Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

Sectarianism and Anti-Irish Racism

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00007, in the name of Bob Doris, on fighting sectarianism and anti-Irish racism. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament expresses its concern at reports of racist and sectarian intimidation and high-profile related incidents in Scottish football; believes that these incidents must be investigated thoroughly; would welcome a partnership approach to tackle racism and sectarianism, and pledges to develop a long-term consistent strategy for tackling sectarian-motivated behaviour that will endure long after the latest set of media headlines have faded from memory, both in football stadiums and across Glasgow and Scottish society.

17:02

It is essential that politicians of all parties state clearly and categorically that we will provide active and vocal support in Scotland’s fight to tackle sectarianism and anti-Irish racism. My members’ business debate relates to how those social ills impact on our national game and how they sometimes create havoc in our communities. However, just as important, it is about how society works together to cure Scotland of those social ills. It is an opportunity for MSPs to take an active stand against sectarianism and racism and to pledge to do all we can to take Scotland forward.

It might seem to some that public condemnation of such unacceptable behaviour is stating the obvious, but those people are wrong. My constituents in Glasgow—our constituents across Scotland—will rightly ask us as individual MSPs to speak out against bigotry and racism wherever and whenever they raise their head. To stay silent plays into the hands of the bigots and the racists.

I know that legislation from the Scottish Government on this matter is imminent. It is only right that we give that legislation a fair wind. This debate is not about the legislation. All I will say on that is that I accept that such legislation must be focused and fleet of foot for the purpose of having it in place for the start of the new football season. However, I would welcome further, more detailed legislation at a later date if it became apparent that it was needed.

We should not tolerate it when professional football managers in Scotland are sent bullets through the post; there is no place for such behaviour. Were bullets sent to Neil Lennon because he is from Northern Ireland, because he is the Celtic manager, because he is a Catholic or because he is clearly a passionate former player and now an equally passionate football coach? Were they sent because of flashpoints in previous football games?

On one level, it is absolutely irrelevant why the bullets were sent. No person going about their job of work brings on themselves the threats and abuse with which Mr Lennon has had to cope. There are no mitigating factors to justify bigotry, racism, threats and intimidation. It makes no difference whether it is directed towards high-profile individuals or ordinary members of the public. Likewise, our former Deputy Presiding Officer does not encourage threats towards her person because she wears a football top on her last day at work in the Scottish Parliament. There are no mitigating circumstances.

However, I have heard some in wider Scottish society make comments such as, “I know it shouldn’t happen, but what do they expect if that’s how they behave? They bring it on themselves”. If we are honest, we have all heard those comments. No one—absolutely no one—brings that on themselves. I reiterate once more that there are no mitigating circumstances when abuse—verbal or physical—is directed towards any other human being. We must not unwittingly give succour to the bigots and racists.

My motion stresses partnership working. On that front, I very much welcome the on-going work that has followed the anti-sectarianism summit. However, I want to ensure that the partnership working does not involve just the usual suspects talking to one another, as well intentioned as that clearly is. It must be wider and reach every part of civic Scotland.

I believe that bigotry and racism often overlap. We live in a society in which—wrongly—the distinction between, for example, a Pakistani and a Muslim person often blurs. In Scotland, that overlap and blurring sometimes relate to Catholicism and Irish ethnicity, and that is also wrong. For me, prejudice is prejudice, irrespective of the label, and it must be stamped out with equal vigour. For instance, why is it that we rightly celebrate the cultural traditions of third-generation Pakistanis or Bangladeshi families as enriching Scottish society, and yet some in Scottish society do not extend the same welcome to our Irish diaspora? We must not shy away from those awkward questions.

Of course we need a strategy to tackle those issues as they present themselves in and around football, but we need a wider social strategy. We need to ensure that any discussion is inclusive and challenging. This is society’s problem, not football’s problem.

That is not to say that football does not have to put its house in order: it does, and I am confident that it will. Football is a key part of the solution because that sport unites us more than it divides us. That is why the Show Racism the Red Card charity has been vital in challenging racism throughout Europe and working with football effectively to do so. I hope that its sister organisation, Show Bigotry the Red Card, will be able to do likewise—indeed, it is giving a presentation in committee room 2 after this debate, and I hope that some members will be able to come along.

I said that this debate was about taking a stand—a clear public stand—against bigotry and anti-Irish racism, and it is, but I also said that it is about partnership working. I am proud that our Scottish Government is showing leadership, but that leadership is a personal responsibility for every one of our MSPs in our constituencies and regions throughout Scotland. Just as it is unacceptable to ridicule someone because of their colour, it must be unacceptable to ridicule someone because of their religion or their Irish ethnic background.

If we say “Zero tolerance” and we live and believe that in our communities, we can truly change Scottish society. That is a responsibility that I am proud to shoulder for the next five years, and I ask my fellow MSPs to do likewise.

