True Hearts Against Bigotry

[MacDonald Jardine]

What gave you that impression?

 

Still, it's a strange one. I haven't been right through the website but does anyone know if this 'group' is officially recognised by the club?

 

Generally speaking, I support the principle behind it...getting rid of that sort of nonsense would be great. But I think it gives the impression that the problem is worse than it actually is. I don't think this is the right way to do it though...

 

I wonder what actually happens if you fill out one of those forms? Is the information simply used to provide reports or are these 'incidents' actually then investigated in any way?

 

I came across a StPauli forum which had a section for other clubs, including seperate sections for Celtic, which wasn't surprising, and Hearts which was.

This guy was instrumental in that and his posts showed he bought right in to the StPauli left wing freedom fighter stuff.

There was also a post about going to some left wing conference.

[Jam Tarts 1874]

There is some missing of the point going on in this thread. The booing was justified because:

 

1. There had already been a minute's silence at a Celtic game in the midweek prior to our game with them.

2. Hearts had officially suggested to Celtic that a minute's silence was not appropriate.

3. Celtic would never had been allowed to have this minute's silence if the match had been against Rangers.

 

By holding the minute's silence, Celtic were deliberately being inflamatory and were pandering (as they still do) to the traditionalists

[Vlad's Dad]

It should not be beyond the wit of any normal, respectable human being to stand for one minute in silence.

 

If I was asked to stand in silence for my neighbour's aunt Ethel I'd do it - because being a normal sort I feel no need to boo ANYONE'S death.

 

Those arguing that this was a stance for free speech are unconvincing. It was a palpable sign of the petty minded sickness which blights this angry little country of ours.

[Marty-man]

Being true to my principals, I have to say that equally, I think it's wrong that people should be forced to observe a silence for a royal. Many people will find them as equally insignificant as I do the pope and a waste of taxpayers money etc. so I could see where an objection could come from.

Have to agree. If I remember correctly, when we were forced to observe the minute's silence for Princess Margaret, I buggered off back to the pie stand.

(The only game in Scotland to have a minute's silence that day. Who were we playing? Oh yes, the current buns!!)

[4marsbars]

There is some missing of the point going on in this thread. The booing was justified because:

 

1. There had already been a minute's silence at a Celtic game in the midweek prior to our game with them.

2. Hearts had officially suggested to Celtic that a minute's silence was not appropriate.

3. Celtic would never had been allowed to have this minute's silence if the match had been against Rangers.

 

By holding the minute's silence, Celtic were deliberately being inflamatory and were pandering (as they still do) to the traditionalists

 

Rightly or wrongly, this minute's silence was observed at football matches around the world. But because of your baggage (whatever it may be, and I don't pretend to understand it) you have to construe this as Celtic being inflammatory.

 

Over the years, I've observed plenty silences for people who meant nothing to me. The Pope is one such.

 

I can't imagine what sensibilities you and your easily-provoked mates have that find this particular instance inflammatory.

 

What's funny about this is that in these debates it's normally the PC brigade (such as me) who are accused as being over-sensitive. Yet you poor souls cannot even manage to keep quiet for one minute without spitting your collective dummies.

[Vlad's Dad]

Good point. Only in Scotland could marking the death of a religious leader be marked as 'inflammatory'.

 

This to folk who have barely ever been near the inside of a church.

 

It's not difficult to stand there, shut up and think dirty thoughts - if you really must do something rebellious....

[Therapist]

it's actually not boooooing

 

it's hello hello which gets louder and louder each time it's sung

 

a real quality ring tone

 

Correct.

[troonjambo]

Rightly or wrongly, this minute's silence was observed at football matches around the world. But because of your baggage (whatever it may be, and I don't pretend to understand it) you have to construe this as Celtic being inflammatory.

 

Over the years, I've observed plenty silences for people who meant nothing to me. The Pope is one such.

 

I can't imagine what sensibilities you and your easily-provoked mates have that find this particular instance inflammatory.

 

What's funny about this is that in these debates it's normally the PC brigade (such as me) who are accused as being over-sensitive. Yet you poor souls cannot even manage to keep quiet for one minute without spitting your collective dummies.

 

not arguing with the meat of your argument whatsoever

 

however i have no doubt that the silence was a set up to deflect attention i suspect from rangers endless battle to stay under the radar on this issue which unfortunately we fell for hook line and sinker

 

like it or not minutes silences are not held where it is likely to be disrupted not even the most civilised hearts fan in the world would have given you odds on that one it was a absolute banker to be a scene !!!

 

and therefore can only have come about as a trap by the sfa to show that look its not just rangers who have a problem

[MacDonald Jardine]

not arguing with the meat of your argument whatsoever

 

however i have no doubt that the silence was a set up to deflect attention i suspect from rangers endless battle to stay under the radar on this issue which unfortunately we fell for hook line and sinker

 

like it or not minutes silences are not held where it is likely to be disrupted not even the most civilised hearts fan in the world would have given you odds on that one it was a absolute banker to be a scene !!!

