint for EU deal to be published by end of 2016
Stonewall Scotland said: “The issue of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia behaviour at football is far from resolved, and further steps need to be taken to ensure that all fans, players and professionals feel safe and included in our national game. We believe that a detailed review of the implementation of the Act would therefore be appropriate, with the view to looking at where provisions might be clarified or strengthened.”
Elsewhere, newly formed Rangers supporters’ group Club 1872 said the Act “dehumanises football fans” and was “a pointless law passed by a party that I becoming increasingly dictatorial”.
The Crown Office has also responded, insisting it regularly makes submissions to consultations on private members’ bills. It said the Act had been successfully used to prosecute “a variety of criminal behaviour”, including instances where jail sentences were handed out. The Crown also said the Act allowed the prosecution of certain behaviours which could not be “shoe-horned” into other offences.
Human rights group Liberty said it the “subjective discretion” of police officers had led to “misapplication and misuse”, adding: “It is clear from this that non-violent football fans may find themselves inadvertently falling within the remit of the criminal law for simply singing a chant intended to antagonize the opposition and express pride in a football side but without intending to trigger violence.”
Read more: Nicola Sturgeon's post-Brexit blueprint for EU deal to be published by end of 2016
In its criticisms of the Act, Celtic added that it was concerned that damage to the relationship between supporters and Police Scotland could have an impact on safety at its ground. It recommended the further adoption of its supporters’ liaison officer as a model which was improving fan behaviour both in Glasgow and elsewhere, adding that it continued to work withy authorities to deal with inappropriate conduct at football.
Mr Kelly said: “The consultation has now closed and it has clear the law continues to provoke a great deal of public interest. I welcome the debate and look forward to discussions with interested parties in the months ahead.”
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