I call John Lamont first, as he has requested to leave the debate early due to pressing circumstances.

17:09

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Sadly, the problem of sectarianism has been an all-too-common part of the news agenda in recent months. However, I am pleased to have another opportunity to raise this important issue in the Scottish Parliament, and I congratulate Bob Doris on bringing the debate to the chamber. I apologise to the Presiding Officer and other members for having to leave early.

As all members will be aware, sectarianism has reared its ugly head in parts of our society for hundreds of years. For far too long, it became an accepted part of footballing culture in parts of Scotland. There is no doubt that progress has been made in recent years, and there seems to be a growing determination to rid Scotland of sectarianism once and for all.

Although sectarianism is not confined to footballing communities in the west of Scotland, unfortunately it manifests itself most publicly there. Recent events both on and off the pitch have provided a terrifying reminder of the problems that the vast majority of responsible Scots who want to tackle the problem head on face. There is no place in a civilised society such as ours for the kind of behaviour that we have witnessed in recent months. However despicable those events have been, they have served to rally the decent majority into condemning what has gone on.

Too often in the past, discussions of sectarianism have been clouded by apportioning blame or claiming credit for initiatives and strategies. Bob Doris’s motion is helpful in that it provides a positive approach to how we can tackle sectarianism effectively. It also recognises that we need a long-term strategy to tackle the problem, rather than a short-term answer to the latest media headlines.

It is important to recognise the work of a number of organisations that have worked with football clubs and communities. They include the anti-sectarianism charity Nil by Mouth and the anti-racism charity Show Racism the Red Card, both of which have worked tirelessly among schools, football clubs and local communities to change attitudes towards racism and sectarianism. Neil Lennon, Walter Smith and Ally McCoist have also taken a brave stance in criticising the excesses of a minority of their supporters. They should be recognised for that.

It is right that the Scottish Government should look to strengthen laws on hatred in our football grounds and on the internet. I look forward to Parliament debating those proposals fully in the coming weeks. I welcome the broad thrust of the Government’s plans and look forward to working constructively as the legislation progresses in Parliament in the next few days. Although it is right for us to make progress, the priority must be to get the new laws right, not merely rushed through. We, like others, have expressed concerns about the lack of time that the Government is leaving for proper scrutiny and debate.

As my colleague Annabel Goldie has made clear in recent months, we will work constructively to help to create robust laws to help to rid Scotland of this vile problem. The legislation needs to crack down on disorderly and violent behaviour in and around football stadiums, but it is important that it also covers threatening communications that could incite serious violence or religious or racial hatred.

Presiding Officer, I again congratulate Bob Doris on securing this important debate and apologise to you and the chamber for having to leave early.

A great number of members wish to speak in the debate, so speeches of four minutes or less would be appreciated.

17:12

I shall try to be brief. I am happy to contribute to the debate, but I am depressed that we have to have it. I commend Bob Doris both on his motion and on his speech—especially the point that he made about the real challenge that we face in this regard, which is that something as horrific as what happened to our Deputy Presiding Officer in the previous session was seen somehow as being something to be explained away. In other circumstances, blaming the victim for bringing something on themselves by how they dressed or spoke would have been seen as being entirely unacceptable, but in this instance it was seen as providing some kind of justification for what had happened. That is a particularly important point that we must confront.

This is a serious issue because, apart from anything else, sectarianism undermines our sense of a diverse Scotland, in which we can be proud of celebrating difference. We have often heard the phrase “One Scotland, many cultures”. We are happy to see people embrace that, so it is depressing to recognise that it is not the experience of some of our communities and people. Bob Doris has recognised that both sectarianism and anti-Irish racism are significant.

We know that the impact of sectarianism and racism in our communities is corrosive. They create difficulties and challenges and they undermine our wish to see harmony across our communities. I acknowledge the need for legislation and appreciate that we will not discuss that at length today. However, it is hard to see how the mindset and action of someone who was willing to post three letters with bullets to Trish Godman, among others, can be sorted out simply by legislation on sectarianism.

As the minister has recognised, we must be mindful of the significance of legislation itself. In the circumstances, the broader issues that we have to address go far beyond tackling terrorism.

We need to have a serious debate, with proper consideration of the various options. I understand that the Government has said that the new legislation needs to be in place in time for the new football season, but I express the concern that if the legislation is introduced at the beginning of the season and is not effective—and is seen to be ineffective—we might end up making things worse and giving succour to those who wish to continue to express sectarian views.

However, as we have said, we will work as constructively as possible around the proposed legislation. As with controversial legislation in the past, the parliamentary process offers a means to build support for what is being attempted. It is possible to get people to see the need for it and to sign up to it. That is particularly important in this context. The issue will be about not just the new legislation at a punitive level; it will also be about getting people to challenge attitudes and behaviours where they see them and where they realise that the measures are ineffective.

