Fortunately we dont get sucked into the Catholic Protestant hatred thing and if it was to happen at our ground it would more than likely be individuals who are actually Old Firm fans first and foremost anyway and would soon get told to shut up by those around them.

But how loosely can the label sectarianism be used.

A player could get stick from the fans for whatever reason and it could be quite ignorant of the police/stewards to assume that because the fans are winding up the likes of Lafferty or Hooper etc it is due to racial hated.

Craig Brown used the word regarding the abuse Richard Foster received due to playing for Rangers.I dont know if he was booed for playing for a team that the Aberdeen fans have a long term dislike for or if it was more linked to religion.I would assume it was the former, still pretty immature to be booing your own players anyway.

Will the banter between ourselves at the dump and the caravan dwellers have to end

So how will it affect us.

Edited July 16, 201114 yr by 12th Man

How will what affect us?

Fortunately we dont get sucked into the Catholic Protestant hatred thing and if it was to happen at our ground it would more than likely be individuals who are actually Old Firm fans first and foremost anyway and would soon get told to shut up by those around them.

But how loosely can the label sectarianism be used.

A player could get stick from the fans for whatever reason and it could be quite ignorant of the police/stewards to assume that because the fans are winding up the likes of Lafferty or Hooper etc it is due to racial hated.

Craig Brown used the word regarding the abuse Richard Foster received due to playing for Rangers.I dont know if he was booed for playing for a team that the Aberdeen fans have a long term dislike for or if it was more linked to religion.I would assume it was the former, still pretty immature to be booing your own players anyway.

Will the banter between ourselves at the dump and the caravan dwellers have to end

So how will it affect us.

I reckon any laws created to tackle sectarianism will affect more non old firm supporters than supporters of the terrible 2some. Imagine the scene at the TCS, thousands of celtic supporter singing "Ooo ah up the 'ra" or Rangers supporters belting out the "billy boys" and a small section of our support start chanting something in retaliation. Are the police and stewards seriously going to treat both groups the same? They'll undoubtedly tackle the smaller and therefore easier problem of the home support whilst turning a blind eye to the away section.

It's the hosts responsibility but I'd hope the new task force send the troops wherever Jedward are playing.

Honestly the way the government and police are going anyone can be in the firing line, it would be foolish to attribute the problems to only Rangers and Celtic as I am sure most sets of fans are guilty of something that someone else doesn't like, whether it is sectarian or not is another thing.

Salmond has spotted an opportunity to cover up our societies flaws and blame just about everything on sectarianism that no one is safe now and must really think about anything that is sung, that includes the use of phrases like 'gypsy b@~tards' and 'sheep sh~+@ing b@#tards' as this could very easily be construed as sectarian even though in the loosest term it is really not. It is all to do with how people percieve things. I mean they were even discussing the merits of arresting people for singing the national anthem depending on when it was being sung, Rangers fans sing God save the Queen at the end of every match, does that mean it's ok for 34 games of the season but not in the 4 Old Firms because it is seen as inflamatory? What if other fans sing Flower of Scotland against Rangers, is that seen as inflamatory as it is in retaliation to them singing God Save the Queen, it has got silly now.

I do however feel that it is the Old Firm that have to watch as they are clearly on the radar more than other teams however Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen fans to an extent have a lot of watching to do as well.

The other problem with our society is that every parasite of the media and journalism profession love this sort of stuff and the minute something is sung or said they jump on it in a shot and make it twenty times worse and bring it to the fore even more, only in Scotland do we attempt to make things worse rather than trying to help the situation.

Sectarianism is nowhere near as bad as it was in the 70's, 80's and even the 90's and yes the Old Firm have made huge strides forward however it is a problem in society as much as football and sadly will never be fully eradicated, it happens all around the world it's just that Scotland is a smaller nation that does nothing to help itself and I includes governments and organisations like the SFA/SPL in that as well.

Sectarian chanting and bigotry doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not a religious person so are not offended by anything like that. You can't even make out what the inbred knuckle-draggers are chanting anyway, it's just a noise.

it is a problem in society as much as football and sadly will never be fully eradicated.

