Pride - in the Name of Celtic

Like many others in the Celtic support, I was brought up in a deeply-religious, Catholic family.

My mother was from County Donegal and an enthusiastic advocate - aka enforcer - of Catholic doctrine and dogma.

There were barely enough Masses in the year for mum, who grudgingly accepted the liberal reforms of the Second Vatican Council through deference to Papal infallibility, whether invoked by the Holy Father or not.

You could have accurately referred to her as a Catholic fundamentalist, well-versed in the Catechism that declared the only valid sexual activity as being "open to procreation within the confines of marriage".

I even once heard her quoting the American spiritual, "Give me that old-time religion".

I never said it was easy.

And like most brought up in the years before Eastenders scandalised British society with a pre-watershed Gay kiss, the idea of Gay equality was anathema to me.

Yes, I held the same prejudices as the vast majority of my peers and I doled out the homophobic epithets with the same frequency most "normal" people of the age.

I am not proud of that.

Though I refer to my Catholic upbringing, seeing homosexuality as some form of social disease was very much the accepted view of the time, outwith the extreme fringes of society.

I even remember a story of a young man who killed his cousin because he tried to kiss him. The charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter and he was given a short sentence as that sort of thing was considered extreme provocation outraging common decency.

Likewise, two men holding hands - never mind kissing - would be at a high risk of assault with charges unlikely to be brought against their assailants.

In my case, I gradually changed and I found myself a subject of grave concern when, as a supporter of the Scottish Fight the Clause campaign, literature arrived at the family home, the envelopes conspicuously stamped.

Ironically, the subject was considered too awful to talk about, so I was spared a grilling, which would likely have comforted my parents as I would truthfully have said: "I'm not Gay; I just don't think what's happening is right and I want to know more."

In 2018, we don't have to tiptoe around the subject of sexuality any more and many younger people may not recognise how different that is to the experiences of previous generations.

Sexuality is, in most societies, still one of the most vexed subjects in terms of morality and social norms.

One way or another, there always seem to be people looking to police what goes on it the bedroom (or other available venue) and we are usually brought up with values from our parents or others who we love and respect but whose values do not necessarily match ours.

My view is that we all retain the right to our own values and opinions but that we should not project our moral values on others who are doing no harm.

By that, I mean that tolerance means accepting the diversity of moral and religious or areligious values, most of which are genuinely held, as well as according equal respect to those whose expressions of their own selves are "different".

Celtic is "a club open to all". The Irish Catholics who landed in Scotland in the 19th century were "different" and branded unacceptable due to their beliefs, customs and behaviours.

And yet Celtic is  a club for Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic or any other believer or non-believer.

I'm proud of that fact.

I'm also proud that Celtic can openly offer an equally welcoming environment to people of any and all sexualities.

Anyone who wishes to support Celtic should be embraced with equal respect and, if the first high-profile Gay footballer in Scotland should happen to play for Celtic, I am confident that he or she would find that support from the Celtic family that has sustained many in the past.

The words should be synonymous.

Pride in the name of Celtic.
--

End racism - and Show Shay Logan the Red Card

I have a pal (really), Eamon, who has devoted most of his adult life to socialism.

He's one of those guys who left Labour behind years ago, as being a party incompatible with his socialist ideals. He is also the sort of guy who does unglamorous work in his community, like volunteering to referee kids' football matches that might promote integration and understanding between communities.

He is unlikely to ever get a medal for this and he would never seek one, despite doing more for the public good than many - more celebrated - elected politicians.

We broadly agree on the vast majority of subjects - politics of the left, trade unionism, anti-Fascism, ant-racism, a loathing of the Conservative party, disdain for Labour, being unconvinced by the SNP, etc. And we are both passionate about Celtic.

But we are also both forthright with each other and willing to let the other know when we disagree with certain opinions or actions.

One such occasion centred around one of those very matches that Eamon was giving up his free time to referee.

He recounted an unpleasant incident, when one boy accused another on the opposing team of using a racist epithet, during an increasingly niggly game.