As Bob Doris pointed out, this is not just about football. Sectarian abuse is the abuse of choice in too many communities where there is conflict between neighbours. It happens not just in the football stadium; it happens in the pub. I do not know whether the minister still intends to legislate in that regard.

In football, we also have our greatest resource in tackling sectarian behaviour. There has been evidence in the past that it was football supporters themselves who took on the sexists and the racists on their terraces and stopped behaviour that was regarded as the norm 20 or 30 years ago. We must harness their commitment to, and pride in, their clubs and we must speak to the football trusts and work with them in taking on the job of challenging such attitudes. The mindset will have to shift.

On the critical importance of education, our young people probably embrace more than anyone else the initiatives that Jack McConnell put in place for getting young people to work together to challenge sectarianism. We must harness that energy of bringing people together once more. Furthermore, we should harness the energy of voluntary organisations, which can go into communities and make the changes and the arguments for the change to which we all aspire. We can unite on a range of issues in recognising the importance of effective legislation, but let us also harness all those people in footballing communities and elsewhere who are as hostile to and disturbed by sectarianism and racism as everyone in the chamber.

I ask members to stick to their four minutes, so that we will, I hope, get everyone in.

17:17

I congratulate my colleague Bob Doris on securing the debate. There is no dancing around the point: the debate gets straight to the nub of a pernicious issue that affects not just central Scotland. Sadly, it affects people in Scotland and beyond.

I believe that humans are more tribal than we are perhaps willing to admit, and we often retain a deep interest in other tribes. Some people believe that our tribes are obvious—being visually apparent by colour of skin and/or mode of dress. Of course, we can never really be sure whether someone is totally loyal to one tribe.

Ethnicity classification is an important part of our administrative process, but it does not tell the entire story. I have been annoyed on many occasions that a form will not allow me to say what tribe I am from. It is important not to disenfranchise anyone or their tribe.

Self-classification is important. We all have our identities, and that is particularly true of children from mixed tribes—if I can use that phrase—who might elect to alter their identity, depending on parental relationships, at any given time.

I like to think that I am tolerant, but I have to work at it. I like to think of myself as a civil libertarian. If truth be known, I would be happy to ban some marches—the marches that I find offensive—and I therefore have to acknowledge that inconsistency. There is a clear balance to be struck between the right to hold views that others find offensive and the right to voice them publicly with the intention of offending.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles has two entrances: one marked “For those with prejudice”, the other marked “For those without prejudice”. If someone elects to enter through the door marked “without prejudice”, they are directed straight back out on to the street. That is very telling.

Following the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson inquiry made a recommendation on the definition of a racist incident, which is that it should be

“any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

There are therefore clear lines for offence, which we would all recognise, and for perceptions of offence. Of course, my perceptions and sensitivities are worth the same as yours; they are not worth any more than yours.

I am not an adherent of any religious grouping, but I believe that a longer view must be taken about how we have ended up where we are. When one system largely replaces another, the “We are better than them” mentality becomes an important factor for the new adherents. Those who are familiar with the blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment by Jane Elliott, the American anti-racist activist, will understand how easy it is to corrupt minds. The reformation created anti-Catholic animosity that exists to this day and which I believe contributes to anti-Irishness, too.

With no wish unwittingly to offend anyone, I warm to a comedian who expresses the view that the world’s major religions cannot all be right. What I do not find funny is the BBC’s so-called football comedy programmes that make light of religious intolerance. That attitude of playing down intolerance must end. I also remain deeply uncomfortable about the separation of our young folk on religious grounds for schooling, and about the undemocratic involvement of clergy in our local authority education committees. I believe that an independent Scotland must be a secular Scotland, if we are to have real social justice. I welcome the proposal to introduce new legislation to tackle sectarianism. The changes will be measured, enforceable and specific and will remove anomalies.

For those who are wondering about my tribe, it is a mish-mash of all sorts, which is the way I want to see a modern Scotland. In the meantime, if we really are all Jock Tamson’s bairns, we should start acting as if we are.

17:21

I thank Bob Doris for securing a members’ business debate on this issue. I whole-heartedly agree with his calls to develop a consistent long-term strategy to address what remains a source of strife and shame in Scottish society.

I will offer a description of sectarianism. My dictionary defines a sectarian as being

“narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope”.

Sectarians, then, live in their own worlds and display little or no curiosity about other people’s cultures or values. They look backwards not forwards, and inwards not out.

There is nothing wrong with having pride in a particular set of religious or cultural values. I am proud of my Irish heritage, which has been and continues to be a great influence on my life and that of my relatives and friends. My friend John Patrick Keane took part in Gaelic football during his teenage years in Glasgow, and I love to wear my Gaelic football top representing County Clare, where my family are from. My sister Mairead was an exceptional Irish dancer, and the family supported her in events around Scotland, England and Ireland. My brother’s annual trip to Dublin invariably coincides with the hurling finals.

