At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labelling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives. (1)
Several years ago, more than I care to remember in fact, I posted an article on the Follow Follow website which sought to examine where we, the Rangers support, sat within what is known as Allportâs Scale of Prejudice. My reason for doing so was my increasing concern at what I saw as a concerted attempt to de-humanise our support and prejudicial behaviour towards our club.
Two recent articles published by The Rangers Standard, explored, not only such de-humanisation and prejudice, but also how it manifests itself.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/285-no-country-for-sane-men
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk...t-trophy-hunters-have-rangers-in-their-sights
Such claims from within our support have resulted in the usual accusations of âparanoiaâ and similar descriptions â designed to make our claims appear ridiculous and thus invalidate them. They are often dismissed with neither consideration nor evaluation, partly because they are made without a framework in which such evaluation can be made. What I will endeavour to do today is put them within the required framework utilising Allportâs Scale of Prejudice.
But this is in some ways the last leg of the journey. How we actually arrived at this point is also most worthy of examination, and in this respect I have yet to read a more conclusive summary of this journey than that offered by John DC Gow in his chapter The Perfect Storm from the book Follow We Will. Whilst it is obviously impossible to represent a whole chapter from a book into an article of this size the following excerpt is particularly helpful:-
If the club and the fans were immoral and unethical then why shouldnât society hate them â isnât that what âgoodâ people do? If you have some politicians, people in the media and anti-sectarian charities directly or indirectly laying the blame of sectarianism at the door of Ibrox, then why wouldnât non-Rangers people want to hinder the bad guy or laugh as they fell? (2)
A further lethal ingredient to this already dangerous mix was apathy from within Ibrox to challenge this catalogue of lies and misrepresentation; it was an apathy which verged on the criminally negligent. It is often referred to as âDignified Silenceâ though just what is dignified about a failure to challenge lies, imbalanced and biased reporting which caused considerable damage to the brand, escapes this writer.
Allportâs Scale of Prejudice was devised in 1954 by American psychologist Gordon Allport. In terms of demonstrating prejudice it is almost generic in nature and use. It can be applied to demonstrate human genocide such as the Holocaust yet at the same time it can be utilised to demonstrate prejudice within the work place. In view of the latter use, there is considerable latitude given to its various headings i.e. the final stage â Extermination applied within the work place environment would manifest itself by the victim leaving or being driven out of the work place. It is also not necessary for all the stages to be fulfilled to prove prejudicial behaviour.
The escalating scale of behaviour commences with:-
ANTILOCUTION â This would include jokes, negative stereotyping, hate speech and whilst often passed off by the perpetrators as âharmlessâ it often sets the stage for more forms of prejudice.
The Rangers support are no strangers to this stage. In a Scotland zealously pursuing a zero tolerance policy towards sectarianism the continued use of the word âHunâas a descriptive term for Rangers supporters, suggested that such a zero tolerance policy was not universal. But even more insidious in recent times are the emergence of terms such as âwhite underclassâ and âklanâ The implications and attempted inferences and associations by use of these terms are clear. Perhaps more alarming however is that the use of such terms are not exclusive to the peddlers of hatred on the internet but have been used by some in the mainstream media â Alex Thomson Channel 4 News and Graham Spiers of the Glasgow Herald and BBC Scotland.
And the latter provides us with the perfect example of negative stereotyping:-
âRancid chantingâ¦..total embarrassmentâ¦â¦putrid stenchâ¦..savagesâ¦.poisonous singingâ¦..desecrationâ¦..cavemenâ¦â¦wholesale yobishnessâ¦..vile troglodytesâ¦..stinking, bigoted, religious stuffâ¦â¦backward cultureâ¦..almost to a manâ.
