Roll of Honour Download Campaign to be launched 8th February

Roll of Honour Download Campaign to be launched 8th February

Fans Against Criminalisation are delighted to announce plans to release the single ‘’Roll of Honour’’ in association with The Irish Brigade for the duration of the week beginning on 8^th of February. This single will be available for download on iTunes. We would like to thank the band for kindly allowing us to use their song to help aid our campaign against the criminalisation of football supporters and the suppression of political expression.

Download the Roll of Honour any time in the week 8 -15 February inclusive and let’s get it into the UK Top 40 Singles Charts and   embarrass the hypocrites who seek to criminalise us.

This particular song is a ballad about civil resistance and a struggle for basic human rights and it has been a favourite of the Celtic support for over a decade. Shamefully, the SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act has resulted in the song becoming a target for Police Scotland and numerous arrests have been made as a result. From its outset FAC has sought to oppose this discriminatory piece of legislation and to defend the rights of football supporter’s which have been continually eroded since the Act’s introduction.

We call on the Celtic family from all corners of the globe to support this campaign by downloading the single to help raise funds to aid the legal costs of those whose lives are being torn apart by this disgracefully illiberal law and to help further publicise the hypocrisy inherent within the government’s position.

Fans Against Criminalisation

FAC Statement

Fans Against Criminalisation have noted the statement released by Celtic yesterday and the media coverage of the events of Friday night at Fir Park.  All of the organisations associated with this campaign (Celtic Supporters' Association, Celtic Trust, Green Brigade, Affiliation of Registered CSCs and Association of Irish CSCs) condemn wanton acts of vandalism and have no objection to those responsible, if identified and after a fair and transparent investigation, being suitably disciplined.  There are stadium regulations and laws which deal with such actions and our campaign is not against those laws.  We wish to make it clear that what happened on Friday has absolutely nothing to do with our campaign against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act which is a campaign against the criminalisation of free speech and political expression.  We note attempts by the media to conflate the issues of vandalism with legitimate protest and we are confident that fair-minded people will see that for what it is.

Update – Tuesday 19^th November

It is now 13 days since Celtic played Ajax in Amsterdam. It was a trip many Celtic supporters had been looking forward to for a variety of reasons since the draw was made. It is now a journey many wished they hadn’t made.

What happened between 5pm and 6pm in and around Damstraat and the National Monument in Dam Square will stay long in the memory of those who were there. Football fans are used to strong policing. They are used to being ordered around and treated as second class citizens. They are used to unjust laws applicable to only those who follow “our national game”.

What we are not used to however is the police brutality which occurred in that hour and the injustice of the imprisonment, assault and continued detention of fans whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ten Celtic fans still face charges. The exact nature of those charges is still unclear even 13 days later.

Those charged have been charged with throwing a bottle later changed to throwing a green can. They did neither.

They have been identified as having red hair in court, subsequently changed to spiky blonde hair. The accused in question has neither.

They have been accused of being so drunk that they were oblivious to any stimuli. The accused in question is very much aware of every second of the brutal assault that was launched on him both in Dam Square and then out of sight of any cameras in a police van. Oblivion to pain and stimuli would have been very welcome.

Two fans, Andy Vance and Padraig Mullan have been held since that night. They remain in prison both still suffering from their injuries and one who has still not been allowed to wear his own clothes. Both vehemently protest their innocence but still they are held. Another eight fans face charges, four on Thursday and another three in January.

A remarkable campaign has been launched aimed at securing their release and the freedom of their co-accused. The campaign began despite initial media reports of “Celtic Fans Rioting” and the levels of police injury. The campaign has managed to force a re-examination of the events of Dam Square both in Holland and somewhat more reluctantly in Scotland. The campaign has also managed to report the dozens of injuries suffered by Celtic fans and the levels of police brutality they faced. The fear people described by fans with, no means of escape, is chilling: men, young and old, women and children.

