The last few days have been bloody awful for the club and the support,but one of the worst reactions was from the away support on Wednesday. It has helped scrub the Stevie Clarke speech from the agenda,but really,are we as innocent as we usually claim? Allow a better man than I,Gunga-Din,to give his thoughts.
This from AULDHEID
Gotcha! The Race for False Equivalence.
The following article for CQN Magazine dated July 2015 first appeared in Celtic Underground in 2011 and it is worth resurrecting now in view of the responses to what Steve Clarke said a couple of weeks ago about bigoted abuse hurled at him at Ibrox.
This got similar media attention when Martin O Neil first voiced concerns on the matter in 2006 after which the foundations on which the current debate is based were built.
It is repeated here with a little editing as a historical look back at the events since 2000 that provide the platform on which Scottish football and Scottish media now stand to possibly provoke new thinking.
Hopefully some of the ideas contained will be sensible enough to take root to take us out of the ever more acrimonious “right to be offended” spiral that was the basis for The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, now gone because no two men in the street could agree on or be certain of what was driven by bigotry with intent to offend or just attachment to a history that defines those singing on either side of the divide.
In order to assist in that quest, the Annex suggests how to tell if a song is offensive of itself but first…..
Once Upon a Time
We will all have laughed at Ant and Dec in the past when they played “Gotcha” on some unsuspecting celebrity and are probably most familiar with the term from the entertainment aspect.
However, “Gotcha” plays its part in the world of football rivalry, in fact it plays a key part and unwittingly or not the people of Scotland have been caught up or dragged into, depending on one’s perspective, a huge game of Gotcha between Rangers and Celtic supporters.
“Gotcha” and “I gotcha” are relaxed pronunciations of “I’ve got you”, usually referring to unexpected capture or discovery in a given situation.” (From Wikpedia) A Gotcha puts the subject in a position that they have no option but to accept the situation they have been caught up in. In football rivalry terms a Gotcha is something that cannot be defended against in the court of western World Opinon where our football is played and where UEFA operate.
The Gotcha game took on its present form back in 2006 when UEFA eventually decided that The Billy Boys was in fact sectarian. The argument put by the songsters was that the word “Fenian” whose blood the song glorified wading up to the knees in, did not relate to Catholics in the traditional West of Scotland usage by the singers of the song, who themselves were associated historically through their football club as Protestants. The rejection of this argument made the song an attack on a religious group (Catholic by association) by another group (from the Protestant religion by association) and so the song fell foul of a definition of what constitutes sectarianism.
(a member of a sect or faction, especially one who is bigoted in his adherence to its doctrines or in his intolerance towards other sects – On line Dictionary)
No one could argue once the association of Fenian with Catholicism was confirmed by football’s governing body UEFA that The Billy Boys was in fact sectarian. Well they could, and some still would argue, but the point is somebody in power outside Scotland ruled The Billy Boys had no place in football on sectarian grounds. This was the first “Gotcha” in that there was no way out, well apart from ongoing defiance that eventually led to sufficient punishments that made the singers realise they were only hurting their club. They were however one set of unhappy bunnies (or in this case Bears).
The next “Gotcha” was probably unique in football rivalry history in the sense of being a Gotcha own goal. The same mindset that found some sort of odd meaning for their lives in reveling in offering violence to Catholics, changed tack and decided if they could not continue to offer ill will and malice to Fenians in their country, they could at least wish them Bon Voyage (in the worst possible taste).
They came up with The Famine Song whose lyrics, apart from taking offensiveness/ill will/malice to new depths also managed to cross the line of what constitutes racism.
As I recall, the argument that the Irish in Scotland at whom it was aimed were not in fact members of a race (don’t laugh) was not pushed with any real vigor in Scotland. The defense of the singers was more on the lines of it was only banter, the case put forward by some in the media particularly Jim Traynor that it was just a ditty vacan..
