I bet James Traynor and Bill Leckie are feckin raging

The IRA are not on the European Unions list of proscribed Terrorist organisations . They were removed following the good Friday agreement .

In terms of race , you really do need to read the definition of race as prescribed in the Race Relations Act .
I have an affinity to Ireland as 3 of my 4 grandparents are Irish ..
As John Reid points out the Racist Song cleary contravenes the Race Relations act 1976 .
Now the the European press will wish to ask why the SFA have failed to take action.


Harassment

The definition of harassment introduced by the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 applies when the discrimination is on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, but not colour or nationality. Harassment on grounds of colour or nationality amounts to less favourable treatment and may be unlawful direct discrimination.

A person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:
• violating that other persons dignity; or
• creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

Well I believe you not an Ex Home Secretary on what does or does not contravene the race relations act

They either take on John Reid or back track . I suspect they will backtrack big time . The Equal Opportunities Commission have already expressed their concern . Traynor Leckie dont want to be labelled Racists

It will be intersting to see how the two bigots handle the situation.
Leckie will play the two are as bad as each other card but I reckon Traynor will attack Reid's viewpoint due to the Records Hun bias.

It will be intersting to see how the two bigots handle the situation.
Leckie will play the two are as bad as each other card but I reckon Traynor will attack Reid's viewpoint due to the Records Hun bias.

What is race discrimination?



The 1976 Race Relations Act is concerned with people's actions and the effects of their actions, not their opinions or beliefs. Racial discrimination is not the same as racial prejudice. It is not necessary to prove that the other person intended to discriminate against you: you only have to show that you received less favourable treatment as a result of what they did.

Under the Race Relations Act, it is unlawful for a person to discriminate on racial grounds against another person. The Act defines racial grounds as including race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins.

To bring a case under the Race Relations Act, you have to show you have been discriminated against in one or more ways that are unlawful under the Act.


On this page

• Your protection under the Race Relations Act 1976
• What forms does racial discrimination take?

Your protection under the Race Relations Act 1976
The Race Relations Act protects you from racial discrimination in most, but not all, situations. You will therefore have to show that the discrimination you have suffered comes within the areas covered by the Act.

On 2 April 2001, amendments to the Race Relations Act came into force which covers public authorities that had previously been exempt. This means that around 45,000 public authorities in the UK are now required to meet the general duty to promote race equality. A few public authorities are exempt, such as the Security Service.

Racial discrimination may occur in the way that someone provides you with goods, facilities and services, including housing. It can also occur in public services, such as health and education and other public services. Racial discrimination may also occur in, the field of employment. There are a few small number of areas not covered by the Act these are outlined in the section called When is racial discrimination lawful?

The Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) Order 2001 identifies specific steps to be taken by public authorities to comply with this specific duty.
Discrimination in any of the areas listed below is unlawful under the Race Relations Act.


Back to top^
What forms does racial discrimination take?
There are four main types of racial discrimination: direct, indirect, victimisation and harassment.

Direct racial discrimination

This occurs when you are able to show that you have been treated less favourably on racial grounds than others in similar circumstances. To prove this, it will help if you can give an example of someone from a different racial group who, in similar circumstances, has been, or would have been, treated more favourably than you. Racist abuse and harassment are forms of direct discrimination.

Example: Racial groups
BBC v Souster [2001] IRLR 150

Mr Souster, a presenter for BBC Scotland’s Rugby Special, complained that he had lost his job because he was English and the BBC wanted a Scottish person. Mr Souster claimed that being English was a matter of national origins, while the BBC argued that, since both the Scots and the English share a British passport, there could be no unlawful discrimination between different parts of the one nation. The Scottish Court of Session, which had to decide whether the RRA applies to discrimination between the Scots and the English, ruled that national origins should be interpreted more broadly and flexibly than just by reference to a passport. As England and Scotland were once separate nations, the English and the Scots have separate national origins and therefore the RRA does cover discrimination between them.