I have attended St Patrick’s day parades in Singapore and New York, where it is celebrated in a spirit of goodwill and inclusiveness. Just a few short years ago, Michael McMahon hosted the Parliament’s first St Patrick’s day reception. Yet, despite this, in Scotland St Patrick’s Day remains an occasion that is fraught with tension and, in some cases, with violence because for some people my religion and heritage are the cause of suspicion and hate.

I am proud to be a Celtic Football Club supporter and proud of its history. I make no apologies for that. It pains and frustrates me to go along to games and hear rival fans sing that I am in the wrong country, that “the famine is over”, so “why don’t” I go “home”, or that I only sing in the chapel. During their time in Scottish football, Irish nationals Aiden McGeady and James McCarthy were booed and taunted in football grounds up and down the country. One can only imagine the response if English-born Scottish internationals such as Andy Goram received the same treatment south of the border.

Those are just some examples of the so-called banter that goes on. Yet, in pointing culprits out to police officers on several occasions, I have been ignored or told that the people would be dealt with later and, on one occasion, told that the officers had not heard anything. It seems that selective hearing as well as selective vision is part and parcel of the modern game.

It is worth noting that in society at large we have made much progress. Irish immigrants and people of other origins are no longer discriminated against in the way they once were. However, although it is tempting to infer from the debate that, outside our football stadiums, the problem of sectarianism is by and large as historical as the conflicts that it seeks to glorify, that is not the case. As others have said, the recent interception of viable parcel bombs that were intended for Neil Lennon, Paul McBride and former Labour MSP Trish Godman—for the heinous crimes of, respectively, being Celtic’s manager, being Celtic’s manager’s lawyer and wearing a Celtic shirt to raise money for charity—shows how easily sectarian attitudes can seep into wider society.

Sectarianism still exercises a pervasive and dangerous influence on the small-minded.

How can we eradicate the scourge of sectarianism? The answer—if I may borrow a phrase—is education, education, education. We must examine the roots of the problem, which might partly reside in the fact that, in Scotland, the boundaries between football and religion have become hopelessly blurred. The same prejudices that persisted through hundreds of years of religious conflict have been imported into the modern game.

An analysis of sectarian crimes is expected to reveal that the victims are overwhelmingly Catholic. Although that might be an uncomfortable truth for many, it is a truth that must be faced. Societies throughout history have feared and persecuted the other. During the 19th and early 20th centuries in Scotland, the “other” was the Irish Catholic immigrant. In the years prior to the outbreak of world war two, Irish Catholics were demonised as being criminal alcoholics who stole jobs and depressed wages.

However, although we must be honest in the way in which we confront sectarianism, we must also be careful not to isolate and antagonise those whose input and engagement are essential. Calls for an end to denominational schools, for example, are not only unnecessary but potentially destructive. By and large, such schools promote understanding and tolerance, not prejudice, and they should remain part of the education process.

Sectarianism is not a problem that is born of religious or social difference; it is a problem that is born of attitude and outlook. In our modern and—for better or worse, depending on one’s point of view—increasingly secular society, there is more to unite devout people of all religious persuasions than there is to divide them. To the faithful, religion is a source of hope and solace—a moral and ethical touchstone that guides our actions in life. In its truest form, religion promotes compassion, empathy and tolerance. Sectarianism is a sad perversion of those values. It is the agent of division and discord. It has no place in football and no place in society, and the sooner it is rooted out and destroyed, the better for all of us.

17:27

I begin, like those before me, by putting on record my thanks and congratulations to Bob Doris for securing this members’ business debate. I also put on record my appreciation of the great job that he did in standing up for equality in his role as convener of the cross-party group on race equality—a role that I hope he continues to hold.

Like everyone in this chamber and the vast majority of Scots across the country, I would prefer not to be having this debate at all. I would prefer it if it were not necessary in the 21st century to be discussing the same issue that has been plaguing our communities for hundreds of years.

Sectarianism is a cancer in our society. As a football fan and a semi-regular attendee at matches in Glasgow, I know only too well how sectarian chanting can impact on the atmosphere and enjoyment of a good match. However, the impact of sectarianism extends far beyond the football terraces. It is a catalyst for the drunken violence that can too often be the aftermath of an old firm match. It corrupts the innocence of young people, who grow up with an inherent hatred of the other, without knowing why that hatred exists.

Although sectarianism is a centuries-old problem, it has very much reached the 21st century—the purveyors of hatred have moved online, with dire consequences. Internet sites such as Facebook, Twitter and blogs are actively being used as outlets by bigots, and legislation to stamp that out must be brought forward quickly.