However eventually, after the matter was raised by the Irish government, prompted by Celtic supporters, the realisation dawned on those who sung it, and those who defended it, that in fact it was an example of blatant racism. This made it another “Gotcha !”, self inflicted for sure, but a Gotcha nevertheless under the definition of a football Gotcha. If the Bear was unhappy before, its head nearly exploded now. However, that did not stop a vast majority of them belting out The Famine Song with gusto and unopposed by the law at the League Cup final in 2011.
That this occasion of defiance was then given the accolade by Justice Minister Kenny MacKaskill, who said
“The players, management and fans contributed to a memorable occasion, and I urge that their positive example inside the ground is replicated outside it over the course of the evening and beyond. Football is a force for good in society.”,
was stunning in its stupidity in terms of
a) appearing to condone the song sung,
b) alienating the police from the Celtic support and
c) creating the perception of a country too blind to see, too deaf to hear and simply out to get even with those who objected.
I mention (western) World Opinion in the definition of a Gotcha because history shows us that only when outside opinion is brought to bear (UEFA and The Irish Government respectively) on the behavior of both sets of supporters in Scotland that something is actually done about addressing it.
It is against this background the next Gotcha has made its appearance indeed was stimulated by the previous two.
The current equivalence focus was then and is now on the use of the words I.R.A by the Celtic support in their songs and chants.
Words are powerful but are not hermits, just as Fenian was associated with Catholic, I.R.A is associated with terrorism. Now there have been organisations throughout history where the terrorist became the Government because a legitimate cause was being fought for.
History vindicated the terrorist action taken, no matter how reprehensible at the time, and the “terrorism” of the IRA falls into the category of being an unfortunate necessary evil of human nature to right a wrong, to give the oppressed a say in their lives.
Ironically though, the peace in Northern Ireland was given a boost by an unrelated act of what appears to have been mindless terrorism on a vast scale never seen before in the world.
A brand of terrorism that is seen as violence for violence’s sake and where the perpretators have more chance of being eradicated from a great height or shot in their hideouts, than forming a new government or introducing more benign governance.
In his book Great Hatred, Little Room the author Jonathon Powell points out how support for the IRA at political and funding level evaporated in the USA almost overnight as the word “terrorism” took on a totally new meaning in the court of western World Opinion after 9/11/2001 following the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York.
In the post 9/11 world, “terrorism” took on a meaning where the perpetrators were viewed by reasonable people with abhorrence, perpetrators of violence without a cause, violence for its own sake by some thinking the number taken when the bomb on the suicide vest goes off means more virgins to enjoy in the hereafter.
This new meaning was seized on by Rangers men and applied to the IRA in a “Gotcha” attempt, largely successful, to remove the legitimacy conferred on the many justified terrorist action that litter world history. The French Revolution, American War of Independence, Bannockburn etc etc.
Like it or not history has changed the meaning of terrorism and attitudes towards it and the words I.R.A are now viewed with at least distaste if not abhorrence in the court of western World Opinion, a court too busy to be interested in understanding the old nuances and one which views “terrorism” as a term that is every bit as unacceptable as sectarianism or racism.
It is a “Gotcha!” and nobody outside Scotland is going to ride to our rescue as UEFA and the Irish Government did on The Billy Boys and The Famine Song. The Celtic support, like the Rangers support before us, have been caught in a Gotcha. More an opportunistic Gotcha of history than some cunning plan from the Baldrick mind, but a “Gotcha” nevertheless.
So what to do? The message that comes out of Great Hatred Little Room is that both parties on each side of the divide, no matter the distaste and distrust for each other, had to come to an accommodation, an accommodation that required each side to recognise their part in creating division and to take responsibility for ending it.
A feature of the Gotcha spiral, indeed what I believe gives it its emotional context, is that both sides feel that they have had or are having solutions imposed on them from the outside and indirectly by the other side.
It is unfortunate that outside pressure has been necessary, and it could even be argued it has been counter productive in that whilst rules have been or are being imposed, the mindset is that of defiance rather than acceptance that the world has changed and new ways of being rivals are required.