On the question of whether the English and Scots are part of a ‘racial group’, the Court of Session followed the House of Lords’ ruling in an earlier case (Mandla v Dowell-Lee, 1983 IRLR 209), to the effect that ‘…it is possible for a person to fall into a particular racial group either by birth or by adherence’. The court also observed that, if the way the discriminator treats someone is based on her or his perception of that person’s national or ethnic origins, then their actual origins, let alone their passport nationality, are irrelevant.

This definition of racial grounds clearly takes into account the complex reality of national identity, where a person may change their nationality by marriage or geographical migration or indeed simply by association, as well as the complexity of racial prejudice, where a person who discriminates may do so in complete ignorance of the victim’s actual nationality or national background.

Indirect racial discrimination

Indirect racial discrimination may fall into one of two categories depending on the racial grounds of discrimination. The first is on grounds of colour or nationality, under the original definition in the Race Relations Act.
The second is on grounds of race, ethnic or national origin. This was introduced by the Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003 to comply with the EC Race Directive.

Example: Indirect discrimination
Aina v Employment Service [2002] DCLD 103D

A Black African employee applied for the post of equal opportunities
manager in his organisation. He was assessed as having the skills and
ability for the job. However, his application was rejected because,
unknown to him, the post was open only to permanent staff at higher
grades than his. Monitoring data showed that the organisation had no
permanent Black African employees at the grades in question.

The employment tribunal held that there was no justification for the
requirement, and that it amounted to indirect discrimination on
racial grounds.

On grounds of colour or nationality
This occurs when an apparently non-discriminatory requirement or condition which applies equally to everyone:

• can only be met by a considerably smaller proportion of people from a particular racial group
• which is to the detriment of a person from that group because he or she cannot meet it
• the requirement or condition cannot be justified on non-racial grounds.

For example, a rule that employees or pupils must not wear headgear could exclude Sikh men and boys who wear a turban, or Jewish men or boys who wear a yarmulke, in accordance with practice within their racial group.

On grounds of race ethnic or national origin
This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with race and is applied equally to everyone:

• puts or would put people of the same race or ethnic or national origins at a particular disadvantage when compared with others
• puts a person of that race or ethnic or national origin at that disadvantage
• cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The definition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin is in general terms broader than on the grounds of colour or nationality and as a result it may be easier to establish racial discrimination than previously on that ground

Victimisation

This has a special legal meaning under the Race Relations Act. It occurs if you are treated less favourably than others in the same circumstances because you have complained about racial discrimination, or supported someone else who has. A complaint of racial discrimination means that someone has:

• brought proceedings under the Race Relations Act against the discriminator or anyone else
• given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by another person under the Race Relations Act
• done anything under the Race Relations Act or with reference to it
• alleged that a person has acted in a way which would breach the Race Relations Act.

The complaint does not need to expressly claim discrimination when making the complaint.

Harassment

The definition of harassment introduced by the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 applies when the discrimination is on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, but not colour or nationality. Harassment on grounds of colour or nationality amounts to less favourable treatment and may be unlawful direct discrimination.

A person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:
• violating that other persons dignity; or
• creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

Example: Harassment
Anisetti v Tokyo-Mitsubishi International plc Case No. 6002429/98

The Indian-born head of credit derivatives at an international Japanese
bank in London resigned, claiming he had been made to feel like a
‘second-class citizen’ by his Japanese employers. He said he had been
humiliated, excluded by workers speaking Japanese and underpaid,
simply because he was not Japanese. The bank argued that it was
‘natural’ for Japanese staff to use their own language among themselves.

An employment tribunal upheld the complainant’s claim that he had
been discriminated against unlawfully, not because of his Indian national
origins, but because he was not Japanese. The tribunal noted that the
bank had maintained a practice which had effectively excluded the
complainant from various activities, and treated him less favourably than
others. The complainant was awarded around £1 million in compensation.

