Sectarianism
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3906, in the name of Bill Butler, on sectarianism in Scotland.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the launch of the Scottish Executive's 18-point Action Plan on Tackling Sectarianism which will see the Executive support and expand the range of local and national initiatives that emerged from the National Summit on Sectarianism, held in February 2005; recognises that sectarianism is a problem throughout Scotland and that it must be confronted; realises the importance of supporting community-based projects, such as Glasgow City Council's Sense over Sectarianism campaign and the twinning of denominational and non-denominational schools, in challenging sectarian attitudes and improving young people's understanding of each others' cultural identities, and commends the efforts of the Executive, local authorities, charities such as Nil By Mouth, churches and community groups in highlighting the problems of bigotry and sectarianism which exist within communities and workplaces throughout Scotland.
Until recently, the subject of sectarianism, when raised at all, provoked either an awkward silence or a denial that a problem existed. That approach was wrong, because Scotland continues to have a problem with sectarian attitudes—sectarianism has not vanished. Today, in what I understand is the first debate that has been devoted solely to discussing sectarianism, the Parliament has the opportunity to accept that there is a problem and to discuss ways and means of tackling it. I am delighted that we are joined by the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rev Alan McDonald, and Cardinal Keith O'Brien. I welcome them to the Parliament and thank them for giving their time to listen to what we have to say. They are joined by others who represent many strands of Scotland's faith community. I am also glad that we are joined by representatives of Nil by Mouth, a charity that has been at the forefront of the anti-sectarianism campaign in recent years.
In 2004, the First Minister called sectarianism Scotland's secret shame and spoke about his personal experiences of it. That was the right thing to do, because it sent out a clear message that the subject can no longer be swept under the carpet. In February 2005, the First Minister convened an historic summit on sectarianism in Scotland, which brought together the voluntary sector, police, media, church and faith leaders, representatives of football teams and their supporters, local authorities, trade unions and business. From that summit emerged Scotland's national action plan to tackle sectarianism, which was launched in January this year and which highlights 18 key areas on which the Executive will take action.
I will focus on some of those areas. Let us take sport. Sectarianism is of course not merely a football problem, but it is undeniable that a sectarian element has attached to football clubs, particularly, but not exclusively, to Rangers and Celtic. Unison's 2001 study into the impact of old firm games on accident and emergency units throughout Scotland showed that the worst-affected unit was in Monklands, where attendances as a result of assaults on the day of an old firm fixture were a staggering nine times the norm. However, increases were recorded at almost every accident and emergency unit the length and breadth of Scotland.
I am glad to report that the clubs are taking the problem seriously and are acknowledging their civic obligation to help to stamp out sectarian behaviour. Last year, Rangers and Celtic set up the old firm alliance to bridge the divide between communities. The alliance has brought young people together and players have participated in photo calls and awareness campaigns. Both clubs have used the Scottish Executive-funded education resource, "Sectarianism: Don't Give It, Don't Take It", in their learning centres. That is progress. However, sectarian songs can still be heard from elements of the support of both clubs. To their credit, senior figures at both clubs have spoken out against that in recent months.
There is still much work to be done. It is critical that the Executive supports the work of the football clubs, which is why I am pleased that the Executive is working in partnership with the Scottish Football Association and sportscotland to develop a strategy for tackling sectarianism in football. In addition, it has urged the local authorities to license street traders outside grounds and to prohibit the sale of sectarian paraphernalia as a condition of any such licence. It is correct that it does that.
Although I support everything that the member has said so far, does he agree that the action on street trader licences poses a danger? For instance, Che Guevara pictures, posters and flags are also being banned. Does he not agree that that is inappropriate?
I would never knowingly criticise Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution. People use their common sense. I hope that they do so in this instance.
I also welcome the proposal to introduce football banning orders, which I hope will become law tomorrow following the debate on the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I hope that all members support that measure.
Of course, such new, practical legislative measures are welcome, but new laws alone do not offer a complete solution. If we are serious about eradicating sectarianism, education must be at the core of our strategy. For example, the Executive has encouraged the twinning of denominational and non-denominational schools, with the aim of raising awareness and understanding among young people. That is commendable.
