Hugh McLachlan: Bigotry row misdirected

It IS disquieting to hear members of the Scottish Government and prominent Scottish policemen say that they want to combat “sectarianism”. Their concern is misdirected. Sectarian violence should be punished as violence. It should be treated just the same as non-sectarian violence. Sectarianism as such and offensiveness as such should not be crimes, nor should they be aggravating factors in the punishment of crimes.

Sectarianism means “pertaining to a sect”. In the normal use of the term, a sect is a group of people who have distinctively different religious beliefs or practices from a larger group. It can remain a subdivision of that larger grouping or it can become a separate formation.

Christianity itself can be regarded as something that developed as or from a Jewish sect. Like other religions, it can be thought of as consisting of various sects, the more central ones of which are often called churches. As there is no prohibition – and should be no prohibition – on belonging to a sect, the state should not take a negative view of sectarianism as such. We should protest, especially if we are Protestants, against the use of the word “sectarian” as a form of abuse.

Chief Supt Bob Hamilton of Strathclyde Police said, before the Old Firm game last Wednesday: “I would like to take this opportunity to thank both Rangers and Celtic fans for the positive influence in their behaviour in reducing the number of incidents of sectarian singing that has been recorded during recent football matches.”

Prior to the game, he said: “Wednesday’s game should be about enjoying a unique sporting event not about violence, drunkenness and sectarianism.”

What does he mean by “sectarianism” and “sectarian songs”? What are the songs he objects to? Why does he object to them? Why does he make an association between sectarianism and criminality?

I differ from my Roman Catholic friends and relations in, for instance, what might be thought of as my sectarian belief that, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine merely symbolise, even if in a profound and mysterious way, the body and the blood of Christ. In technical terms, I deny the doctrine of transubstantiation.

There is no inherent connection between such a belief and violence. People who share it are not necessarily bigots or extremists. In any case, bigotry and extremism are not crimes. It is no business of politicians and policemen whether or not people hold or express bigoted or extreme sectarian views.

Christmas carols and other sorts of Christian chants and hymns along with Christmas songs of all kinds are, in an obvious sense, sectarian. However, they are none the worse for that. Songs, chants and so forth that pertain to particular football teams such as, for instance, Rangers or Celtic are not thereby sectarian, although they are none the better for that. Similarly, songs and chants that pertain to particular political parties or factions are not sectarian.

An example of a sectarian chant that could be used at football matches might be: “If you reject transubstantiation clap your hands.” I doubt if it will catch on. Apart from anything else, football fans seem to have little interest in sectarian matters of any sort.

It would be bizarre if football fans were to be arrested for voicing such a sectarian chant. If the chant led to disorder because some of those who heard it allowed themselves to be provoked thereby into committing violent acts, the culpability and responsibility would lie solely with them and not the chanters. We should no more blame a striker for inciting the opposition fans by scoring a goal against them.

It cannot be and should not be a crime merely to cause offence. The comments of Chief Supt Hamilton on sectarianism might well cause offence to some people but it does not follow that his comments are or should be criminal. If we should encourage people not to give offence gratuitously, we should also encourage them not to take it needlessly.

It is a platitude that language has no intrinsic meaning. Words mean, signify and connote different things to different people in different contexts.

Similarly, songs and chants are not inherently offensive. It depends on interpretation that is put on them and intentions and motives of singers and what people guess – rightly or wrongly – are the motives intentions and meanings of the songs and the singing.

It was recently announced that the British Transport Police in Scotland will be given special training in the detection of offensive “sectarian” behaviour. This is alarming. Chief Superintendent Ellie Bird, BTP’s area commander for Scotland, is quoted as saying: “Until now, sectarianism has not been included within [our] training, and so I have asked Nil by Mouth to help ensure that all our officers and staff feel more confident in identifying sectarian behaviour and ensuring that they can take quick and decisive action when it occurs.”

Why, in particular, should we ask Nil by Mouth what constitutes “sectarianism’” or what particular actions, expression, chants or songs should be criminalised? What expertise or other sort of authority does it have? Would one rely on, say, self-proclaimed anti-feminists for a balanced account of feminism?

In Scotland, we celebrate “diversity”, or so it is said. However, where diversity involves the attribution of different meanings to language, people in Scotland and elsewhere can be highly intolerant of it. Chief Superintendent Ellie Bird is also quoted as saying: “Over a number of years, the police service has trained its officers and staff to understand cultural difference and to have respect for each other.” Why do they not have respect for and understanding of what might be called “sectarian” differences? For instance, if they want to know what, if anything, the songs and chants mean, why do they not ask the chanters and the singers?

Often, when people use particular words or perform particular actions, they do not attach any particular determinate meaning to them. They act as they do because it seems to them an appropriate thing to say, sing or do in the context. To inquire in any depth into the correct interpretation of their actions is pointless. Their words and actions are often meaningless. Football fans can be heard to utter chants such as: “I’d walk a million miles for one of your goals.” However, it would be unwise to try to analyse such words as literal expressions of the feelings or intentions of the fans concerned.

When football fans address other fans as, say, Arabs or sheep molesters, they are not necessarily making meaningful assertions of any sort. To ask what they mean might well be beside the point. They might not mean anything at all. They certainly do not mean what they say.

Around this time of the year, in some contexts people can be heard to sing Auld Lang Syne. They might not mean anything at all by it. They might sing it because they are expected to do so. Different people might mean different things.

What do people mean when they sing “should auld acquaintance be forgot”? If they do take the meaning of the words seriously, do they imagine that the song asks the question of whether or not we should forget our past friendships? Alternatively, do they imagine that the song recommends various courses of action such as the taking of a “willy waught” lest we forget our past friendships?

It might not matter what, if anything, football supporters mean when they chant their chants and sing their songs. However, it matters what policemen mean when they are speaking in their public capacities as policemen. It matters what politicians mean. We should keep a close eye upon them and lend them a very vigilant ear.

• Hugh McLachlan is professor of applied philosophy in the Glasgow School for Business and Society at Glasgow Caledonian University