Harassment is unlawful not only in the context of employment, but also within:
• partnerships
• trade unions
• qualifying authorities
• vocational training; and
• employment agencies

It is also an unlawful form of discrimination in education, planning, within public authorities, in the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, and in relation to the training and employment of barristers and advocates.

surly some mistake .. are you trying to tell us that John Reid the former ....

• Secretary of State for Scotland
• Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
• Minister Without Portfolio and Labour Party Chairman
• Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council
• Secretary of State for Health
• Secretary of State for Defence
• Secretary of State for the Home Department (Home Secretary)

is correct about the ipox scum singing racist songs and .... a potato called maximus who spends his life on a football forum is wrong!!!! ...............................
ow im so confused I don't know who to believe

What is race discrimination?



The 1976 Race Relations Act is concerned with people's actions and the effects of their actions, not their opinions or beliefs. Racial discrimination is not the same as racial prejudice. It is not necessary to prove that the other person intended to discriminate against you: you only have to show that you received less favourable treatment as a result of what they did.

Under the Race Relations Act, it is unlawful for a person to discriminate on racial grounds against another person. The Act defines racial grounds as including race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins.

To bring a case under the Race Relations Act, you have to show you have been discriminated against in one or more ways that are unlawful under the Act.


On this page

• Your protection under the Race Relations Act 1976
• What forms does racial discrimination take?

Your protection under the Race Relations Act 1976
The Race Relations Act protects you from racial discrimination in most, but not all, situations. You will therefore have to show that the discrimination you have suffered comes within the areas covered by the Act.

On 2 April 2001, amendments to the Race Relations Act came into force which covers public authorities that had previously been exempt. This means that around 45,000 public authorities in the UK are now required to meet the general duty to promote race equality. A few public authorities are exempt, such as the Security Service.

Racial discrimination may occur in the way that someone provides you with goods, facilities and services, including housing. It can also occur in public services, such as health and education and other public services. Racial discrimination may also occur in, the field of employment. There are a few small number of areas not covered by the Act these are outlined in the section called When is racial discrimination lawful?

The Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) Order 2001 identifies specific steps to be taken by public authorities to comply with this specific duty.
Discrimination in any of the areas listed below is unlawful under the Race Relations Act.


Back to top^
What forms does racial discrimination take?
There are four main types of racial discrimination: direct, indirect, victimisation and harassment.

Direct racial discrimination

This occurs when you are able to show that you have been treated less favourably on racial grounds than others in similar circumstances. To prove this, it will help if you can give an example of someone from a different racial group who, in similar circumstances, has been, or would have been, treated more favourably than you. Racist abuse and harassment are forms of direct discrimination.

Example: Racial groups
BBC v Souster [2001] IRLR 150

Mr Souster, a presenter for BBC Scotland’s Rugby Special, complained that he had lost his job because he was English and the BBC wanted a Scottish person. Mr Souster claimed that being English was a matter of national origins, while the BBC argued that, since both the Scots and the English share a British passport, there could be no unlawful discrimination between different parts of the one nation. The Scottish Court of Session, which had to decide whether the RRA applies to discrimination between the Scots and the English, ruled that national origins should be interpreted more broadly and flexibly than just by reference to a passport. As England and Scotland were once separate nations, the English and the Scots have separate national origins and therefore the RRA does cover discrimination between them.

On the question of whether the English and Scots are part of a ‘racial group’, the Court of Session followed the House of Lords’ ruling in an earlier case (Mandla v Dowell-Lee, 1983 IRLR 209), to the effect that ‘…it is possible for a person to fall into a particular racial group either by birth or by adherence’. The court also observed that, if the way the discriminator treats someone is based on her or his perception of that person’s national or ethnic origins, then their actual origins, let alone their passport nationality, are irrelevant.

This definition of racial grounds clearly takes into account the complex reality of national identity, where a person may change their nationality by marriage or geographical migration or indeed simply by association, as well as the complexity of racial prejudice, where a person who discriminates may do so in complete ignorance of the victim’s actual nationality or national background.