Last year also saw the launch of a green and blue anti-sectarian wrist band in schools across Scotland, thousands of which were distributed. I was delighted to present pupils from Yoker primary school and Corpus Christi primary school in my constituency with the wristbands when they visited the Parliament last year. I was even happier when it became clear that the children understood clearly what the wristband signified. That, again, is progress. It is important that young people start to explore each other's culture, as that will help to give them a better understanding of their own culture. Real understanding of other people's cultural identity should be a positive influence and will help to correct the baleful influence of the bigoted minority.
Glasgow City Council's innovative sense over sectarianism project, which the Evening Times has publicised extensively, is another laudable means of helping our young people not only to ask the right questions but to answer them. Education is vital, but it cannot provide an instant solution. The challenge is great and requires a concerted, long-term approach to be taken. Anti-sectarianism must become firmly entrenched in the school curriculum.
The action plan also deals with marches and parades throughout Scotland. Work in that area must be based around the crucial need to strike the correct balance between the rights of the marchers and the rights of the communities that are affected by marches. We will have the chance to do that tomorrow, when we consider the proposals on marches and parades in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
Members will be aware of an agreement that was signed earlier this month between march organisers, local authorities and the police to assist in weeding out the troublemakers who too often attach themselves to marches. That is progress. The actions of a mindless minority have often reflected badly on the organisations involved. I welcome that indication that parade organisers now see the benefit in identifying such individuals and want to work in conjunction with the authorities to prevent such inappropriate behaviour.
In helping to combat sectarianism, we must also continue to work with Scotland's faith community. Church and faith groups play an important role in our communities. I know that the First Minister has regular meetings with church representatives and it is important for us to maintain that involvement with Scotland's churches. The fact that so many prominent members of our faith community are present to listen to the debate shows their deep-seated commitment to moving forward together to tackle sectarianism. That is vital.
Progress is being made, but what must happen next? Government alone cannot defeat sectarianism; laws alone cannot change hearts and minds. We must start to consider what more we—all of us—can do as individuals. Are we brave enough to start questioning our own attitudes, language and behaviour? Are we willing to stop and think about the things that we say and do and to reflect on how our words and actions appear to others who do not share our experiences or background? Are we determined enough to take that first step and ask as many questions of ourselves as we do of other people? I would like to think that we are.
There is a belief in some quarters that, by talking about it and asking hard questions, we somehow sustain sectarianism and that, somehow, if we do not talk about them, sectarian attitudes will gradually wither on the vine. That is a mistaken view when it is applied to racism and it is as mistaken when it comes to sectarianism. For too long, we turned a blind eye to sectarianism, conveniently telling ourselves that it was only a football problem or that it affected only certain communities. Such an approach will not provide a solution. Let us be honest and open about it, confront it and, most important of all, defeat it.
The Executive's action plan is a good beginning. It contains legislative measures and initiatives that will help. Equally, it attempts to provoke a debate not only here at Holyrood but throughout our nation. Let us all, as citizens, take an active role in that debate and help to fashion one Scotland—a Scotland of many cultures.
I congratulate Bill Butler on bringing the matter before the Parliament. There is little in what he said with which I could disagree.
Sectarianism has been an insidious and malevolent influence on certain sections of Scottish life for far too long. We have seen its manifestation not only in sport—football in particular—but in employment practices and many other aspects of life. We should no longer tolerate it.
Bill Butler's motion contains some fairly positive aspects, and I will start by accentuating the positive. First, bad as it is, the problem is not nearly as bad as it was. I can remember my own childhood and the great divide that took place at the age of five, but it seems that, nowadays, children can go to separate schools and still retain the degree of social intercourse that is necessary for friendship. The schools and churches are to be congratulated on the steps that they have taken in that direction. I remember how, as a keen adolescent footballer, I was geared towards playing in a certain direction. I remember how, when I was a young man, pubs in the Maryhill area of Glasgow were referred to as Celtic bars or Rangers bars; none was referred to as a Partick Thistle bar. The message was clear: anyone who drank in a Celtic bar was a Catholic and anyone who drank in a Rangers bar was a Protestant.