Graham Spiers 06.11.2003
(It has been brought to the authorâs attention that Graham Spiers has denied making such comment. He also denied on national television that he had ever used the word âcheatingâ when referring to Rangers use of EBTâs)
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MI7dLCYAEJKO8.jpg:large
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MHbQkCAAAxoCV.jpg:large
The next identified stage is:-
AVOIDANCE â People in one group are actively avoided by those in another. This would include social exclusion. Harm is done through isolation, again as preparation for more harmful acts.
There can be no better example of exclusion and isolation than the decision by SPL Chairmen (and of course a number of fans to whom the decision was deferred to) to refuse Rangers re-entry to the SPL. But of course Rangers were âcheatsâ â schools and hospitals were losing out because of Rangers â why shouldnât âgood peopleâ shun them?
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/norangersnewco
Despite the fact Rangers had not yet been tried nor convicted of the crime of âtax evasion on a scale of grand larcenyâ almost 17000 people signed that petition.
With both Antilocution and Avoidance apparent it is time to examine the third stage:-
DISCRIMINATION â Denial of opportunities and services which others enjoy and expect, with such denial intended to cause harm to the victim.
In Scotland a fundamental principle of our legal system, in fact its very foundation stone, is based upon the tenent that a party is innocent until proven guilty. That fundamental principle was completely usurped and cast aside when it came to dealing with Rangers. Guilty until proven innocent would more accurately reflect the manner in which the club was treated.
But it was far more than just mainstream journalists tweeting or writing columns suggesting Rangers were âcheatsâ, the conduct and behaviour of football authorities and some SPL Chairmen towards our club exemplified the lynch mob mentality towards Rangers.
The infamous 5 way agreement stands as an indictment on the Scottish Football Authorities. It represents conviction without trial, an attempt to punish a party by abandoning all the guiding principles of our legal system. Its existence, notwithstanding the draconian punishments contained therein, suggest little more than wholehearted submission to the aforementioned lynch mob mentality. I suspect in the fullness of time, the document itself and those responsible for it, will be subject to legal examination.
But that was not the end of it. An SFA judicial panel determining SFA charges of Rangers bringing the game into disrepute found Rangers, and Craig Whyte, guilty. Contained within the subsequent punishments was a 12 moth transfer embargo imposed on the club.
This prompted the following comments from Duff & Phelps Administrator Paul Clark :-
âIt appears that, on one hand, the disciplinary panel accepted our argument that responsibility for bringing the club into disrepute lay with the actions of one individual â Craig Whyte â as is evident from the unprecedented punishment meted out to him.
During this hearing, the club produced compelling evidence from a number of sources that, following his takeover, Craig Whyte ran the club in a thoroughly unaccountable manner, rather than adhering to a proper form of corporate governance.
The thrust of the charges against the club focused on non-payment of payroll taxes and evidence was produced that all such decisions in this area were taken by Craig Whyte during his tenure.
Given this evidence, it is difficult to comprehend that the disciplinary panel has seen fit to effectively punish the club even more heavily than Mr Whyte.
A ban on signing players will seriously undermine the clubâs efforts to rebuild after being rendered insolvent.
Furthermore, we do not know how bidders for the club will react to these sanctions and what effect they will have on their proposals. The club has asked for full written reasons for these decisions and intend to appeal.â (3)
Rangers did appeal against the transfer embargo and the hearing was subsequently heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh before Lord Glennie who ruled that such punishment was out with the remit of listed punishments available to the panel â in short it was unlawful.
This action and the subsequent reaction to it underline the depths of the discrimination being exercised towards Rangers. Despite the fact the Transfer Embargo was effectively deemed unlawful, the fact Rangers had the audacity and temerity to seek justice only served to re-enforce the prejudices against them.
Several years ago, more than I care to remember in fact, I posted an article on the Follow Follow website which sought to examine where we, the Rangers support, sat within what is known as Allportâs Scale of Prejudice. My reason for doing so was my increasing concern at what I saw as a concerted attempt to de-humanise our support and prejudicial behaviour towards our club.