Indirect racial discrimination

Indirect racial discrimination may fall into one of two categories depending on the racial grounds of discrimination. The first is on grounds of colour or nationality, under the original definition in the Race Relations Act.
The second is on grounds of race, ethnic or national origin. This was introduced by the Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003 to comply with the EC Race Directive.

Example: Indirect discrimination
Aina v Employment Service [2002] DCLD 103D

A Black African employee applied for the post of equal opportunities
manager in his organisation. He was assessed as having the skills and
ability for the job. However, his application was rejected because,
unknown to him, the post was open only to permanent staff at higher
grades than his. Monitoring data showed that the organisation had no
permanent Black African employees at the grades in question.

The employment tribunal held that there was no justification for the
requirement, and that it amounted to indirect discrimination on
racial grounds.

On grounds of colour or nationality
This occurs when an apparently non-discriminatory requirement or condition which applies equally to everyone:

• can only be met by a considerably smaller proportion of people from a particular racial group
• which is to the detriment of a person from that group because he or she cannot meet it
• the requirement or condition cannot be justified on non-racial grounds.

For example, a rule that employees or pupils must not wear headgear could exclude Sikh men and boys who wear a turban, or Jewish men or boys who wear a yarmulke, in accordance with practice within their racial group.

On grounds of race ethnic or national origin
This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with race and is applied equally to everyone:

• puts or would put people of the same race or ethnic or national origins at a particular disadvantage when compared with others
• puts a person of that race or ethnic or national origin at that disadvantage
• cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The definition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin is in general terms broader than on the grounds of colour or nationality and as a result it may be easier to establish racial discrimination than previously on that ground

Victimisation

This has a special legal meaning under the Race Relations Act. It occurs if you are treated less favourably than others in the same circumstances because you have complained about racial discrimination, or supported someone else who has. A complaint of racial discrimination means that someone has:

• brought proceedings under the Race Relations Act against the discriminator or anyone else
• given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by another person under the Race Relations Act
• done anything under the Race Relations Act or with reference to it
• alleged that a person has acted in a way which would breach the Race Relations Act.

The complaint does not need to expressly claim discrimination when making the complaint.

Harassment

The definition of harassment introduced by the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 applies when the discrimination is on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, but not colour or nationality. Harassment on grounds of colour or nationality amounts to less favourable treatment and may be unlawful direct discrimination.

A person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:
• violating that other persons dignity; or
• creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

Example: Harassment
Anisetti v Tokyo-Mitsubishi International plc Case No. 6002429/98

The Indian-born head of credit derivatives at an international Japanese
bank in London resigned, claiming he had been made to feel like a
‘second-class citizen’ by his Japanese employers. He said he had been
humiliated, excluded by workers speaking Japanese and underpaid,
simply because he was not Japanese. The bank argued that it was
‘natural’ for Japanese staff to use their own language among themselves.

An employment tribunal upheld the complainant’s claim that he had
been discriminated against unlawfully, not because of his Indian national
origins, but because he was not Japanese. The tribunal noted that the
bank had maintained a practice which had effectively excluded the
complainant from various activities, and treated him less favourably than
others. The complainant was awarded around £1 million in compensation.

Harassment is unlawful not only in the context of employment, but also within:
• partnerships
• trade unions
• qualifying authorities
• vocational training; and
• employment agencies

It is also an unlawful form of discrimination in education, planning, within public authorities, in the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises, and in relation to the training and employment of barristers and advocates.

Something like "Reid turned his guns on the Celtic support and reminded them they bear equal responsibility for sectarianism".

There will be "But there is a bigger question...." and "There own house should be put in order before..."
quotes.

John Reid will then be reminded that he is no longer a politician and he is an inexperienced football chairman.

He's wrong actually:

The court also observed that, if the way the discriminator treats someone is based on her or his perception of that person’s national or ethnic origins, then their actual origins, let alone their passport nationality, are irrelevant.

as usual retard you miss the only important points here....no c**t agrees with you ....but with Reid instead. UEFA, THE GOVERNMENT,THE POLICE,NIL BY MOUTH, keep flapping ghengis its funny

Racist, sectarian tim bigots may not agree with.