I whole-heartedly support freedom of speech. I always have. I even believe in the freedom to offend—I do not think that it is particularly constructive, but I believe that people have that right. However, we cannot and must not allow people to hide behind the shield of freedom of speech and the anonymity of the internet to incite racial and religious hatred.

Scotland is a diverse country, and we should be proud of that multicultural tartan. I always say that even our cuisine reflects that diversity—our nation’s top two favourite dishes are chicken tikka masala and spaghetti bolognaise. Anyone who walks into any west of Scotland takeaway will spot cheese, chips and curry sauce on the menu, mixing in perfect harmony—perhaps a metaphor for how far we have come as a cohesive society.

Every immigrant group has made a valuable contribution to Scotland, enhancing our rich culture and boosting our economy—none more so than our Irish and Scots-Irish communities. I had the pleasure of attending the Donegal live show in Glasgow’s merchant city during the recent election campaign. It was an incredible celebration of all things Donegal and of the deep and historical connection between Glasgow and that city.

However, we must not kid ourselves that the journey has always been rosy for our Scots-Irish community. We know that it has not been. It was not too long ago that Irish families were changing their surnames from Sweeney to Swann and from O’Donnell to McDonald. No one is interested in petty finger-pointing and playing the blame game, but we must be careful that we do not allow our perceptions of balance to be skewed and therefore do not correctly identify the real problems and issues that exist. Anti-Irish racism exists in Scotland, just as many other forms of racism unfortunately still blight our streets. Our challenge is not to let the fight against anti-Irish racism be lost in the battle against sectarianism. Yes, there is an element of overlap, but to confuse the two would be harmful and dangerous.

Irish culture has been enriching our country for centuries and we are a better nation for it. Let us agree to work together to preserve that rich heritage. Only by stamping out racism, bigotry and sectarianism can we truly let our nation flourish.

I again congratulate Bob Doris on bringing the motion before Parliament and I whole-heartedly support it.

17:30

I congratulate Bob Doris on securing this evening’s debate, and I endorse the motion, which specifically asks Parliament

“to develop a long-term consistent strategy for tackling sectarian-motivated behaviour”.

I agree with Bob Doris that Parliament should be actively involving itself in pushing for such a strategy, but there is no getting away from the fact that what is primarily needed is a properly developed and workable Scottish Government strategy to tackle sectarian conflict rather than the sheer opportunism and crisis management that characterise the Government’s present position. Although I applaud the Government for finally making the issue of sectarian conflict a priority, we should not forget that it was not so long ago that the minister’s predecessor was informing Parliament that

“we do not believe that a further strategy specifically on tackling sectarianism is needed”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 5 February 2008; S3W-8846.]

I welcome the minister to her new post and wish her well in her specific remit on sectarianism, but I cannot say that I am comfortable with her Government’s knee-jerk legislation and the haste with which it is intended to rush it through Parliament. Jack McConnell was right to raise the profile of the issue, but I have never been convinced that successive Administrations have achieved a coherent and informed approach to the problem. A war of words and chattering-class cogitation has abounded on the subject of sectarianism, but a comprehensive and discerning course of action has never been forthcoming.

The First Minister’s—no doubt genuine—intention to stop re-enactments of the battle of the Boyne on our streets betrays a failure to recognise that sectarian conflict existed in Scotland for a century and a half before William met James on an Irish riverside. It certainly began more than 300 years before the first Celtic-Rangers game, so the need to have legislation in place before the start of the next football season truly baffles me.

Although we will soon have legislation to address the modern phenomenon of e-sectarianism or cyber-racism, I fear that the forthcoming legislation will not, or cannot, begin to tackle the real problem. If sectarianism is not to be defined, how can it be tackled or eradicated? If anti-Irish racism is to be subsumed into strategies on sectarianism rather than treated distinctly for what it is, I hold out little hope for a solution to it. The issue is hugely complex and the means of tackling it need to be much more multifaceted than the rhetoric to which we are all too often subjected.

We hear a lot about the good work that is being done on the issue by different groups, and I know that sincere efforts are being made by such bodies. However, although anti-sectarianism is the recognised label of the work of those groups, I am afraid that it could more accurately be called non-sectarianism. As one academic put it, the term “non-sectarianism” refers

“to a neutral position, reflecting the fact that it is about staying in the middle”.

That is what we have in Scotland. Too many people are trying to claim neutrality, sitting on the fence and proposing measures to deal with the problem based on an attitude that sees the problem as being two sides of the same coin: one lot is as bad as the other—Celtic versus Rangers. That is far too simplistic an attitude and results in people pontificating rather than taking a proactive and positive approach that is aimed at removing the ignorance that underpins sectarianism.