We have moved on a great deal, but we still have problems that have to be confronted. Bill Butler is correct to state that the most obvious manifestation of the problem, particularly in west-central Scotland, is seen at or after football matches. Although the trouble at the games themselves pales into insignificance compared with what happened 30 or 40 years ago, when 150 or 200 arrests were commonplace, there is evidence to suggest that the level of incidents in the aftermath of games, particularly in Glasgow city centre, is much worse.
Football and religion rouse great passions in many people. In isolation, that is not harmful but, when they become interlinked, we have a heady and unhealthy mix. A great change in thought processes is required. Bill Shankly, with the wry sense of humour for which he became famous, said that football is not a matter of life and death, but much more important than that. Unfortunately, there is a significant section of the population, mainly young men, whose enthusiasm for football—or, more particularly, winning—goes beyond sensible bounds. To be frank, they are encouraged down that road by certain sections of the media that see nothing wrong with supporters' passion. In many respects, the media are quite right—it is entertainment, after all—but the combination of a fanatical will to win and religious bigotry is a poisonous, malevolent and volatile brew.
Glasgow's two principal football clubs cannot escape historical blame for what has happened. They are now clearly making genuine efforts to improve the situation, as I freely acknowledge, but they must do more. They must recognise that, when they seek to hang on to a sincerely held heritage, that can sometimes offend other people, and they perhaps need to think about moving on from that. Sometimes, the clubs tolerate actions by individual players—in the course of a game, after it or in their private life—that simply should not be tolerated. Such actions add to the difficulty.
However, we are undoubtedly progressing. I can well recall attending football matches when attendances were around 100,000, and all of a sudden a space would open up on the terracing to be filled within seconds with perhaps 100 bodies taking part in a stand-up fight, as bottles flew. Things have changed for the better in that respect. Now, we need to take the further steps that are necessary. Once we do that, we will be able to enjoy a situation in which football and religion are completely separated and sectarianism stands in lonely isolation.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing the debate. We have debated this subject on many occasions, and now the Executive is listening. Thankfully, it has proposed its 18-point action plan, which Bill Butler mentioned. I know that Donald Gorrie will also discuss the work that he has done to introduce legislation on sectarianism.
Bill Butler said that we should be honest. I agree that we have to be honest, as Bill Aitken was. We cannot shy away from the fact that, for years and years, Scotland—Glasgow in particular—has suffered sectarianism, violence and abuse, all because of two football teams. Things have certainly changed to an extent, but I have never for the life of me understood why the teams called Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers never seem to fly the saltire—although that is changing in some respects. We must challenge those football clubs on that. Like Bill Butler, I see a great deal of violence on Saturdays in the city centre. There is no point in hiding the fact.
The other weekend, we watched Heart of Midlothian v Gretna. The fans came out in their thousands and walked along to get their trains from and back to Glasgow Central. There was not one bit of trouble. The fans, including kids, were all joining in, singing and dancing in the streets. We must ask ourselves this: they are all football fans, so why is there such a big difference when it comes to the rivalry between two certain teams? Apparently, in Edinburgh, there is some form of bother to do with football clubs and religion, too. However, at rugby matches at Murrayfield, we never see any trouble.
The Executive's 18-point plan notwithstanding, we must look deeper into the problem and find out why, while some people can support football teams such as Partick Thistle without any bother at all, others cannot support teams such as Rangers and Celtic without coming to blows and engaging in violence. Offensive artefacts and articles have been mentioned. Supposedly, their sale has now been stopped, and there was legislation to tackle that aspect of the problem, but it still goes on—I still see articles and artefacts being paraded about the streets of Glasgow and being sold quite openly outside certain football clubs. They are still there, albeit that they are now slightly underground. We should acknowledge that.
I welcome those representing the churches and other bodies who are in the public gallery. Helen Miller of Nil by Mouth has campaigned tirelessly to stop this problem happening, and Cara Henderson has also campaigned tirelessly for years.