To date the following activities have been undertaken or are being undertaken by a variety of Celtic fans and organisations:

• ·        Contact made with the families to offer them support and reassurance
• ·        Video evidence has been collated and analysed and this continues
• ·        Legal and translation advice has been given
• ·   Complaints have been processed and passed on to Celtic FC who is employing a lawyer in Amsterdam to examine them
• ·     Media work in the Netherlands and to a more limited extent (for obvious reasons!) in Scotland has been done
• ·  Letters have been written to the Dutch Embassy, to the Mayor of Amsterdam, to the Chief of the Dutch Police
• ·  Protests have been held outside the Dutch Embassies in Dublin and London and one is now planned for New York
• ·   A Legal Defence Fund was set up and is currently being supported by supporters all over the world – this continues alongside local initiatives by CSCs and forums etc

On Thursday November 21 at 13:30, at Parnassusweg 220, Amsterdam. Celtic fans will begin the next steps to achieve justice for our supporters and to hold the police and authorities to account. We wish the full story of what happened in Dam Square to be told not just in Holland but in Scotland too. We will be asking for the immediate release of Padraig Mullan and Andy Vance and the dropping of charges against all of the accused fans.

We will then continue our campaign to ask why the Amsterdam police force unleashed a wave of brutality on our supporters as confirmed by the deluge of statements received by the #DamJustice campaign and by Celtic FC.

We ask that Celtic supporters continue to support the #DamJustice campaign with their customary magnificent backing. 

If you want to help us with the  bucket collection at the Aberdeen game on Saturday 23rd November please email dambhoys8@yahoo.co.uk for details.  We need a lorryload of bucketeers!

Ponsonby's triumph and Mulholland's shame

Yesterday was in interesting news day.  We had the publication of the statistics for charges/convictions under the Offensive Behaviour Act and on Religiously Aggravated Crimes in Scotland for 2012-13.  STV news gave the issue a 2nd top billing on the 6pm news, the justification for which, when the interview with the Lord Advocate came on, became immediately apparent.

By now most people will know that, Bernard Ponsonby the veteran Scottish newsman put the following question to the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland:

BP:   'So-called political chanting falls foul of this law?'
Lord Advocate: 'Of course it does yes, as I understand it'.

Ponsonby follows this up by asking about 'Irish Republican Identity' and asks:

BP 'An Irish Republican identity is potentially criminal under the Act?'
Lord Advocate:'Potentially criminal under this Act, yes'

This comment is extremely important and congratulations to Bernard Ponsonby for asking the question when other, lesser, journalists would not.  It is not that this was an utterly mad comment from Frank Mulholland that he must feel like a complete clown for saying - although it was and he must.  Neither is it that you could actually be arrested for having 'an Irish Republican identity' whatever that might mean, because quite clearly you could not be arrested, or charged or convicted for having any kind of ethnic or political identity.

The really important thing about it, whether or not any Scottish citizen, journalist or political commentator chooses to acknowledge it, is that it is an open admission (probably of an extremely common albeit almost subconscious mind-set) that there is something dangerous or wrong or potentially criminal to be Irish in Scotland or to believe in a united Ireland.

If you were to replace the word 'Irish' with any other nationality, the question would have been treated with a bemused look I would suggest.  If you were to change the word 'republican' with a description of any other political position, then a similar response would have been forthcoming.  It is only those two words - that ethnic identity and that political position - which almost without thinking, elicits concern, suspicion and negativity from many Scots; certainly from the police and from many part of government and other institutions.

This brings us back to the Act.  This Act, very clearly, was never about sectarianism; because, quite rightly,  we already had laws to cover that and to cover other forms of bigotry and racism.  This was, and still is, about trying to extend the term bigot or hate crime to the expression by Celtic fans of republican views or (except in a very sanitised, commercially-exploitable way) their Irish identity, should they as individuals, or as a group choose to do so.

For that reason it has not worked, because much as they would love to be able to do so, the government simply, in a modern, European country, cannot criminalise ethnicity or political ideology.

So all that has happened, and their own statistics show this, is that those people who could have been convicted under the Section 74 offences (justifiably), have instead been convicted under the new Act.  Indeed, the Celtic Trust was told by McAllister of the FoCuS group that the police were instructed by the Crown Office to use the new Act, so that is what they have done.