I would prefer people to gain respect for one another’s values and place in society than have non-sectarianists monitoring the number of parades and trying to eradicate the traditions and cultures that divide us. I do not want people to stop singing the famine song because they are afraid that they will go to jail; I want them to understand why it is offensive for them to sing it, and why it is important for me to value my Irish heritage and for them to welcome the diversity that Irish immigration has brought to this country. I want people to stop singing the famine song because they appreciate the offence that it causes to people such as me, whose traditions are different from theirs. No amount of legislation will bring that about, and very little that has been done so far encourages me to think that the work that is being carried out will lead us to that positive outcome.

Because of the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend members’ business by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes—[Bob Doris.]

Motion agreed to.

17:35

I, too, congratulate my colleague Bob Doris on bringing the subject of sectarianism and racism to the Parliament. As it can rarely be discussed with calm voices or without passion and emotion, it was a bold step for him to take. If the subject needs anything, it needs calm heads and a little bit of wisdom to take us forward to where we all want Scotland to be.

Where is that? What do we all want Scotland to be? For me, we want a Scotland that understands and respects differences, promotes common ground and seeks to assure people of the other persuasion that their views, faith or otherwise are respected and protected.

The bilious nature of sectarian chanting at football matches cannot seriously be explained in terms of religious differences. To justify such behaviour in the name of one’s religion must surely make the clerics of all faiths cringe at the very prospect—“Not in our name”, I can hear them proclaim from their pulpits—and, in reality, few, if any, of those who do the chanting will be in church to atone for their sins of the previous day.

As someone whose origins are in Ireland but whose family are all Scots till our dying days, I know how difficult the journey has been for many. Indeed, my own grandfather chose to name my dad William in an effort to avoid any possibility of bigoted treatment as my dad grew up. Someone whose name was Tom or Dan, or Pat or Mick, had to watch out—there was no job for them. “What school did you go to?” seemed to be the only question at job interviews in those days.

Have we moved on from those grim days? I think that we have made considerable progress in our schools, our businesses and our factories, and in Scottish society as a whole. The visit to Scotland last year by the holy father Pope Benedict was warmly welcomed by all faiths in Scotland, and I believe that that was genuine and heartfelt. Many non-Catholics to whom I spoke told me what a wonderful occasion it was for Scotland.

If we are to make more progress in tackling the issue and ridding Scotland of sectarianism, we need to do even more to move us away from those ancient rivalries that simply perpetuate a sense of division. That does not mean that people need give up on their history and heritage, but it does mean that they should not use them as a stick to beat their neighbour.

We are, indeed, one Scotland, many cultures; perhaps we are many religions, too. The true test of a modern Scotland and whether we have reached where we want to be is whether we offer a hand of friendship to those with whom our ancestors may have had differences in centuries gone past, and that hand of friendship is taken with a smile and returned in equal measure. I have no doubt that Scotland will make that progress, and I commend my colleague Bob Doris for bringing the matter to the Parliament’s attention.

17:39

I am pleased to speak in the debate and I welcome the opportunity that Bob Doris’s motion gives us.

Returning members will recall that racism and sectarianism aroused great passion in a former member with whom I am well acquainted, and I share those concerns. I recall that member securing similar debates in 2004 and 2006. Let us hope that, one day, we will not be required to debate such issues any longer.

For my part, I am proud to represent one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in the country. One of the largest and most influential ethnic groups is the Irish community, which has played a central role in civic, religious and political life in Glasgow for generations.

It is sad that there are people who have been slow and often unwilling to embrace diversity and who refuse to accept that we live in a multicultural Scotland. Attitudes that are often rooted in ignorance and misapprehension, such as homophobia, Islamophobia and sectarianism, manifest themselves in unacceptable patterns of behaviour.

The events of recent months should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that sectarianism is alive and well in modern Scotland. The sending of parcel bombs to Neil Lennon, Paul McBride QC and former member of the Scottish Parliament Trish Godman was utterly unacceptable and wholly unjustifiable. The people who were responsible for the outrages must be brought to justice and must feel the full force of the law. Their attitudes and actions have no place in Scottish society.

The Scottish Government plans to introduce legislation to tackle sectarianism at football matches and on the internet. Perhaps as soon as next week, we will get the chance to debate and vote on the Government’s proposals. I share members’ concern about the timescale, but I genuinely hope that the measures in the bill will be sensible, practical and enforceable, and that the Parliament can reach a consensus.

I gently point out that sectarianism is not just an issue for football; it is also an issue in wider society. The recent high-profile events have again turned attention to the issue, but it must be remembered that since 2003 more than 2,200 individuals have been convicted of religiously aggravated offences under section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. Indeed, individuals have been convicted in every procurator fiscal area in Scotland. That is an average of about 330 convictions per year. Each and every one of those offences had a victim and a perpetrator, and each and every offence was entirely unjustifiable.

If we are to break the depressing cycle of threat, hatred and violence, we must look beyond the football terraces and invest in quality education projects in our schools, colleges and workplaces. Members might have read an editorial in Saturday’s edition of The Scotsman, in which it was argued:

“Whatever we do in the courts and at sports stadiums, the longer-term work of educating the next generation has to remain the main goal.”