I'm rather grateful that pondscum such as yourself disagree with me.

The police and government have said no such thing. UEFA haven't even looked at the song. I don't believe Nil By Mouth have even passed comment which is strange, since they are usually keen on looking for imagined offence, having a couple of tim bigots at the top, over the years.

Maybe you have missed the point an ex cabinet minister has labelled Rangers Fans racist . Is Murray not going to defend you .
Where is Rangers reply

War criminal Reid has been wrong on many things before including the invisible Iraqi WMD. He also lied over ID cards and his new crypto-fascist terror laws.

He also racially targeted Asian and Muslim communities and breached Human Rights legislation.

He's also wrong here.

Furthermore, he's guilty of singing racist IRA songs and disseminating them amongst the Labour Party.

Legally, you can't complain about the song even if it did refer to Irish people-which it clearly doesn't- since you're not Irish

The Billy Boys is not sectarian and UEFA only "partially upheld" the decision and did not say it was sectarian

The Red Hand of Ulster is a genuine gesture, despite your lies

I don't believe Nil By Mouth have even passed comment which is strange, since they are usually keen on looking for imagined offence, having a couple of tim bigots at the top, over the years.

Do you think Rangers will come out and make a similiar statement to yours in a rebuttal to reid .
Celtic Fans on here have been stating that a song Rangers Fans sing is Racist . Our Chairman is in agreement .
Do you think Murray will come out and defend your corner that the song is just a bit of banter and is not illegal

If not he has let you down

It's becoming even funnier to see you Huns get your hunnish knickers in a twist about the purpose of the song.

So, the song refers to Irish people one moment, but it doesn't the next. And anyway, Celtic fans aren't Irish. And why don't they go home (even though they aren't Irish)? And then, despite the song being about Celtic fans, you spend the game against Hibs singing it today

You really need to get your stories straight about this song before people start asking questions...



Why would they partially uphold this if it's okay to sing it then, Einstein?



It's strange. I've been over there a couple of times, met a lot of people from there (though having friends at Uni in Dundee) etc. Yet, I don't know *anyone* from Northern Ireland who knew what the "Red Hand Salute" was





So, now Nil By Mouth are a bunch of "Tims"? The only people who buy into the strange notion that "Hun" means Protestant are "Tims"?

And anyway, if Celtic fans *do* mean "Protestant" when they say "Hun" then why would they say "no Huns in Europe", since clearly there are several million?

Bain already came out and said it was a wind up.
It was never about Irish people.

I don't care if you don't know anyone from NI. That doesn't further your case one iota. You've also made several incorrect assumptions there.

This is rather tedious . Just watch over the next few days as David Murray basically outlaws the song and condems it . Reid has backed Rangers into a corner.
No matter what you would LIKE to believe the song is racist and will eventually be defined as so . It wether Rangers do it now or the SFA Police etc are forced to act

It was never about Irish people

I don't care if you don't know anyone from NI. That doesn't further your case one iota. You've also made several incorrect assumptions there.

"I often wonder where they would have been
If we hadn't have taken them in"

"From Ireland they came"

Presumably it's about the Welsh?



Dodge and deflect...

Celtic fans are not a race!

Are you really so thick you can't grasp that?

Even if it was about the Irish, the Race Relations Act doesn't apply to chants on a terracing.

There is no reason to act. The police are unsure of how to act for that very lack of a reason.

Sorry i dont believe you, given your right wing history and affiliations with your hun-cousins chelsea and we all know about there neo-nazi affairs.

Those lyrics aren't sung at games

So, what was being sung today, because I noticed the commentators at Easter Road didn't mention it

The same lyrics it's always been at matches.

A person harasses another on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins when he or she engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of:
• violating that other persons dignity; or
• creating an intimidating or hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

tell the bears your argument when they are up on a racially agrivated breach of the peace

That doesn't apply to football supporters of a team and only applies in the cases of:



So when you read something for evidence in support your own case, make sure you read it all, to avoid errors of assumption. The law does not apply in this case. It doesn't mention songs or football supporters.

