Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

So making the sign of the cross is automatically "provocative" is it?

101 replies

FluffyCharlotteCorday · 26/08/2006 13:06

Or is it just when you're in the presence of bigoted Scottish football fans?

Can't quite believe this story

OP posts:
ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 14:09

Sorry, it is an issue in the presence of bigotted Scottish football fans. Very hard to explain the depth of feeling on this to people who haven't experienced it, I think. One of my mates had stones thrown at her once when we were at uni in Glasgae because she was wearing a scarf her nan knitted her which happened to be green and white. And she looked about 15 at the time. Unsure about the way it was dealt with or if this guy was being deliberately provocative and it would be ludicrous in many other circumstances, I agree. But crossong yourself is never going to be seen as simply an innocent and neutral celebration of faith during an old firm game, I'm afraid. They should definitely have expelained that to this bloke before he signed on the dotted, imo. Real shame for him if that didn't happen...

ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 14:11

crossing, even

saltire · 26/08/2006 14:27

You have hit the nail on the head scummy mummy. Anyone who isn't from the Glasgow/west coast area, or even anyone who isn't Scottish just aren't going to get the depth of feeling this causes to mainly, but not exclusively, Rangers and Celtic fans

ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 14:40

er, am a sassenach actally, Saltire! My views come from being an English girl abroad at uni.

Panboy · 26/08/2006 14:42

Credentials bit - Am Glaswegian,with lots of rellies there, lapsed practicing Catholic, living amongst the sassenach...

Unfortunately this was an act designed to provoke a reaction. Old Firm games are highly reactive and volatile events.It's a cauldron. The player knows this. He had a choice to inflame this cauldron further, potentially causing massive harm, or be restrained.

He has a "right" to cross himself. He also has the mature "right" to "reserve that right".

And there is NOTHING in Catholic practice that demands he does this on a football field. It WASN'T a religous observance at all. So liberals can rest assured about the restrictions on religous observance.

Panboy · 26/08/2006 14:52

" So making the sign of the cross is automatically "provocative" is it? title of the thread.

Yes, when done in an Old Firm game to Rangers supporters. That is indesputable.

ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 15:02

agree, panboy.

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 15:08

yes, but as a matter of principle, should a person be penalised for his intentions or the effects of his actions?

Panboy · 26/08/2006 15:10

Thanks.

To finish off - really! I will-

harpsi's analogy re short skirts appears a bit specious, if you don't mind me saying, please?

May I suggest a nearer one??

Did Allah tell the London bombers, 11th September piots etc to do those things? No.

Did God tell the footballer to wind up the Rangers crowd? No.

Each were personal choices.

saltire · 26/08/2006 15:15

well even if you are a sassenach scummy mummy, you still hit the nail on the head!, and panboy, i agree with what you write, i believe the player concerned crossed himself to provoke a reaction, knowing (and i keep saying this) what effect it would have on the opposition supporters.

Panboy · 26/08/2006 15:18

harpsi - both

this indeed why we have legislation on stirring up racial hatred to begin with, and also why Crime and Disorder Bill 1998 introduced the notion of 'racial aggravation' as a feature of some offences and so they attract a higher degree of punishment...

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 15:22

thanks for the compliment panboy
no I don't think it is particularly specious. in both cases someone is being blamed for provocative behaviour, when the real blame lies with the people who carry out the sectarian violence.
In your analogy, I don't think the footballer claimed God was telling him to cross himself? it was his personal choice, yes. In and of itself, his action was not blameworthy, and to suggest that it is, imo dilutes the blameworthiness of those who commit acts of violence in the name of religion.
It would have been a different matter if he had come onto the pitch and made an anti-Protestant comment to another footballer.

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 15:24

racial hatred? what race would that be, then?

Panboy · 26/08/2006 15:26

Sorry harpsi - I wasn't being complimentary or derogatory whatsoever, at all. Simply suggesting that the analogy could be improved, that's all. You disagree. ok. Don't wish to 'fall out' on it.