You are dead right that it will never be eradicated if the people who make the law and those who enforce it are spending all their time and energy scrutinising football while the Orange Order with impunity struts its triumphalist way as close as it can to Catholic areas, creating all the tension and resentment that it can muster.

Unacceptable though sectarian behaviour at football most definitely is, it seems absurd to concentrate all the energies on football grounds while the Glorious Magnificent Lodge Loyal 1690 No Surrender FTP remains free to infect the community at large with its bigoted filth.

A couple of weeks ago, as July 12th approached, I wrote to the relevant Scottish Executive minister Roseanna Cunningham and said largely that. I also suggested that sorting out the Orange Order was a far higher priority than football. I even put it to her that this wouldn't even be a vote losing policy since I couldn't imagine too many of Her Majesty's Bowler Hats and Umbrellas voting SNP in the first place.

Edited July 18, 201114 yr by Charles Bannerman

Already had my wee rant on the subject in the comment on this article

http://changingscottishfootball.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/joint-action-group-sets-out-agenda/

To summarise my opinions.....

1. The new task force has (deliberately or otherwise) done nothing but skirt around the issue when setting their agenda/plan of action. It has more to do with domestic abuse, drink/drug related problems, the internet and general misdemeanour than it has to do with tackling Sectarianism.

2. We don't need more legislation, we just need people in positions of power and authority who are willing to enforce existing legislation.

3. Until #2 happens then police, stewards etc will always go for the easy "soft" targets to justify their position and try to make it look as if they are doing something. Any new legislation just gives them wider scope from which to select those soft targets.

4. Having the biggest culprits at the wheel when it comes to driving forward reform is too ridiculous for words.

it is a problem in society as much as football and sadly will never be fully eradicated.

You are dead right that it will never be eradicated if the people who make the law and those who enforce it are spending all their time and energy scrutinising football while the Orange Order with impunity struts its triumphalist way as close as it can to Catholic areas, creating all the tension and resentment that it can muster.

Unacceptable though sectarian behaviour at football most definitely is, it seems absurd to concentrate all the energies on football grounds while the Glorious Magnificent Lodge Loyal 1690 No Surrender FTP remains free to infect the community at large with its bigoted filth.

A couple of weeks ago, as July 12th approached, I wrote to the relevant Scottish Executive minister Roseanna Cunningham and said largely that. I also suggested that sorting out the Orange Order was a far higher priority than football. I even put it to her that this wouldn't even be a vote losing policy since I couldn't imagine too many of Her Majesty's Bowler Hats and Umbrellas voting SNP in the first place.

Spot on, CB.......it has always struck me as ironic that Glasgow, in Scotland, has more sectarian marches than Londonderry and Belfast in Northern Ireland combined do to celebrate an Irish Battle. And in Glasgow, Orange Order and affiliated marches are over 200 annually......while Hibernian and affiliated marches are less than 20.

It is just as ironic that the Orange Order says on its website that The Protestant ethic is one of tolerance of other faiths and ideals. It is this tolerance and liberty that the Orange Order promotes and defends.

Tolerant of other faiths......maybe they are........if that faith isn't Catholic. The Order appears to have a much bigger problem with Catholics than with any other religion in the world to the extent that they organise a couple of hundred marches a year specifically to celebrate the killing of Catholics in Ireland, and the imposition of Protestant rule in Ireland at the point of a gun.

Doesn't seem a lot different, to me, to any display of triumphalism... no more useful or appropriate than if Unionists decided to have a march through Culloden and Inverness to celebrate the Battle of Culloden, the demise of the clan system and the Englishing of Scotland..or if people in the UK decided to march through Dresden to celebrate the Dresden bombings.

The Orange Order and their biases are instrumental in continuing and reinforcing an irrational outlook, particularly in the Central Belt, which has no place in this 21st Century and must be controlled. Perhaps the simplest way would be to make them pay for all the policing of all their marches and bankrupt them. Given we have laws which are aimed at combating the incitement to violence, I have never quite understood why nobody has yet made a test case citing sectarian marches.