We should all echo those sentiments. People are not born bigoted; they become exposed to bigotry and intolerance. Without early intervention there is a risk that another generation will be blighted by the bitterness of old battles and prejudices.

During my time as Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, I was proud to make a small contribution to the first-ever Government action plan to tackle sectarianism. Education initiatives were at the heart of the programme, and the measures that were put in place have borne considerable fruit in recent years, most notably with the building of shared campuses and the twinning of schools. The Keppoch campus in my constituency, which officially opened in February 2007, is a genuine success story and has provided a first-class school building and a multifaith backdrop that supports pupils’ education.

Such success has been replicated throughout the country. The aforementioned Scotsman editorial highlighted the shared campus that is used by Broomhouse primary school and St Joseph’s primary school in Edinburgh, where

“Children who once abused each other across the school fence have been drawn together through, among other things, their love of sport and games.”

I would be interested to learn from the minister whether the Scottish Futures Trust has had discussions with local authorities about building on that success and establishing more shared campuses in Scotland. Will the minister also comment on whether the twinning projects, which cost a mere £100,000 to put in place and were so successful in bringing together young people of all faiths and none to work on shared projects and learn about one another, are likely to be replicated?

If we do not tackle the problem now, we run the risk of making what Jack McConnell described as “Scotland’s secret shame” a public shame. If we are to break the cycle, we must work together and address the problem wherever it manifests itself.

17:44

I congratulate Bob Doris on securing the debate and I welcome the opportunity to participate, because during the past few months, and particularly since the issue has been in the media spotlight, I have received a considerable amount of unsolicited correspondence from constituents who are really concerned about what they are seeing, particularly in the context of football games, but also in their own communities and in wider society. It is absolutely right that we are seen as a Parliament not just debating the issue tonight but,over the coming weeks, looking at some of the legislative measures that we can take to make a difference.

I declare an interest as someone who worked alongside the previous Scottish Executive between 2005 and 2007, while I worked for the Scottish Trades Union Congress, on a small task force that looked at how to tackle sectarianism in both the workplace and the community more widely. We worked with groups such as sense over sectarianism, Strathclyde Police, Nil By Mouth and Glasgow City Council.

At that time, it became clear to me that, although a range of significant voices and organisations were prepared to stand up and do something about sectarianism, there were barriers to overcome as well. There were a lot of semantics around the barriers to tackling sectarianism. It was sometimes worrying that people I might regard as even-minded and pragmatic would say, “Maybe we can’t look at that. Maybe we need to look at a different approach.” At the end of the day, there is a real concern about how we tackle the issues. That highlights the scale of the problem that we have.

Ultimately, we will need legislation, but we will also need education over the longer term, because there is a huge cultural issue that we have to tackle. That is why I was a little disappointed by the previous lack of focus. Michael McMahon spoke about how the First Minister said in the previous session of Parliament that we did not need a specific focus on sectarianism—I am sure that, with hindsight, he would agree that the focus should have continued.

It is a matter of changing attitudes, and not just in the west of Scotland, at football matches or in supporters of Rangers or Celtic. As someone who lives in Fife and knows what happens at provincial football clubs, I know that there is an acceptance of language and humour around sectarianism that we would not accept in relation to racism, sexism or comments related to sexual orientation. John Finnie alluded to that acceptance, too. Society has moved on, which should give us hope that if we as parliamentarians are prepared, along with society more widely, to challenge the language and humour that are used around sectarianism, we will see a change. It is a question of educating people about what is right and wrong, and of people being prepared to challenge the issues.

Michael McMahon was right on another issue, too. I know from my own experience and from correspondence with a constituent called Tom Minogue in Dunfermline—who tells me this as someone whose family has come to this country—that there is a huge difference between tackling anti-Irish racism and tackling sectarianism more widely. I agree that anti-Irish racism must be looked at specifically. It requires a much wider view and perhaps legislation in the longer term.

The people who speak to me about the issues have said that they come up against the barrier of authorities’ complacency. Their concern is real, and it is up to us as parliamentarians to break down that barrier and to support those who feel that anti-Irish racism is not being tackled sufficiently.

Today is a great opportunity for us to set the tone in the Parliament, but it is a question of not just what we say here in the chamber but what we go out and say in our communities. We must show leadership, because I am afraid that if we do not we may slip into the old habits of the past. That links to Michael McMahon’s points about taking a view on neither side of the fence. We need to tackle the issue and work jointly. We need to look at legislation but, most important, we need to ensure that there is long-term investment in education and that we change the culture that blights this country.

17:49

I thank Bob Doris for lodging the motion. It comes at an appropriate time and covers issues on which I believe the chamber can and must stand united.