The Celtic support are in a position to take the initiative by recognising the Gotcha of the letter’s “IRA” and its new association with mindless terrorism that we find ourselves caught by.
However instead of defying the change, we could instead choose to accept the verdict of the court of Western World Opinion on the three letters, whilst at the same time and not conceding our traditional rights, also challenge the Rangers support to drop their defiance of the historical “Gotchas” they were caught by.
In effect agree on both sides what is and is not offensive in the court of westen World opinion. That means both sides identifying any songs/chants words that are covered by the criteria of sectarianism, racism or terrorism (as it is now seen) and agree to list and condemn them if they are sung by their own support.
It also leaves room for traditions that are not sectarian, racist or have mindless terrorist connotations to be recognised.
Some might see this as a form of appeasement. It is not, we are not Chamberlain going cap in hand to a powerful enemy with an offer desperate for peace. We are President Kennedy offering to withdraw the Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1962 to help Kruschev sell the idea to the Kremlin hawks of withdrawing Russian missiles from Cuba. We can act from that position of taking control.
Some argue The Offensive Behavior Bill was the start of taking away our traditional songs like The Fields and indeed there has been definition creep of what constitutes sectarianism by an attempt to make the word “hun” sectarian, in another attempt at producing equivalence.
This must be resisted because songs and terms such as the Fields or their Rangers counterparts like The Sash or calling Celtic supporters “taigs” or “Tims” are not exposed to the court of western World Opinion.
They should not be subject to any Gotcha attempt and the fear, if it were to materialise, can be countered on the basis that these traditions are not sectarian, racist or associated with a terrorist organisation.
To try to include the likes of The Fields would be another step towards mutually assured destruction of both traditions. A line in the sand has to be drawn. Rivalry without the poison.
We Celtic supporters have the intellect and the ability to put a stop to this whole Gotcha nonsense, and in the process remove the need for strict liability externally imposed, which is what will happen if supporters of all clubs refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior and acknowledge the separate history that their songs celebrate, without being offended by them.
The only question is do we have the will, maturity and sense of statesmanship to make something sane happen?
Somebody has to.
How To Tell If a Song Is Sectarian
Originally written by Auldheid
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Every now and then a songs debate flares up in Celtic Cyberspace and the one thing you can be sure of is no agreement will emerge. This will always be so unless there is a set of criteria to go by.
Examining The Billy Boys offers one set of criteria for a sectarian song in that the words “up to our knees in Fenian blood” offers violence to a person of an identifiable religious faith either directly or in this case by inference, Fenian = Catholic.
If you take the Soldiers Song or The Fields that are deemed acceptable by Celtic if I understand it correctly. The thing about these songs is that they are “inward aimed” or “centred on self” celebrating that sense of self.
Sectarianism is defined as ” bigotry, discrimination, prejudice or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.
The key words are sub divisions WITHIN a group. The group involved with The Fields or Soldiers is a single group where no sub division exists.
For a song to be sectarian it has to project OUTWARD from that group ideas or beliefs that the group wish to impose on others or to express distaste or hatred for those OUTSIDE the group.
The key words are inward celebration and outward projection. The first cannot by definition be sectarian but the latter depending on the words can.
So why not use those criteria to at least draw a line?
Now on what is objectionable to others: songs that are inward celebrating might cause offence to others but they are the ones taking offence, it is not being offered to or aimed at them. It is something intolerant in them that sparks the offence taken. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, why not offence? We as Celtic supporters are not responsible if others take offence at our songs of inward celebration. It is only when outward projection as in say add ons occurs that sectarianism might apply.
These criteria would apply to Rangers songs as well as our own.
This debate has been going on for ever. You would think someone would have penned official criteria from usage by now to give guidance to the support.
Note criteria is NOT a song list. Folk can use the criteria to look at what they sing and maybe think about why they are singing what they are. Inward celebration of belief/faith/culture/tradition or outward projection of those things on to others.
Question the motivation, using the criteria not the words and decide the intent of what is sung.
If abusive justify it to yourself without using whataboutery.