I don't want people being lifted for saying nasty/offensive/heretical/blasphemous/seditious things at all.
Nor do I, in general, but football matches are meant to be family experiences that simply aren't appropriate for children who may end up subjected to sectarianism where there shouldn't be any. The OBFA is about to be repealed, which you'd presumably support, but Strict Liability punishes
clubs rather than supporters.
So I'm not sure what your whinge is.
Correct.
The term 'hun' is applied to the team, its antics on the pitch, and the blind eye that those officiating traditionally turn to it. Considering the term 'diet-hun' is often applied to Hearts by people on here, despite there being no links between Hearts and groups like the Orange Order (or the sectarian behavior in evidence at Ibrox), it's pretty safe ground to assume that the word isn't based in sectarianism.
Besides, the Huns were a set of Asian nomads that lived during the 5th century. Anyone arguing that the word is aggressive needs to go back and rewrite history.
Good luck.
Nil by Mouth are a bunch of arseholes.
Having done a very small amount of work for them, they're actually on something of a sticky wicket.
The problem is that if they were to openly declare that sectarianism is a problem peculiar to the central belt, particular to the west coast, and specific to two football stadiums, they risk alienating the very people they're trying to educate out of it. Like so many other topics, that causes sectarianism to end up conflated into a "Scottish" problem, when the overwhelming majority of Scotland's 5.4 million population have next to no direct experience of it whatsoever.
And if you were to ask every Scot who
has had an experience of it, they'd probably tell you it had something to do with Rangers, 'Rangers', or a local chapter of the Orange Lodge. I'm separating the Ibrox team from the Orange Lodge in the interest of being systematic, but there's clearly a dramatic amount of crossover between the two organisations. For both, the defining characteristic is being a proud (and by "proud", I mean vocal) Protestant - or, to borrow Glaswegian vernacular for a moment, "a guid proddy".
What interests me is that most football supporters in Scotland are Protestant, regardless of club. This is because Scotland is, ultimately, a Protestant country. The difference between 'Rangers' and everyone else is purely in the fact that only 'Rangers' use Protestantism as an expression of club identity. There is often considered an issue with this, which is nicely articulated by rent-a-quote idiot, Tom Gallagher:
"I think that Rangers distinctiveness stems from its Protestant identity. If it lost that, it would be in danger of becoming just another of a number of teams competing for supporters".
In other words, 'Rangers' embrace the Protestant expression of identity because they want to make sure Protestants come and support them. What doesn't occur to the Scotland in Union zoomer is the negative effect that such an aggressive stance has on those who don't identify themselves with Orange loyalism... Or, put shortly, the majority of Protestants in Scotland.
But that's the type of attitude we're dealing with.
So-called academics arguing that sectarianism is justified if it puts loyalists through your turnstile.
