Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications
What has been described in the media as an Anti-Sectarianism Bill (though the term “sectarianism”, undefined in Scots Law, is not used in the Bill itself) was to have been rushed through the Scottish Parliament in several days by 30 June 2011 so that it could be enforced during the new football season and help prevent “unacceptable behaviour” at football matches, especially between the supposedly-Protestant Rangers and Roman Catholic Celtic clubs. The official title of the Bill is Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. The Christian Institute received a legal opinion which encouraged them, along with Care, to seek a declaration from the Court of Session that, by failing to put the Bill out to consultation, the Scottish Government was acting unlawfully. The legal opinion was circulated to MSPs and the First Minister promptly announced that he had changed his mind and would extend the deadline from several days to six months.
The Scottish Government declares that “the objective of the Bill is to tackle sectarianism by preventing offensive and threatening behaviour related to football matches and preventing the communication of threatening material, particularly where it incites religious hatred. These measures are intended to help make Scotland safer and stronger, and contribute to tackling inequalities in Scottish society.”
In the unlikely circumstance that present law is incapable of dealing adequately with genuinely threatening and intimidating behaviour in connection with football matches, responsible citizens would welcome its strengthening.
According to the Scottish Government’s Policy Memorandum, “the Bill criminalises such offensive behaviour likely to incite public disorder whether it is clearly motivated by racial or religious bigotry or offensive in some other way to any reasonable person in Scotland”. But while one repudiates the notion that real religion has anything to do with offensive, threatening and intimidating behaviour and accepts that inciting public disorder by such behaviour is contrary to Biblical principles, one seriously questions the vagueness and subjectivity of pronouncing that behaviour “which is likely to incite public disorder and which would be offensive to any reasonable person is a criminal offence”. The Bill criminalises such behaviour even when public disorder in response is impossible.
The Bill goes beyond criminalising behaviour connected with football matches and expressing or inciting “religious hatred”. It also deals with “hatred” against people because of their colour, race, nationality, ethnic origins, sexual orientation, transgender identity, or disability. The expression or incitement of hatred against such persons is certainly contrary to the Christian ethic. Once again, however, there is subjectivity in the definition of terms which could make the proposed law restrictive of religious freedom to criticise behaviour described as sinful in the Word of God and to evangelise those practising it. This is particularly so in that the Bill deals with “threatening communications”.
While one endorses the outlawing of communications making threats or inciting violent acts against individuals or classes of people, as the Bill proposes, one sees danger in criminalising a communication when “the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm”. This largely-subjective description of the crime is intended to cover communication “by any means (other than by means of unrecorded speech)” of “anything that is capable of being read, looked at, watched or listened to, either directly or after conversion from data stored in another form”. The Christian Institute suggests that “it is not difficult to see how sermons downloaded from websites could fall foul of this offence. There is no free-speech safeguard and the offence is very broad as drafted.” (It seems, however, that internet services are reserved to Westminster.) There is surely a great difference between sending bullets through the post to someone connected with a rival football team – which seems to have triggered the “fast-track” approach of the Scottish Government – and publishing in the strongest terms the hatefulness to God of false religion and immoral behaviour.
Significantly the list of groups which the Scottish Government claims to have consulted over plans to introduce legislation to “tackle sectarianism”
does not include any religious body. It is with the Scottish Human Rights Commission the Government has been in dialogue “to ensure that the new offences do not restrict legitimate freedom of expression, or the freedom to practise and promote a religion”. In the light of previous statements by prominent legislators in Scotland one can only wonder what is covered by the Government’s claim that “proper and effective use of the legislation will send a strong message that bigotry and prejudice have no place in a modern, diverse, multi-cultural Scotland” and “will help to break down barriers, moving people’s perceptions away from stereotyped and misconceived views of identity”.
As the Scottish Government affirms that this legislation is only the first step in its programme of action against what it persists in calling “sectarianism”, all who share the Christian Institute’s concerns regarding what they consider the “alarming implications” for religious liberty of proposals in this Bill must do what they can to impress on MSPs the need to ensure that legislation is framed in terms which do not impinge on the right to declare Biblical teaching freely, however offensive it may be to some. HMC
Rock Concert in Dingwall
The beginning of July saw a further step in the moral degradation of the Highlands in the form of first open-air rock concert at Dingwall. For five hours the music blared into the summer air from the Ross County football stadium, drowning even the shrieks of the 10 000 people who had paid around £30 to be within sight of their idols. Not a few of those present were children. The concert finished soon after 10 pm and the following day, the Sabbath, was spent by the ground staff and others in such activities as dismantling the stage and removing the portable toilets.
Probably many of our readers are as unfamiliar with rock concerts as the present writer, who happened to be within earshot on this occasion. The experience, and discussion with others, suggested a number of thoughts:
(1) The selfishness of the conduct. The noise filled the whole of Dingwall making it difficult or impossible to carry on ordinary life. One felt sorry for anyone who had unwittingly arranged another event in Dingwall that evening.
(2) The puerility. Both the musicians and the fans spent a substantial amount of time in whooping and shrieking – behaviour more associated with childhood or early adolescence than with mature adulthood.
(3) The escapism. Those who dislike such music can only wonder at the motivation of those attending. We are told that the desire is to become so involved in the music and dancing as to forget the reality of the outside world. This is similar to becoming engrossed in football or television. In
particular, one forgets the guilt of sin, one’s duty, impending death, and the claims of Christ.
(4) The evil nature of the music. A few of the tunes were not unpleasant but the incessant background beat is not conducive to godliness. It is an insistent call to the false excitement of the world without God: “for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 Jn 2:16).
(5) The power of true religion to sweep all this away. The crowds who heard John Kennedy in Dingwall 140 years ago would have had no interest in such empty entertainment. Those who have found Christ have no need to escape from reality because they can already offset the sorrows of this life with the substantial peace and joy that they presently have in the heavenly world: “your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3).
The Dingwall rock concert was not one of the worst – it did not involve the drug-taking and active immorality of concerts where people camp overnight – but drugs and immorality are bound up with the songs and are never far away in the world of rock music. We pray that there will not be another one. “But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness” (1 Tim 6:11).
DWBS