Panboy · 26/08/2006 15:30

In response to your "in principle" question. In regard to that principle, we have legislation about "intent" re stirring up racial hatred, and also "effect" ie racially aggravated offences.

It is debateable if this applies to this circumstance, but your question was ' in principle should we punish for intent or effect'. Iwas simply saying we do do both in this country.

harpsichordcarrier · 26/08/2006 15:38

panboy, I am perfectly well aware you were not being complementary. I believe you need to check your sarcasm chip, it appears to be malfunctioning.
A person is very seldom criminalised for his actions in the absence of intent/negligence. offences of strict liability are few and far between.
so, tell me again, what race is this we are talking about?

ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 15:44

How about the analogy of a young white child taking a "golliwog" to school for show and tell? The child would (hopefully) not intend or be aware of any racist overtones to a favourite toy, (even if its parents in allowing such a toy were at very best highly naive). Would teachers be wrong to "punish" the child by confiscating the "golliwog" and not allowing the child to show it and tell about it?

Not sure that works as an analogy either as gollywogs are (to me) offensive in themselves whereas crossing yourself is not...

Maybe a woman going topless into a mosque? Boobs inoffensive, even nice things, but in that context people would take massive offence, even if you were having a let it all hang out day and knew nothing about how offensive bare boobs are in a mosque.

Hmmm. It's quite hard to find a precise analogy for this!

Panboy · 26/08/2006 15:48

harpsi. I REALLY had no side of sarcasm to ANYTHING I have said today. My sarcasm chip is working perfectly well, but it v. rarely gets used and certainly not today. (it's usually too cheap, easy and sans style.)

Not really comfortable with your "accusation" of sarcasm. It is groundless. Is there a different issue you are pursuing?

Sorry if this has caused a friction. That wasn't my intent. Need to get on with cleaning.

ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 15:53

[desperate attempt to lighten thread] My son got mixed up the other night and said "Mummy! That man was just autistic to me!" On being asked "Y'what, sunshine?" it transpired that he meant "sarcastic"... [/desperate attempt to lighten thread]

Panboy · 26/08/2006 15:59

Scrummy - very funny. Thanks.

Original poster
FluffyCharlotteCorday · 26/08/2006 16:23

So the conclusion is that crossing yourself in the company of bigoted Scottish football fans is automatically provocative then? That is very sad, that the provocation the bigots choose to feel, should be considered more important than someone's right to carry out what for many catholics is almost an involuntary tic, that they don't even notice they're doing (not saying that was the case for this bloke, btw, we don't know). Wearing a bowler hat isn't quite the same, it is a symbol of religious supremacy. The catholic equivalent of a bowler hat would be something like an auto-da-fe costume, not a sign of the cross.

And not living in Scotland or understanding it isn't a defence of it tbh. That's a bit like saying unless you live in Eltham (or whatever other salubrious part of London you might choose) you don't understand the xenophobia there. I don't really think the issue is understanding it, it's challenging it and seeking ways to change it. And I don't see how the way this has been dealt with, achieves that. It panders to it. Too much pandering to religious bigotry goes on imo, not just in Scotland.

OP posts:
ScummyMummy · 26/08/2006 16:30

In the presence of bigotted Scottish football fans at an old firm game it will be assumed to be provocative, yes. Even some of the non bigotted spectators (there are lots) would see it as provocative, ime/o. These sorts of thing are all about context, aren't they?

lilibet · 26/08/2006 16:38

Can I repeat a question that was asked earler? Is this something that he does as a matter of course at every match? I think that the whole thing hangs on the answer to that.

Aimsmum · 26/08/2006 16:40

Message withdrawn

sorkycake · 26/08/2006 16:40

Paul Gascoigne had a similar encounter and paid his price. I truly don't believe this is a person exercising their right to religious freedom. I don't think it should've been taken as far as it was however.
IMHO it is naive to think that a gesture of this sort, however inoffensive to the rest of us could go unnoticed at an old firm game.
I'm crap at analogies but here goes; you would not goose step in the German Embassy would you?