NIL by Mouth has been arguing for ‘strict liability” for years.
The charity’s campaign director Dave Scott reckons Scottish football has been running away from its sectarian problem for years.
The Scottish Government turned to policing to fix religious bigotry on the terraces with an act - widely criticised and now repealed - to deal with offensive behaviour at grounds.
Mr Scott does not think the repeal means the problem has gone away. He wants clubs to be made responsible. However, he does not see this as being necessarily quite as painful as football’s leaders fear.
He said: “Strict liability means there is nowhere to hide. We have had an absolute failure for decades to tackle problems like sectarianism.
“Nobody does anything. There are just phantom meetings nobody minutes.
“But strict liability does not have to mean drastic measures like closing a ground or docking points. It could be a bit more like a licensing board.”
Scottish football, after all, wants to sell alcohol again, 38 years after yet another shame game that brought the country in to disrepute.
Clubs, if they get their way, will have to be licensed.
That means behaving in the responsible way publicans have to - or lose their licence.
Could this be a model for something close to strict liability to which clubs could sign up?
Their actions could be judged by something like an independent licensing board, reckons Mr Scott. So if there is trouble at a game, such a board would look to see if the club had done all it could to prevent it. And to see if they behaved responsibly after an event.
Hearts and Hibs issued a joint statement on Thursday. Their respective managers both highlighted how unacceptable Wednesday’s trouble was. without singling out the other side. A board might judge they were behaving like responsible licence-holders.
What if a club played a tune to its fans it knew had alternative sectarian words? Or if club officials or players used dog-whistles or suggested match officials were biased against them? Would that pass a licensing regime?
Mr Scott said: “I think such a system would re-assure fans.”
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 here