As Bill Butler rightly said, it all comes down to education. We can do whatever we want, as long as we educate the kids. That is where the effort must come from. I have visited schools throughout Glasgow and have spoken to pupils from both sides of the divide. I have tried to understand why they have such a hatred for people who come from another area and support a different team.
Some of the kids are trying hard with the help of the 18-point plan and the £100,000 that the Executive has allocated to help to stop sectarianism in schools for 2006. Initiatives to combat sectarianism must begin at school level. We must speak to the kids and stress that it is not the be-all and end-all. The same message must come from the football fans. Sectarianism does occur in other areas of life, but the majority of it relates to those two football clubs, which, financially, seem to gain a lot from the number of fans that they attract. I often wonder whether they would profit as much without the sectarian element. They must ask themselves that question too.
Are enough changes being made? Are fans speaking to each other? It has been said that the only way to stop domestic violence against women is to have men raise the matter with each other and say that it is not acceptable. The only way that we can target and bring an end to sectarianism is to educate the kids at school and get the football fans to talk to each other and point out those who are singing sectarian chants at football matches, which has happened. The Executive, MSPs and the whole of society must be involved in education, but football fans must say to each other that sectarianism is not acceptable.
I look forward to the day when I can bring visitors to Glasgow and walk about the streets without fear of their being abused verbally or physically just because they are wearing a particular football scarf or belong to a particular religion.
We cannot get away from the fact that the vast bulk of sectarianism in Scotland affects the west of Scotland and Glasgow in particular. We must tackle that seriously. I welcome all the work that the Executive is doing and I am glad that the Minister for Justice and Deputy Minister for Justice are here. As Bill Butler said, there is no point in our not telling the truth. We must be up front and honest about the problem. The situation has changed slightly, but it has not changed enough. There is still an element of sectarianism in our city and we must put a stop to it.
I congratulate Bill Butler on his excellent speech, which covered the ground well, and on his motion.
I will try not to cover the same ground again, given that many of us have made many speeches on the subject. It is important—I say this not only because we have distinguished visitors in the gallery—that the Executive involves all the relevant bodies in discussions and promotions of activity in relation to fighting sectarianism. There is a tendency for little groups of civil servants to go away and design what are no doubt excellent policies, but such policies are much more effective if the churches, the big football clubs, the Orange order and so on are involved and have ownership of them.
I have discussed the matter recently at a high level with the football clubs and the police, which all agree that definite progress is being made with regard to Celtic and Rangers home matches, although there is still a feeling among the police that the clubs could do more to identify individual troublemakers and remove their season tickets. There has not been such progress at away matches, where the clubs have less grip. We have to use the football banning orders that Bill Butler mentioned. We must ensure that the police co-operate throughout the country, so that they can deal better with sectarianism. There is a tendency for a small group of Celtic supporters to sing Irish Republican Army songs, which are not technically sectarian, but are still unacceptable to many people. If the Executive could help to bring together the police throughout the country and the football teams—not just Rangers and Celtic, but all the other major clubs—to deal with the problem of away fans, that would be a great step forward.
Likewise, there should be co-operation with the marching organisations to identify the troublemakers who are not usually in the march but are the drunken riff-raff who go along with it. The organisers are often aware of who those people are. The police have to be able to provide the councils with good evidence to help them to make future policies for controlling and routing marches.
I want to focus on what is for me a new issue, which I blame myself for not seeing earlier. We have had too much propaganda—I have been as guilty as anyone else of this—that suggests that the big football clubs are the problem, when they could be the solution. Whether we like it or not, Rangers, Celtic and other football clubs across Scotland generate infinitely more enthusiasm than any political party or—I fear—church does. However, that can be used as a positive motivation. If we say to a person who has been unemployed for 10 years, "Come along to a Glasgow City Council training scheme," he will not come. However, if he is a football enthusiast and we say, "Come to a Celtic training scheme," or "Come to a Rangers training scheme," he will be there like a shot. In fact, the two clubs already do good work in that regard—I know that other clubs do similarly good work, but I happen to be better briefed at the moment about what Rangers and Celtic do. The clubs co-operate in the running of the old firm alliance, which achieves an 80 per cent improvement in the people whom it seeks to help. Both clubs have well-equipped learning classrooms that can be used by pupils who cause difficulties in their schools. When those pupils go back to school six weeks later, they stop creating difficulties. The clubs run anti-drugs programmes for primary pupils, retraining programmes for unemployed people, charity fundraising schemes and, as one would expect, joint coaching programmes to promote Asian football and so on.