 

and therefore can only have come about as a trap by the sfa to show that look its not just rangers who have a problem

 

I think we were set up but I wouldn't go as far as that.

What it came to was the SFA were afraid they would be portrayed as bigots for refusing to have it, as had been their initial intention.

They went ahead in the knowledge we would be portrayed as bigots when it was broken.

[jambopompey]

not arguing with the meat of your argument whatsoever

 

however i have no doubt that the silence was a set up to deflect attention i suspect from rangers endless battle to stay under the radar on this issue which unfortunately we fell for hook line and sinker

 

like it or not minutes silences are not held where it is likely to be disrupted not even the most civilised hearts fan in the world would have given you odds on that one it was a absolute banker to be a scene !!!

 

and therefore can only have come about as a trap by the sfa to show that look its not just rangers who have a problem

 

you have to remember that celtic and their fans hounded the SFA to hold the minutes silence, even though they had a mid week game to pay their respect. There was no minutes silence to be held until the 'victims' started their campaign.

also where was the minutes silence at the Rangers v Motherwell game.

 

As stated before Hearts did state that the idea of a minutes silence was a bad idea.

[troonjambo]

I think we were set up but I wouldn't go as far as that.

What it came to was the SFA were afraid they would be portrayed as bigots for refusing to have it, as had been their initial intention.

They went ahead in the knowledge we would be portrayed as bigots when it was broken.

 

you could be right ;)

 

but i am very sensitive to the Machiavellian tactics that rangers supporters/management use to cover there tracks sir David Murray and his minions have on countless occasions used there are other sfa clubs that have a problem in Scotland too as part of his "Scottish society is to blame as opposed to glasgow rangers" line of defence

[troonjambo]

you have to remember that celtic and their fans hounded the SFA to hold the minutes silence, even though they had a mid week game to pay their respect. There was no minutes silence to be held until the 'victims' started their campaign.

also where was the minutes silence at the Rangers v Motherwell game.

 

As stated before Hearts did state that the idea of a minutes silence was a bad idea.

 

i was just thinking about you mate (was reading up on pompey )

anyway fair point but i still think bluenoses at park gardens saw a opportunity to spread the blame ;) i have no doubt the tic enjoyed the "outrage" as well

[Vlad's Dad]

Why SHOULD a minute's silence upset ANYBODY?

 

Unless they have issues of their own that is.....

[4marsbars]

 

and therefore can only have come about as a trap by the sfa to show that look its not just rangers who have a problem

 

 

And so it proved, and it was shown that it is not just rangers who have a problem, though why Hearts should have this problem is completely beyond me.

[BigC]

It should not be beyond the wit of any normal, respectable human being to stand for one minute in silence.

 

If I was asked to stand in silence for my neighbour's aunt Ethel I'd do it - because being a normal sort I feel no need to boo ANYONE'S death.

 

Those arguing that this was a stance for free speech are unconvincing. It was a palpable sign of the petty minded sickness which blights this angry little country of ours.

 

It was both.

 

With free speech comes petty minded idiotic comments. That is the whole point.

 

If people are not given the opportunity to air their views, they cannot be repudiated.

 

That's exactly how and why free speech works.

 

People do not and should not have the right not to be offended by someones viewpoint if it is articulated in a manner that does not threaten violence.

[4marsbars]

 

People do not and should not have the right not to be offended by someones viewpoint if it is articulated in a manner that does not threaten violence.

 

 

I can't work my way round your double/triple negative.

 

I thought you meant people should not have the right to be offended by someone's viewpoint if it ... does not threaten violence.

 

 

In other words, sticks and stones.....

 

 

But the third "not" in your sentence makes it mean the opposite of that, which contradicts the rest of your post.

 

So I don't know if I agree with you or not! (I agree with much of the rest of your post - with free speech comes petty minded idiotic comments)

 

Instead, let me ask a question:-

Would it be permissible for me to attend the funeral of someone I hadn't liked and shout down the proceedings, as long as I threatened no violence?

 

In my view, that is not free speech. It is a breach of the peace, and that is illegal.

 

The right to free speech does not mean that we can say exactly what we like when we like with no regard to the circumstances.

[BigC]

I can't work my way round your double/triple negative.

 

I thought you meant people should not have the right to be offended by someone's viewpoint if it ... does not threaten violence.

 

 

In other words, sticks and stones.....

 

 

But the third "not" in your sentence makes it mean the opposite of that, which contradicts the rest of your post.

