An evaluation of Section 1 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 - Research Findings

Degree of understanding and acceptance of the objectives of the legislation among supporters

The formal aims of the Act were to focus on a range of offensive behaviours, typically conceived as hate crime, such as offensiveness targeted on the basis of religion, sexuality, race, or professing support for terrorism. However, the Act was developed and introduced in a political and media environment where the legislation was primarily seen as a tool to address sectarian offensiveness. Fans and stakeholders in our qualitative research largely viewed the Act in this way.

Fans in the qualitative research provided slightly contradictory responses when characterising their understanding of the legislation. It was often claimed that what songs or behaviours fell under the remit of the legislation was ambiguous and uncertain. When probed however, it did appear that most respondents knew exactly what behaviours would potentially contravene the Act. This ambiguity primarily seemed to refer to disagreements about whether certain 'borderline' songs, words or gestures should fall under the Act.

Conversely, the primary value of the Act for police stakeholders was that it gave them added purpose and clarity when dealing with sectarian behaviour associated with football.

Fan perceptions that the act primarily focused on sectarianism were borne out in official statistics and stakeholder interviews, with a majority of s. 1 charges in both of the first two years of Act being made against supporters of Rangers or Celtic, and with over 50% of s. 1 sub-charges involving offensiveness associated with religion, support for terrorism or celebrating loss of life.

In the qualitative research, fans who did not follow Rangers or Celtic often described the Act in terms of being focussed on supporters of those two teams, and for many this seemed justifiable. However, it is to be noted that some of these same fans also described behaviours and 'banter' occurring elsewhere that would just as appropriately merit attention under the Act (e.g. racist and homophobic remarks and singing). The supporters' survey demonstrates that fans did sometimes encounter such offensiveness. In the qualitative research, fans had different perspectives on the role of their clubs in relation to the legislation. Whilst some fans had received helpful communication from their clubs when the Act was introduced, others felt that their club was unclear or 'hedged' their advice on the implications of the Act. Conversely club officials felt unable to offer advice in some instance in the absence of legal precedent.

Whilst acknowledging that clubs had done good work in the past, in particular around sectarianism, some fans felt that clubs needed to take more responsibility for addressing these issues amongst their fan base.

Both fan and some stakeholder respondents in our qualitative research spoke of disquiet at the extent to which they perceived the Act to be targeted at younger fans. Some felt that younger fans were not as responsible when it came to the 'transmission' of offensive songs that had been sung, and taught to them, by older family members and friends. Criminalising younger fans in these instances was seen as disproportionate.