We should be channelling more Government money directly to that sort of activity. Of course, we should ensure that any money that is sent in that direction is spent on such activity—we do not want merely to increase the ridiculously high wages of the top players. The money could go to support the work that the clubs are doing and would induce the community to provide more money as well. Obviously, there are other routes by which we can get to people, but this is a major one. It would be good if Celtic, Rangers and the clubs that are local to various areas across Scotland could promote all sorts of activities. They already support initiatives such as midnight football, which is a good scheme for keeping kids off the street.
We can use the names of the teams in a positive way. If the supporters feel that the team is being valued, they might create less trouble.
When I saw the number of members who had stayed behind after decision time, I thought that we might be here until about 8 o'clock. There are fewer members here now, but Bill Butler can be congratulated on delaying the exodus until after his opening speech. Many members would have benefited from hearing more of the debate, because we all recognise that the issue is important.
Bill Butler mentioned that this is the first debate that we have had that has been dedicated to the issue of sectarianism. Many people outwith the chamber might be astonished by that fact and I admit that I had to run three or four searches of the Official Report on the Parliament's website before I could quite believe it. However, we should thank Bill Butler for securing this debate on the subject.
Bill Butler said that sectarianism has been downplayed by some people, that some have argued that the subject is best not talked about and that, if we do not talk about it, it will just go away. He was right to dismiss that view. We can talk about the legislative measures that the Executive is putting in place and give the Executive credit for being willing to talk about the issue. I commend the Executive on the approach that it has taken. People from many sectors such as sport, the media, education, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the churches have been brought together in the symposium in a way that strikes me as being a positive model for facilitating dialogue and co-operation, which could be used in other areas that are not quite so contentious.
Many of the issues that members have talked about have been to do with football clubs. Several members have said that the clubs have made progress, but that there is more that they can do. Bill Aitken said that it is understandable that the clubs sometimes want to hang on to their traditions. However, we should remember that they are businesses. They are substantial commercial operations. I do not have the full answer, but we need to ask how we can make it clear to the clubs that the way for them to be profitable is to address the problem and that, if they do not do that extra work and, in two or three years' time, we are still saying, "They've done something, but they could do a bit more", they will have to face the financial consequences.
Members talked about the role of education. We cannot underestimate that. The motion mentions
"the twinning of denominational and non-denominational schools."
I have never made any secret of the fact that, for a number of reasons, I would prefer to live in a society that did not have religious education. However, although that view might be more common outside the chamber than in it, I recognise that religious education is not likely to go away soon. The twinning of schools therefore seems to me to be a positive step forward, although I have spoken to parents who are far more concerned about dilapidated schools being repaired, renewed and rebuilt than they are about hanging on to a particular model of denominational schooling.
The motion also mentions
"challenging sectarian attitudes and improving young people's understanding of each others' cultural identities".
Of course, education is a profound opportunity to address that. I have a concern, though. We should ask ourselves why religious identity remains strong at a time when religion and faith are of decreasing importance to people in Scotland—with between a quarter and a third either declaring no religion or affirming that they have no religion—and at a time when many people who tick one of the religious boxes on the census form probably would not put their religion at the top of their priorities in life. At a time when religion itself and the practice of religion are of decreasing importance, why does religious identity, which is not about faith or belief, remain so strong? That is a difficult question to answer. Sometimes, it might be a difficult question to ask.
Education offers an opportunity not only to address religious identity and cultural identity and to challenge attitudes and discrimination, but to put those things in the context of all the other forms of discrimination that remain prevalent in our society. The Scottish social attitudes survey shows that there are other forms of discrimination that are found to be more acceptable than sectarian discrimination.