 

So I don't know if I agree with you or not! (I agree with much of the rest of your post - with free speech comes petty minded idiotic comments)

 

Instead, let me ask a question:-

Would it be permissible for me to attend the funeral of someone I hadn't liked and shout down the proceedings, as long as I threatened no violence?

 

In my view, that is not free speech. It is a breach of the peace, and that is illegal.

 

The right to free speech does not mean that we can say exactly what we like when we like with no regard to the circumstances.

 

On the funeral question I agree with you. It would be unnacceptable. I wouldn't even attempt to argue against that.

 

But let me give you another scenario:

 

Let's say the funeral was for Pete Docherty.

 

Let's say I wasn't at the funeral, I was 1000 miles away in a pub.

 

At one side of the bar was a bunch of Pete Docherty fans and at the other side of the bar was me and my mates getting ready to watch the Edinburgh Derby and getting pished and having a laugh.

 

The Pete Docherty fans decided that the whole pub should have a minutes silence for Pete Docherty and demanded that the telly should be switched just as they are announcing the teams, because poor old Pete was being laid to rest at that moment and they thought a minutes silence would be appropriate.

 

Would it be unnacceptable for me to tell them to GTF and switch the TV back on and say "I couldn't give a monkeys, the guy was a knob and I couldn't care less if he's dead or not", or would it be my right to do so?

 

If you agree with me, then can you explain the difference between what the Pete Docherty fans did in my imaginary scenario and what Celtic and the GFA did in our real life one?

[Makween]

What has to be remembered here is that, although it's quite alright to disagree with the viewpoints of a politician, as soon as the word "religion" comes into play there's no such thing as a legitimate grievance. Any disagreement constitutes bigotry. I'm surprised that people have forgotten this simple rule of modern British life.

[MacDonald Jardine]

What has to be remembered here is that, although it's quite alright to disagree with the viewpoints of a politician, as soon as the word "religion" comes into play there's no such thing as a legitimate grievance. Any disagreement constitutes bigotry. I'm surprised that people have forgotten this simple rule of modern British life.

 

Not quite.

Any disagreement with certain religions constitutes bigotry and racism.

[ellsbells]

On the funeral question I agree with you. It would be unnacceptable. I wouldn't even attempt to argue against that.

 

But let me give you another scenario:

 

Let's say the funeral was for Pete Docherty.

 

Let's say I wasn't at the funeral, I was 1000 miles away in a pub.

 

At one side of the bar was a bunch of Pete Docherty fans and at the other side of the bar was me and my mates getting ready to watch the Edinburgh Derby and getting pished and having a laugh.

 

The Pete Docherty fans decided that the whole pub should have a minutes silence for Pete Docherty and demanded that the telly should be switched just as they are announcing the teams, because poor old Pete was being laid to rest at that moment and they thought a minutes silence would be appropriate.

 

Would it be unnacceptable for me to tell them to GTF and switch the TV back on and say "I couldn't give a monkeys, the guy was a knob and I couldn't care less if he's dead or not", or would it be my right to do so?

 

If you agree with me, then can you explain the difference between what the Pete Docherty fans did in my imaginary scenario and what Celtic and the GFA did in our real life one?

 

there should not have been a minutes silence in the first place. you are correct. if george bush was assissinated, would there be a minutes silence for him at a hearts vs. motherwell game because we have americans living in britain? absolute nonsense.

 

anyway, this was 3 years ago, lets worry about our club in the modern day instead of reverting back to some mogul's greivances over 60 seconds and a dead pope.

[Makween]

there should not have been a minutes silence in the first place. you are correct. if george bush was assissinated, would there be a minutes silence for him at a hearts vs. motherwell game because we have americans living in britain? absolute nonsense.

 

anyway, this was 3 years ago, lets worry about our club in the modern day instead of reverting back to some mogul's greivances over 60 seconds and a dead pope.

 

I think you mean 26 seconds.

[ellsbells]

I think you mean 26 seconds.

 

i think you're right.

 

26 seconds too many.

[4marsbars]

If you agree with me, then can you explain the difference between what the Pete Docherty fans did in my imaginary scenario and what Celtic and the GFA did in our real life one?

 

With the best will in the world, your scenario is just a little bit contrived. What the GFA did was no different than most (many?) other football associations around the world; it was not some kind of anti-Hearts conspiracy.

 

(though, if you are looking for conspiracies there is mileage in wondering why Rangers fans , by a fluke of the fixture list and not being in the Cup, were never required to show respect to the deceased pontiff. )

 

I was mainly trying to make a point that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout anything, anywhere and it's all right as long as there's no violence, which is what I thought you were arguing.

 

The idea (not yours, referring to other posters now) that a certain element of our support are heroic foot-soldiers in the fight for freedom of speech is certainly up for a Kickback's Delusion of the Year Award.

[Colonel Kurtz]

motherwell played Rangers and there was no silence.