I should probably declare an interest—not one that I have had to declare in the register of members’ interests, but an interest as a child of the very mixed Scots-Irish ancestry of which so many of us are children. I, too, have had some of the experiences that others from that background have had to endure.

In today’s earlier debate, there was discussion of a number of subjects that are also relevant to the present debate, but I do not want to go back over them. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt that there can be no place for any form of sectarianism, religious prejudice or racism in Scotland. Although sectarianism in Scotland tends to be used as shorthand to refer to the attitude of Catholics to Protestants and vice versa, it can manifest itself in other faith groups as well. Therefore, when we talk about sectarianism we must remember that it is not confined to just those groups. We live in a modern 21st century society in which bigotry, prejudice and discrimination should have no place: all members will be united in their condemnation of sectarian and racist bigotry.

Everybody here knows that I have been given the task of driving forward the Scottish Government’s work to tackle sectarianism. I do not underestimate the scale of that task. We are beginning the session with a piece of legislation, but legislation is not the be-all and end-all of this. I know that, as does the Government. Therefore, I ask members to stop pretending that that is somehow our position, because it is not. It is essential that we co-ordinate our activity to make the maximum impact, so taking a holistic and co-ordinated approach will be central to how I drive forward the agenda. Building a society that is based on equality is central to the Administration, which is why we have, against a backdrop of Government cuts, retained funding for equality projects at £20.3 million for 2011-12.

Sectarianism and the antisocial behaviour that it inspires have plagued the lives of too many people for too long. Sectarianism is a real and insidious problem that needs to be tackled head on. There is no question but that most of our communities have had enough of it—I would like to say that all our communities have had enough of it, but I fear that some are still too mired in it—and we stand united with them when we say that we will not tolerate such behaviour any more. Furthermore, we should not fall into the trap of believing that the problem is confined to the west of Scotland. It is not, and to think that is too easy a way of pushing it into being a regional issue. The Government has already committed more than £525,000, in the 2011-12 financial year, to support for specific projects that are aimed at tackling sectarianism, and the total amount that we will spend on race, religion and refugee integration projects will be £3.7 million in the same period.

In his opening speech, Bob Doris eloquently described what has happened in Scotland in the past few months, specifically surrounding sectarianism in football, which is the reason why the Government wants to move quickly. Tomorrow will see the offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications (Scotland) bill introduced to Parliament. Following a football season that has been marked by some deplorable incidents, we have announced that we seek urgently to clarify and strengthen the law in a couple of crucial areas. The bill will seek to prevent offensive and threatening behaviour that is related to football matches, and to prevent communication of threatening material. We are working to have those provisions in place before the start of the new football season on 23 July.

We should be in no doubt that legislation is effective in tackling abusive behaviour that is associated with football. However, because sectarianism is manifest not only in football, as a number of members have commented, my work will only just be starting with that legislation, not ending with it.

That is how we intend to go forward. I look forward to continuing to build on the good work that is being delivered through key partners such as sense over sectarianism, the Iona Community, Nil by Mouth and all the schools that are involved in a lot of the work—including Catholic schools, which, in my view, deliver only benefits to Scotland.

Patricia Ferguson raised a couple of specific questions relating to schools. The £100,000 for education to which she referred was intended for schools to bid for to fund individual anti-sectarianism projects. We also fully support school-twinning projects. If she wants to talk to me more about aspects of that work, I will be happy to meet her.

I now turn to racism. We are committed to addressing the needs of every community in Scottish society, including white communities such as the Irish, English and Polish communities, who are not always perceived as being the victims of racism. We want to ensure that everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed and achieve in Scotland. The one Scotland campaign continues to deliver that message. We value our engagement with the Irish community, whether it is directly with the Irish diaspora in Scotland or with the diplomatic presence that Ireland has here.

Data on Irish ethnicity was collected in the 2011 census and I look forward to the analysis of that information being published in due course. Of course, we need to remember that not all Irish immigrants were Catholic. A significant percentage of the Irish immigration was Protestant, so some care needs to be taken about making assumptions on the basis of ethnicity. In addition, like me, many people will not—despite their family ancestry—describe themselves as being anything but Scottish. We need to keep all of that in our minds when we look at the census information.

Scotland suffers from a toxic historical legacy: a combination of anti-Catholicism and anti-immigration sentiment that we are still labouring under the burden of today. We need to get out from under that if we are to ensure that our society is to go ahead.

There is a lot more to come and there is a lot more that we are committed to. I look forward to working positively with schools and young people, whom I know have already been among the most eager to positively embrace equalities.

We need to be honest about the extent to which society has implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, endorsed and tolerated a level of sectarian sentiment that is quite unacceptable. John Park made that point very eloquently.

No one should be in any doubt about the work that we intend to do and I hope that every member of Parliament will work with me as we take matters forward over the coming months and years.

Meeting closed at 17:56.