BIG thread Not read it all however as much as I welcome Reid's statement I want him to ban Rangers fans from Celtic park

John Reid lied about weapons of mass destruction, John Reid lied about the treat Iraq posed to the West, John Reid is responsible for a war that has caused hundreds of thousands deaths, John Reid is a fuckin hypocrite whose hands are soaked in blood.

Nobody tells us what to sing, not John Reid, not the SPL, not UEFA, nobody.

We are the people, we sing about what we like. If you don't like that then in the words of the song "why don't you go home?"

I think you'll find that uefa have did exactly that and this is nothing to do with John Reid, it's about Rangers fans singing a racist song, this is between Rangers FC and Rangers fans...did you see the leaflet that your club put out?


In my opinion I believe that Reid should ban Rangers fans from Celtic park.

I did, did you?

There is no way in this world that we will let Celtic supporters dictate to us what we sing at the games.

As far as I'm aware this country, the same country that you vitrioliclly dislike, is a democracy and as citizens of this country we will express our views exactly how we like.

As far as JohnReid is concerned, bring it on. I for one would relish my day in court.

I did, did you?

There is no way in this world that we will let Celtic supporters dictate to us what we sing at the games.

As far as I'm aware this country, the same country that you vitrioliclly dislike, is a democracy and as citizens of this country we will express our views exactly how we like.

As far as JohnReid is concerned, bring it on. I for one would relish my day in court.

BIG thread Not read it all however as much as I welcome Reid's statement I want him to ban Rangers fans from Celtic park

Tomorrow this story will do the news cycle just as Celtic arrive in Spain .The whole story will be played out in front of the European media and UEFA .

I couldn't wait to get some work done then have a break to see how this story had, "played out in front of the European media". Just how thoroughly have Gers fans been excoriated as a result of Reid's, "brilliant News management"?

First the Spanish paper:

El Mundo. Nothing to report.
Sport. Nothing to report

Next on to the French:

Le Monde. Nothing to report
l'Equipe. Nothing to report
Le Figaro. Nothing to report

OK, maybe one of the Swedish papers might have run with this abuse of human rights.

Svenska Dagbladet. nothing to report.

So why the silence? Are the European press barons in Murray's pay? Is it a hunnish plot? You promised that, "the European press will wish to ask why the SFA have failed to take action". What are the dark forces that are keeping them quiet?

John Reid has just thrown a nuclear bombshell into the mix . He is not called Dr Death for nothing

John Reid lied about weapons of mass destruction, John Reid lied about the treat Iraq posed to the West, John Reid is responsible for a war that has caused hundreds of thousands deaths, John Reid is a fuckin hypocrite whose hands are soaked in blood.

I couldn't wait to get some work done then have a break to see how this story had, "played out in front of the European media". Just how thoroughly have Gers fans been excoriated as a result of Reid's, "brilliant News management"?

First the Spanish paper:

El Mundo. Nothing to report.
Sport. Nothing to report

Next on to the French:

Le Monde. Nothing to report
l'Equipe. Nothing to report
Le Figaro. Nothing to report

OK, maybe one of the Swedish papers might have run with this abuse of human rights.

Svenska Dagbladet. nothing to report.

So why the silence? Are the European press barons in Murray's pay? Is it a hunnish plot? You promised that, "the European press will wish to ask why the SFA have failed to take action". What are the dark forces that are keeping them quiet?

I do wonder why the newspapers who are so quick to defend the song, never publish all the words?

I think one of them should, then justify it.

I do wonder why the newspapers who are so quick to defend the song, never publish all the words?

I think one of them should, then justify it.

I do wonder why the newspapers who are so quick to defend the song, never publish all the words?

I think one of them should, then justify it.

As I've said before, because it's not the full song that the complaints and hand wringing have been about. I've never heard the full song, and I'm fairly sure that nobody, or very few at least, on here have either