Maybe it would also help if our Government joined the 21st century and realised that it makes them look much more than foolish when a member of the Royal Family is permitted to marry into any religion except Catholicism without harming their position.........so we can have a Muslim, Jewish, Moonie, Mormon, Pagan etc consort for the monarch......but not a Catholic. Rational? I think not!

Great posts on this thread by Charles and Oddquine. No one seems to have the courage to deal with the underlying issue of the OO and the absurd, outdated views it espouses. As long as they are tolerated there will be absolutely no progress made on "sectarianism".

On a side note, Charles, it would be career suicide for any of your Central Belt colleagues at the BBC to criticise the OO in the way that you have rightly done. Sadly, the truth is less important there than placating the elements that shame and embarrass this country with their prejudices.

Tolerant of other faiths......maybe they are........if that faith isn't Catholic. The Order appears to have a much bigger problem with Catholics than with any other religion in the world to the extent that they organise a couple of hundred marches a year specifically to celebrate the killing of Catholics in Ireland, and the imposition of Protestant rule in Ireland at the point of a gun.

Doesn't seem a lot different, to me, to any display of triumphalism... no more useful or appropriate than if Unionists decided to have a march through Culloden and Inverness to celebrate the Battle of Culloden, the demise of the clan system and the Englishing of Scotland..or if people in the UK decided to march through Dresden to celebrate the Dresden bombings.

The Orange Order and their biases are instrumental in continuing and reinforcing an irrational outlook, particularly in the Central Belt, which has no place in this 21st Century and must be controlled. Perhaps the simplest way would be to make them pay for all the policing of all their marches and bankrupt them. Given we have laws which are aimed at combating the incitement to violence, I have never quite understood why nobody has yet made a test case citing sectarian marches.

Maybe it would also help if our Government joined the 21st century and realised that it makes them look much more than foolish when a member of the Royal Family is permitted to marry into any religion except Catholicism without harming their position.........so we can have a Muslim, Jewish, Moonie, Mormon, Pagan etc consort for the monarch......but not a Catholic. Rational? I think not!

A lot of relevant points there Oddquine. Interestingly enough, Orange Order rules state that an Orangeman -

should strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome, and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act or ceremony of Popish worship;

which as far as I am concerned confirms that the very purpose - indeed, if you look at ther history, the sole purpose - of their existence is to oppose Catholicism.

Up here we don't have the Orange Order and have nothing more than the odd abortive Orange Walk and the annual Apprentice Boys pilgrimage to the Portland Club (via, inexplicably, the War Memorial where they have the affrontery to try to gain credibility by recognising our war dead.)

But we do on the other hand have the Free Presbyterian Church (the Tartan Taliban) which is just about as bigoted as the Orangemen. This was the highly distasteful and outrageously self righteous organisation which in 1989 banned the Lord Chancellor Lord MacKay of Clashfern for attending the Roman Catholic funeral of his colleague Lord Wheatley.

It's also an interesting observation you make about the Battle of Culloden which brought to an end the 60 year conflict which began when James II was thrown out in 1688 and of which the campaign which included the Battle of the Boyne and the Siege of Londonderry marked the start.

And yes, it's completely absurd that the Act of Settlement of 1701, banning Catholics from the throne (whilst welcoming foreigners!), should still apply. Mind you, if i had my way, I would simply extend the Act of Settlement to ban EVERYBODY from the throne!

But 300 and odd years on, they still make a triumphalist fuss about the Boyne etc but the attitude to Culloden is totally different.

So what's the dinstinction?

In a word - Ireland.

What's kept the Orange nonsense going has been Irish politics and the vexed question of the early 1920s of what to do about the island as a whole. The problem is that the settlement - which was the subject of the 1921 Cabinet meeting in Inverness Town Hall -resulted in a Catholic south and predominantly Protestant north.