There had never been a minutes silence for a pontiff before,justas well as there was a period when they were dropping like flies.

Rangers would never agree to a minutes silence,so when the cup semi weekend did not involve Rangers pressure was applied via the Celtic supporters group to the Coatbridge MSPS and then onto MCConnell.Keep in mind that lanarkshire is New labour powerebase and new labour in Scotland is the catholic church at prayer.

There was disruption at The Hibs v Dundee Utd semi but it was ignored,Hearts were set up to take a fall.

There actually was disruption at Tynecastle for Princess Margarets silence and also significantly at Parkhead ,but it was never widely reported.

I wonder when the next pope dies( a member of the Hitler Youth) there will be a demand for a minutes silence

[The People's Chimp]

iirc he was some weirdo that used to float around the bbc messageboards?

[Therapist]

What has to be remembered here is that, although it's quite alright to disagree with the viewpoints of a politician, as soon as the word "religion" comes into play there's no such thing as a legitimate grievance. Any disagreement constitutes bigotry. I'm surprised that people have forgotten this simple rule of modern British life.

 

I think you mean modern Kickback life.

[Guest jambomickey]

I think you mean modern Kickback life.

 

they means modern british life and is correct

[coatbridgejambo]

Anyone who thinks hearts has a major bigotry problem or need for such a group needs to get off kb and attend a few games!

 

well said

[Therapist]

they means modern british life and is correct

 

I thought you were located in Dalkeith not Devon or Cornwall.....

[Guest jambomickey]

I thought you were located in Dalkeith not Devon or Cornwall.....

 

yes i am but i'm not located in northern ireland like some hearts fans think they are

[4marsbars]

What has to be remembered here is that, although it's quite alright to disagree with the viewpoints of a politician, as soon as the word "religion" comes into play there's no such thing as a legitimate grievance. Any disagreement constitutes bigotry. I'm surprised that people have forgotten this simple rule of modern British life.

 

Does Richard Dawkins ever get labelled a bigot?

 

He's a well known critic of religion.

[Commander Harris]

Does Richard Dawkins ever get labelled a bigot?

 

He's a well known critic of religion.

a quick google search says yes.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22+Richard+Dawkins%22+bigot&btnG=Search

[Bomber Harris]

Was the original point about what a complete fud the guy who done the website was or was it that he was shaking with rage that we got press coverage all over the world

[4marsbars]

a quick google search says yes.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22+Richard+Dawkins%22+bigot&btnG=Search

 

Oh well.

[BigC]

With the best will in the world, your scenario is just a little bit contrived. What the GFA did was no different than most (many?) other football associations around the world; it was not some kind of anti-Hearts conspiracy.

 

(though, if you are looking for conspiracies there is mileage in wondering why Rangers fans , by a fluke of the fixture list and not being in the Cup, were never required to show respect to the deceased pontiff. )

 

I was mainly trying to make a point that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout anything, anywhere and it's all right as long as there's no violence, which is what I thought you were arguing.

 

The idea (not yours, referring to other posters now) that a certain element of our support are heroic foot-soldiers in the fight for freedom of speech is certainly up for a Kickback's Delusion of the Year Award.

 

No, I agree that with free speech comes responsibility.

 

Going back to your original example of free speech at funerals, check out the Westboro Baptist Church on google/youtube.

 

Now, they are the most disguisting people on the planet. They are everything I hate and stand against. They are the most vile group you could ever hope to encounter.

 

They make a habit of picketing funerals for dead gays and more recently the funerals of soldiers who have died in Iraq.

 

One thing I've noticed is that I've never heard of any of them being arrested. Why? Because it's not illegal.

 

Some states have made it illegal to picket within 150 yards of a funeral, which is definately a good idea but they have not banned the organisation from protesting in general.

 

The reason they have not is because they have the right under the American constitution to protest and have their views heard. Because their views are so extreme it is all the more important that they are heard.

 

We are all getting closer and closer to agreement on this thread which is a good thing, Makween makes the very relevant point that religious viewpoints are afforded more protection that any other realm of society. Fortunately people are waking up to this fact and starting to challenge it.

 

Colonel Kurtz also makes some relevant points regarding the SFA.

 

(The usual suspects make some incredibly stupid points about no publicity being bad publicity - anyone who truly believes that and isn't trolling, is a ****ing idiot - And I'm attacking a viewpoint, not a person when I say that, which is my right under free speech).

 

My opinions about free speech are best articulated and summarised not by me but by Christopher Hitchens who gave this stirring defence of free speech during a debate in Canada on a law banning the criticism of religion:

 

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=christopher+hitchens+canada&emb=0&aq=-1&oq=christopher+hitchens+canad#

[Makween]

yes i am but i'm not located in northern ireland like some hearts fans think they are

 

Like who, Mick?