LibDems manifesto pledges to make homophobic chants a crime

Lib-Dem-logo

By Mark Baber
April 16 – With the UK’s Labour Party having already entered the race to woo football fan voters in the upcoming general election May 19, now the Liberal Democrats have included a football policy to win over those same fans. Though one suspects the LibDem policy might be less of a vote winner.
The LibDem manifest pledges to: “Enhance the experience of all football fans by making homophobic chanting a criminal offence, like racist chanting.” The commitment is perhaps a little surprising given traditional Liberal beliefs regarding the principle of freedom of speech, and the fact that homophobic chants have already led to a number of successful prosecutions under the Public Order Act as well as Football Banning Orders.

The new pledge was unveiled by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg with the party claiming that “at present, the law does not give police and other authorities the means to tackle homophobic chanting specifically.
“Liberal Democrats will change the law to give police the specific powers they need to clamp down on homophobic chanting.”

In fact under the Football Offences Act 1991 it is a crime to take part in “chanting of an indecent or racialist nature” and the Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service issued a Prosecution Policy for Football Related Offences in August 2013 which stated: “The Association of Chief Police Offices (ACPO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will continue to operate a robust prosecution policy for football related offences during 2013/14 and beyond. This means that there will be a presumption of prosecution whenever there is sufficient evidence to bring offenders before a court on appropriate criminal charges and where a Football Banning Order (FBO) is considered necessary. As well as tackling violence, disorder and criminal damage we will deal robustly with offences of racist and homophobic and discriminatory chanting and abuse and other types of hate crime. We recognise, as do the overwhelming majority of decent fans, that there is a place for humour in football but where the line between humour and offensive behaviour is crossed then positive action will be taken.”

Numerous successful prosecutions have included those of Derby County fans who were fined and banned from attending football matches for three years for shouting homophobic abuse at Brighton supporters, and Tottenham fans fined and banned for chants directed at Sol Campbell.

The LibDems also claim that: “The evidence strongly shows that outlawing racist chanting in the same way has helped tackle racism at football matches.” This is a claim that could only be believed by someone who had not stood on the football terraces in England during the 1970s or 1980s, years after racist abuse was banned under the 1965 Race Relations Act.

The failure of the Liberal manifesto to address the tension between the desire to use the criminal law to discourage obnoxious and insulting words, and the traditional belief in freedom of speech is manifested in the LibDem manifesto also claiming the party claiming: “There will be a complete overhaul of surveillance powers in 2016. We need to ensure this and other opportunities are seized as a chance to control excessive state power, and ensure that in an era when surveillance is easier than ever before, we maintain the right to privacy and free speech.”

The party even claims it will pass a new Freedoms Act which will: “Protect free speech by ensuring insulting words, jokes, and non-intentional acts, are not treated as criminal, and that social media communications are not treated more harshly than other media.”

Racist and homophobic speech (whether in stadia on Facebook or Twitter) is clearly obnoxious and small-minded and to be fought politically and culturally wherever it rears its ugly head. Whether the extension of state power and the criminal law are the best ways to achieve the goal of a more tolerant society, or whether they diminish democracy, undermine personal responsibility and ultimately leave individuals more at the mercy of the state is of course a highly controversial issue – an issue which the Liberal Democrat’s poorly researched, historically incorrect and self-contradictory manifesto does not begin to tackle.

Contact the writer of this story at moc.l1731750656labto1731750656ofdlr1731750656owedi1731750656sni@r1731750656ebab.1731750656kram1731750656