The southern part fought among themselves in the Irish Civil War and, apart from a few ultra IRA extremists, the pro Treaty view has since become accepted. Now they're more than happy to make their way in the world by providing players for Inverness Caley Thistle.

But in the north, the Protestants still seem to feel the need to go around like dogs urinating on lamp posts to mark their territory. Unfortunately this rubbish has also been imported into Scotland and, worse still, has become incorporated into support for the country's two largest football teams - which, I would argue, have become larger as a result of being (albeit invountarily) the focal points for this political and religious divide.

In consequence all the other teams in the land find themselves correspondingly impoverished.

So Inverness Town Hall in 1921 maybe has a lot to answer for. If the decision on that day had instead been to let the entire island of Ireland go its own way and sort out its own problems, a lot of this nonsense might have been avoided.

Edited July 19, 201114 yr by Charles Bannerman

Spot on, CB.......it has always struck me as ironic that Glasgow, in Scotland, has more sectarian marches than Londonderry and Belfast in Northern Ireland combined do to celebrate an Irish Battle.

A popular misconception Oddquine. This battle was no more an Irish one than the war of the roses was a Scottish one. The opposing forces were King William III of Orange (protestant), who a few years previously had deposed King James II of England and VII of Scotland (catholic) from the throne of England, and the aforementioned James. James had fled to Ireland and was followed by the forces of William. They met and fought across the river Boyne. Irishmen fought on both sides of this battle, just as Scots had done in the English civil wars, but it was still very much a battle for the English throne.

Apart from that I agree with most of what you say.

I would, however, say to all our fans.....people will be among the crowds at games, especially those involving OF, and will act against those who use sectarian terminology.

Spot on, CB.......it has always struck me as ironic that Glasgow, in Scotland, has more sectarian marches than Londonderry and Belfast in Northern Ireland combined do to celebrate an Irish Battle.

A popular misconception Oddquine. This battle was no more an Irish one than the war of the roses was a Scottish one. The opposing forces were King William III of Orange (protestant), who a few years previously had deposed King James II of England and VII of Scotland (catholic) from the throne of England, and the aforementioned James. James had fled to Ireland and was followed by the forces of William. They met and fought across the river Boyne. Irishmen fought on both sides of this battle, just as Scots had done in the English civil wars, but it was still very much a battle for the English throne.

Apart from that I agree with most of what you say.

I would, however, say to all our fans.....people will be among the crowds at games, especially those involving OF, and will act against those who use sectarian terminology.

I'd not quite agree with that, Alex. Basically, after the Glorious Bloodless Revolution of 1688 which saw James II's departure and the arrival of King Billy and Marydoll, the "Bloody" bit to try to get him back started anywhere the insurgents thought they could succeed and gain support. This included Scotland, where the battles of Killiecrankie and Dunkeld played a prominent part before the fighting moved to Ireland where the two major engagements were the battles of the Boyne (11th July 1690 but commemorated on the 12th) and of Aughrim (12th July 1691). Claims have been made on behalf of both as the decisive battles of the Irish part of the campaign but the Boyne is the one which seems to have attracted more celebrity. And even though Dunkeld in 1689 was also a victory for forces supporting King Billy, it is totally forgotten.

But this was NOT a dispute about the throne of England, it was about the throne of the whole of Great Britain following the Union of the Crowns of 1603.

The five attempts which took place in the 1689 - 1746 period to restore the Stuarts are very difficult to categorise in terms of who was fighting whom.

There is a common but serious misconception that this was Scotland versus England. It most definitely was not. It is closer to call it Protestant versus Catholic but even this doesn't quite fit the bill. It was basically the supporters of the Stuarts (the Jacobites) against the supporters of the regime which ousted them - initially William and James's own daughter Mary, then her sister Anne and then the German imports which we have had ever since because Anne was incapable of bearing survivable issue.

I would have to say myself that it would have been a lot easier not to have had a king at all!

But to take this thread back on topic... as long as they behave themselves in the South Stand and keep their 300 year old nonsense to themselves when the OF visit, Inverness should hopefully be OK.

Edited July 19, 201114 yr by Charles Bannerman