I agree with Bill Butler that it is wrong to brush the matter under the carpet, but when we discuss it, particularly with children in schools, we must break down the barriers between cultural identities rather than reinforce them.
I congratulate Bill Butler on securing this evening's debate on an important subject. A number of excellent points have been made about the impact of sectarianism. Like Patrick Harvie, I am disappointed that the debate is not better subscribed, given the importance of the issue.
I do not wish to rehearse all the points that members have made, the great majority of which I agree with. I will use the time that is available to me to dispel what I believe are two myths about sectarianism. The first myth is that sectarianism has anything whatsoever to do with religion. I know good Christian people of all denominations, some of whom are Protestants like myself and some of whom are staunch Roman Catholics. I have yet to meet anyone who has a strong religious faith who could be accused of being guilty of sectarianism, or indeed bigotry in any form. In fact, the more pronounced the Christian faith of individuals, regardless of their denomination, the less likely they would be to indulge in the sectarian behaviour that we hear about and of which we have seen evidence at old firm football matches and elsewhere.
I suspect that the vast majority of those who indulge in sectarian abuse or behaviour or sing the songs that we know so much about have rarely, if ever, graced the inside of a church or chapel. They might consider themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ, but little in their behaviour is Christian. That persuades me that sectarianism has nothing to do with religion but is purely a form of tribalism. Those who are truly religious, have true faith and believe in Christ's instruction to us to love one another have no truck with such behaviour.
Neither do I believe the claim that is sometimes made that the system of separate schooling in parts of our country is a root cause of sectarianism. We have only to consider that in most of northern Europe, where church schooling is the norm and Protestant and Roman Catholic children attend different schools, sectarianism is almost unknown. The phenomenon is almost unique to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Given that, there must be cultural reasons other than separate education for sectarianism in Scotland. To say that our system of Roman Catholic schools is to blame for sectarianism is a cheap and lazy accusation to hurl.
I regret to say that the second myth to which I will draw attention appears in Bill Butler's motion. I will make my point as gently as I can, because I agreed with almost everything in his speech. His motion says:
"sectarianism is a problem throughout Scotland".
If that is genuinely Bill Butler's view, he knows a different Scotland from that in which I grew up.
I accept Murdo Fraser's point to an extent, but attitudinal sectarianism is prevalent in much of Scotland. How does he respond to Unison's figures in 2001 on accident and emergency admissions after derby matches?
I am afraid that I do not know those figures. I was born in Inverness, I have lived in Aberdeen and Edinburgh and I now live in Perthshire. All that I can say is that I have never experienced sectarianism in any community in which I have lived or encountered anyone in those communities who has experienced sectarianism. I do not deny that there is a problem in some communities. In the west of Scotland and perhaps even in places such as West Lothian and parts of Fife, some communities are divided. However, if we went out and about in towns and cities such as Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee, Perth, Stirling and Dumfries and asked people whether they considered sectarianism to be a serious problem in their community, they would be surprised even to be asked the question.
We need to be careful. We can accept that there is a problem of sectarianism, but we should not talk as if it were a problem throughout the country, which I do not believe it is. We need to retain a sense of proportion. I do not believe that the whole of Scotland is tainted by the curse of sectarianism. We should not exaggerate the problem, as that undermines the arguments and the genuine efforts that are being made to counter the social problem.
With those important qualifications in mind, I am happy to support Bill Butler's motion.
Bill Butler is to be congratulated on helping to stimulate an important and significant debate. The speeches have reflected the serious way in which we address the issue of sectarianism.
Most decent people throughout Scotland are sick and tired of bigoted and sectarian behaviour. They are fed up with individuals who hide behind what Patrick Harvie and others described as a warped sense of tradition that manifests itself in abusive sectarian behaviour. It does not matter whether that is associated with football, a marching tradition or a bogus affiliation to organised religion, as Murdo Fraser said. It is all unacceptable when it has a crude and callous impact on other people. Most people in Scotland want their children to grow up in a society that is based on mutual respect and care and in which we work together to make Scotland a better place and eliminate sectarianism.