Eamon immediately asked the other boy to apologise, which he refused to do, pleading his innocence. Eamon asked who had heard it and nobody else had.

The boy continued to deny using racist language and refusing to apologise until Eamon asked him, "Will you just say sorry, anyway - for me?"

The boy acquiesced, though still proclaiming his innocence,  which Eamon thought a good outcome.

But I disagreed and I said so.

Was that because I thought racism a trivial thing? No.

It was because I considered Eamon to have, in his well-meaning way, confused two fundamental principles - the right of someone claiming to be a victim to be taken seriously and believed against the right of someone facing a harmful accusation to defend his reputation, when faced with nothing stronger than the word of the accuser and innuendo.

These are sensitive situations and there are no perfect solutions.

But my point to Eamon was that some happenings are simply unjust and while nobody has a right to abuse another person, being coerced into apologising for something that you know you haven't done is intolerable to most people and, especially to a child, may leave a lingering scar and even plant the seed for an antipathy that was not previously there.

And so we come to Shay Logan.

We all know that Logan was racially abused by Aleksandr Tonev as it is a matter of official record with that redoubtable body, the Scottish Football Association.

Tonev was, you may recall, banned and his loan deal from Aston Villa cut short, based only on Logan's certainty that he had heard the words he claimed were uttered, though there was no corroborating evidence.

This decision was lauded by the likes of Tom English, to whom an accusation is as good as a conviction.

Now, if Tonev did make racist remarks, I would be the first to say that he should have been kicked out of  Celtic. And, even without that, I can't say that losing him has kept me up at night.

I know what it's like to be abused for my background and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I also don't believe that people from certain minorities should keep quiet for fear of drawing bigoted attention to themselves. After all, we heard the Scottish media saying that about Neil Lennon, who was undoubtedly racially abused on a regular basis.

But I do object to the good name of Celtic being smeared by any unsupported allegations, as is happening now - coincidentally on the say-so of Shay Logan.

I intended to ignore his latest accusation as the attention-seeking it clearly was.

Because, let's face it, Logan is an insufferable idiot who, when not getting attention, uses his Twitter account to send some antagonistic message to Celtic fans and who declared the derisive boos that he so clearly seeks to be racist, when nobody was talking or even thinking about the dishwater-potent talents.

In doing so, he evokes the same logic  shown by Neymar, when the Tartan Army were ahead of the curve in booing his cheating in a friendly international. Neymar, apparently unable to think of any other reason for his being booed, declared the reaction to be racist.

And that was what the first and most-read headlines said.

But, today, Show Racism the Red Card Scotland, decided to pipe in, days late, with remarks decrying the Celtic supports reaction to Logan as "racist".

Of course, SRtRC offers no evidence, as they don't need to. The slur is enough and SRtRC, who not for the first time, appear to be a selective Scottish imitation of the more respected UK-wide group, have decided to sling mud when it suits them.

Are there racists within the Celtic support? Undoubtedly, and sadly, yes, as with every other type of buffoon.

Is it fair to describe fans as racists because they boo a player whose very raison d'etre seems to be to make the news by goading Celtic fans? No, it is not.

Logan simply follows in a line of players such as Ally McCoist and Nacho Novo, who get a kick out of annoying Celtic fans.

Steven Naismith and his manager Craig Levein are currently doing the same at Hearts.

Most clubs have players who enjoy the notoriety of seeing opposition fans getting angry and we have had our own.

When the new season starts, you can expect to hear the fans rain down abuse on Naismith, Levein, Kenny Miller, half the Motherwell team and management, Graeme Shinnie and Logan.

There may well be idiotic remarks amongst them and I would call on any fan who hears racist abuse to challenge it whenever they hear it. They will be strongly supported by fellow fans.

Logan and SRtRC have reduced the serious issue of racism in football to the level of a Sasha Baron Cohen Ali G routine.

You may find this hard to believe, Shaleon, but few Celtic fans care about you at all and those who do - almost without exception - simply think you're  a fool.

And the same goes for the Scottish branch office of SRtRC. --