However, despite their best efforts to get Celtic fans convicted of singing Irish republican songs, the Sheriffs have, to their credit, refused to do it. Not satisfied with this, the Crown Office under Mr Mulholland (with Alex Salmond working him from the back like a ventriloquist) is appealing two of these Not Guilty verdicts.  You may be interested to know that appeals are very, very expensive processes and that the Crown Office usually appeals one or two cases a year and usually in case of very serious crimes such as murder or rape.  Yet they have two appeals under way right now because the Sheriffs had the temerity not to convict young boys for singing the Roll of Honour.

So, well done Bernard Ponsonby but shame on you Frank Mulholland.  You are a disgrace to your office and if you are remembered at all, it will be as the most craven Lord Advocate ever to have held the post.

New Offensive Behaviour Statistics released today - embarrassing flop for the Government

The Crown Office under the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and the Scottish Government represented by Roseanna Cunningham have released the statistics for the first full year of the operation of the Offensive Behaviour at Football: Threatening Communication Act 2012 tomorrow (Friday 14 June 2013).  For some weeks now they have been making robust claims that these statistics will show that the Act is working. 

We are currently producing a detailed analysis of the statistics which are far from impressive in supporting the case for the continuation of this piece of legislation.  However, we can say already that all that has effectively happened is that there is a fall in those convicted under the Religiously Aggravated Offences (Section 74) and an almost equal rise in those convicted under the Offensive Behaviour Act.  Not much return on the £1.8 million pounds allocated to the Football Coordination Unit Scotland who police this Act.

In addition to this, what the statistics will never tell us, but which we as football supporters are only too aware of, is the following:

• The number of young people with no previous criminal record or activity who have come into contact with the police as a result of this Act
• The smaller number of young people who have endured 3 or more trips to courts in all parts of Scotland only to have the charges dropped by the Crown or to be found Not Guilty
• The number of young people who have had their details taken unlawfully by the police
• The number of football fans of all ages who have to run the gauntlet of police officers in order to attend football matches which are entirely devoid of any crowd trouble and have been for decades.
•  The number of football fans of all ages who are photographed, videoed, monitored and intimidated by the Football Co-ordination Unit Scotland, the recipient of £1.8 million of government funding, all spent on harassing private citizens because they happen to be football fans.

This is the human cost of the Offensive Behaviour Act however, a press conference will be held in Glasgow next week in which we will give a detailed analysis of the figures produced by the government as well as the stories behind the statistics, which illustrate how this Act has produced a style of policing about which all citizens should be concerned.

Leading lawyer Paul Kavanagh, of Gildeas Ltd said today:

There is an old saying lies, damn lies and then statistics.

While every right minded individual would agree that there is no place in Scotland for bigotry of any kind whether by race, colour or religion the success of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication 2012 introduced by the current administration raise interesting questions.

87 convictions, how many arrested? How many proceeded to trial? How many pled guilty without legal representation or advice? How many with no previous experience of the judicial system? What has been the cost of implementing the act, policing it etc?

How do we measure success? Do we measure it with regard the number of convictions? Do we measure it with regard the huge number of young football fans forced by police unlawfully to give them their personal details? Do we measure it by the decreasing number of football fans attending games or do we eventually measure it by taking a poll of young football fans and their voting intentions at next year’s referendum and whether they will vote for independence?

Investigation into police interference in FAC parliamentary lobby continues

A small number of representatives of Fans Against Criminalisation visited the Scottish Parliament in April.  A few days before departure one of the organisers was phoned at work by the police to ask what the arrangements were for the visit.  On the morning of the visit, the group were approached in George Square by two uniformed officers just prior to departure to Edinburgh and told 'we will wait for you coming back'.  At the Parliament itself the group were met by 2 officers as they left their coach and a further 4 or 5 officers outside the door of the parliament who were clearly waiting for them.  We are advised by MSPs that this is an unusually high police presence even when there are groups of citizens visiting Parliament.

This follows on a very heavy police and security presence at our last visit to the Scottish Parliament on the day the Offensive Behaviour Bill became an Act.

Siobhán McMahon MSP, who invited us to Holyrood in April, met yesterday with the Head of Security in the Parliament, and asked for an explanation for the police presence both inside and outside the building and the heavier than normal security.  The reply?  She was told that these arrangements were in place because the Police Service of Scotland has specifically requested them.  Further evidence, if any were needed, that the the police in this country have a very specific and negative agenda in relation to Celtic fans and their organisations in general and against Fans Against Criminalisation in particular.