Much of the debate has been devoted to football-related issues, which are important and I will return to them, but sectarianism is not just about the crude working-class manifestation of bother that results in some of the mindless, gratuitous violence that Bill Butler and others talked about, although that is still a feature. For example, in the past week or so we have read reports in the papers about someone who broke away from a march to abuse a priest who was standing on the steps of his church.
Let us not kid ourselves—such things still happen, which is why we are determined to do something about the problem. However, sectarianism is also about those who would prefer people of different religions not to be able to join their bowling club or golf club and about those who seek to use their attitudes or allegiance to a certain religion as an excuse not to employ someone of a different religion. That can overlap with racism and manifest itself in outrageous slogans on synagogues and mosques in Scotland. Such things—which manifest themselves particularly, although not exclusively, in the west of Scotland—are unacceptable signs of intolerance in our society.
Sectarianism is sometimes associated with football, but it is often associated with marches by people of certain traditions. When alcohol is consumed on such marches it can result in minor violence or violence that scars or maims for life or—tragically—kills people. We must do something about the problem, which is why the Scottish Executive has been so determined to take action.
I recall the comments that were made when Jack McConnell first raised the issue of sectarianism. It was said that he was foolish to do so, that it was inappropriate to use his position to raise such an issue and that he was venturing into an area that he did not properly understand and over which he would have no control. I also remember the comments that were made when Cathy Jamieson convened meetings involving people from different backgrounds. It was said that such meetings were futile and that we would never solve the problems. I agree that we still have much further to go, but we should consider the strides that have been made in the past months and the past year. People from the republican and Orange traditions sat down and signed a joint declaration. They openly and honestly confronted the problem, they admitted that there is a problem and they are willing to sign up to tackle it. It was right to confront the problem in the first place and we are making progress. It would have been easier to hide away and kid on that we did not have a problem or that things would somehow improve as the years went by. Bill Aitken was right: the problem is possibly nowhere near as bad as it used to be, but the fact that it still exists is a shame on all of us. We need to be robust and courageous and say that sectarianism is an unacceptable stain on our society.
Many comments have been made about Celtic and Rangers and the contribution that people associated with those clubs unfortunately make towards encouraging sectarianism. However, both clubs have taken significant steps to try to address the problem of sectarianism. I will not pretend that they have eliminated every sectarian element from their supporters, but they have taken decisive measures. They have made public statements and banned people from their grounds. Those are the right things to do.
I welcome the way in which Celtic and Rangers fans have responded to the debate. They have approached it in a mature way. At long last, I have listened to radio programmes on which people from different perspectives and backgrounds have talked sensibly about the problem and how to address it.
I am pleased that people see sectarianism as being not much different from xenophobia and racism and that they recognise that it must be tackled. I was pleased that Celtic Football Club and its supporters invited people from the asylum-seeker community in Glasgow to the unveiling of the statue of the founder of the club, Brother Walfrid, for which Celtic supporters got together to raise money. Because of their background and the things that they had gone through, those supporters recognised that there were still people in Scotland who were subject to the type of behaviour that I have described. It is shameful when we see people who have come to this country from whatever background—as immigrants or asylum seekers—turning on others who are less fortunate than themselves who have come here a wee bit further down the line. We recognise that things are moving on, and I am proud of the part that the Executive has played in addressing the problem.
Bill Butler spoke passionately and eloquently. Patrick Harvie raised some philosophical notions about religion and wider aspects that are worthy of further debate. The fact is that while we have a problem—however small it is and however successful we have been in tackling it—we cannot rest until it is eliminated. It is a shame on us all if our children are still growing up believing that somehow someone of a different faith is an enemy. It is a shame on us all if we encourage people to believe that that should be expressed in violence. It is a shame on us all that there are families in this country who are still mourning and grieving because their sons—and it is, in particular, sons—have been brutalised or murdered as a result of someone's distorted behaviour. We can take pride in the fact that the Parliament is, at last, confronting the issue and in the fact that we have said that we are prepared to do something about it. I hope that all of us—the churches, the fans, the football clubs and the politicians—can sign up to saying that we will not rest until sectarianism is eliminated.
Meeting closed at 17:57.