Superintendent Andy Bates in response to a letter from Siobhán McMahon asking about the behaviour of his two officers in George Square, tried to imply that it is normal practice to approach relatively small groups in the Square and ask if they are 'alright'.  Leaving aside the fact that this is utter nonsense, it is now becoming very common for individuals associated with this campaign to be approached in a variety of circumstances - in the street on a Friday night; in a pub watching a match, travelling in Europe, attending bedroom tax rallies - to be approached by officers to ask if they are 'alright'.  Is it just us, or does that seem odd to you?

We have been repeatedly told over the last couple of months that the Crown Office is going to publish statistics which will show us that the Act is working.  We look forward to seeing those, although if the ones already released under question by the tireless Ms McMahon are anything to go by, they will have a hard job using those to justify this level of intrusion into the entirely legitimate, lawful and democratic activities of private citizens....even if they are Celtic supporters!

Open Letter to Superintendent McAllister of Football Coordination Unit Scotland

Fans Against Criminalisation

c/o Celtic Trust

PO Box 2066

Glasgow G32 2AX

 

Superintendent Stephen McAllister
Football Coordination Unit Scotland
Police Service of Scotland
 

9 May 2013

Dear Superintendent McAllister

We write to draw your attention to a possible infringement of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) 2012 Act.  You may well have seen press reports of an unpleasant incident which took place in a bar in Edinburgh on the evening of Wednesday 1^st May 2013.  The incident involved a person who was clearly under the influence of alcohol being extremely abusive to two other persons who were in the bar at the same time.  We understand that the aggressor and the victims were both members of opposing organisations, cultural or political groups you might say, who have very deep-seated antipathies to one another and who regularly engage in slanging matches in public, often to the deep distress of ordinary members of the public.

You may also be aware that on the evening in question there was a Champions’ League fixture between Barcelona FC and Bayern Munich which was being shown live on television.  Indeed we are also led to believe that the game in question was being shown in the venue at which the aforementioned verbal attack took place. 

We are sure that you are very familiar with the provisions of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 – given that your Unit has been funded to the tune of £1.8 million over the last two years it would be rather remiss of you if you were not.  However, at the risk of teaching our granny to suck eggs, we refer you to Section 1 of the Act which states that:

‘A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—

(a) the person engages in behaviour of a kind described in subsection (2), and
(b) the behaviour—
(i) is likely to incite public disorder, or
(ii) would be likely to incite public disorder.’

Section 1(2)e of the Act, indicates that the behaviour referred to could be, among other things:

‘other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.’

Section 2(3) of the Act further states:

‘The references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to a regulated football match include a reference to any place (other than domestic premises) at which such a match is televised; and, in the case of such a place, the references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to the ground where the regulated football match is being held are to be taken to be references to that place.’

In all the circumstances, it would appear to us, that the behaviour to which we wish to draw your attention, could clearly be construed as ‘behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive’; it took place while a regulated football match was being shown and therefore meets the terms of Section 2(3) as outlined above; and, under Section 1b(ii), outlined above, ‘would be likely to incite public disorder’.  Heaven forfend, if large members of their respective organisations had been present, an almighty rammy could have ensued!

We are unaware if any of your officers were present at the incident but we hope not as, by their own evidence in courts up and down the country, they are known to be rather sensitive by nature and very likely to be offended by events such as those described here.

If you require further details of the incident you will find it at this internet link:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/msp-roseanna-cunningham-faces-no-censure-after-evil-tories-rant-1.90469?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

We look forward to hearing that you are pursuing Ms Cunningham with all your newly acquired powers and that her case will make its way through the judicial system with the same degree of inconvenience to her as young football fans suffer on a regular basis.  We are not aware that you can impose a public house banning order on anyone but it would seem to be a good idea in cases like this.  Can we suggest that you consult with someone in the Scottish Government about adding this in to the legislation?  You could have a chat with the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs for instance?  Then again, perhaps not...

We look forward to your early response to our comments on this very serious matter.

Yours sincerely

(original signed on behalf of the organising committee of FAC)