Two recent articles published by The Rangers Standard, explored, not only such de-humanisation and prejudice, but also how it manifests itself.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/285-no-country-for-sane-men
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk...t-trophy-hunters-have-rangers-in-their-sights
Such claims from within our support have resulted in the usual accusations of âparanoiaâ and similar descriptions â designed to make our claims appear ridiculous and thus invalidate them. They are often dismissed with neither consideration nor evaluation, partly because they are made without a framework in which such evaluation can be made. What I will endeavour to do today is put them within the required framework utilising Allportâs Scale of Prejudice.
But this is in some ways the last leg of the journey. How we actually arrived at this point is also most worthy of examination, and in this respect I have yet to read a more conclusive summary of this journey than that offered by John DC Gow in his chapter The Perfect Storm from the book Follow We Will. Whilst it is obviously impossible to represent a whole chapter from a book into an article of this size the following excerpt is particularly helpful:-
If the club and the fans were immoral and unethical then why shouldnât society hate them â isnât that what âgoodâ people do? If you have some politicians, people in the media and anti-sectarian charities directly or indirectly laying the blame of sectarianism at the door of Ibrox, then why wouldnât non-Rangers people want to hinder the bad guy or laugh as they fell? (2)
A further lethal ingredient to this already dangerous mix was apathy from within Ibrox to challenge this catalogue of lies and misrepresentation; it was an apathy which verged on the criminally negligent. It is often referred to as âDignified Silenceâ though just what is dignified about a failure to challenge lies, imbalanced and biased reporting which caused considerable damage to the brand, escapes this writer.
Allportâs Scale of Prejudice was devised in 1954 by American psychologist Gordon Allport. In terms of demonstrating prejudice it is almost generic in nature and use. It can be applied to demonstrate human genocide such as the Holocaust yet at the same time it can be utilised to demonstrate prejudice within the work place. In view of the latter use, there is considerable latitude given to its various headings i.e. the final stage â Extermination applied within the work place environment would manifest itself by the victim leaving or being driven out of the work place. It is also not necessary for all the stages to be fulfilled to prove prejudicial behaviour.
The escalating scale of behaviour commences with:-
ANTILOCUTION â This would include jokes, negative stereotyping, hate speech and whilst often passed off by the perpetrators as âharmlessâ it often sets the stage for more forms of prejudice.
The Rangers support are no strangers to this stage. In a Scotland zealously pursuing a zero tolerance policy towards sectarianism the continued use of the word âHunâas a descriptive term for Rangers supporters, suggested that such a zero tolerance policy was not universal. But even more insidious in recent times are the emergence of terms such as âwhite underclassâ and âklanâ The implications and attempted inferences and associations by use of these terms are clear. Perhaps more alarming however is that the use of such terms are not exclusive to the peddlers of hatred on the internet but have been used by some in the mainstream media â Alex Thomson Channel 4 News and Graham Spiers of the Glasgow Herald and BBC Scotland.
And the latter provides us with the perfect example of negative stereotyping:-
âRancid chantingâ¦..total embarrassmentâ¦â¦putrid stenchâ¦..savagesâ¦.poisonous singingâ¦..desecrationâ¦..cavemenâ¦â¦wholesale yobishnessâ¦..vile troglodytesâ¦..stinking, bigoted, religious stuffâ¦â¦backward cultureâ¦..almost to a manâ.
Graham Spiers 06.11.2003
(It has been brought to the authorâs attention that Graham Spiers has denied making such comment. He also denied on national television that he had ever used the word âcheatingâ when referring to Rangers use of EBTâs)
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MI7dLCYAEJKO8.jpg:large
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MHbQkCAAAxoCV.jpg:large
The next identified stage is:-
AVOIDANCE â People in one group are actively avoided by those in another. This would include social exclusion. Harm is done through isolation, again as preparation for more harmful acts.
There can be no better example of exclusion and isolation than the decision by SPL Chairmen (and of course a number of fans to whom the decision was deferred to) to refuse Rangers re-entry to the SPL. But of course Rangers were âcheatsâ â schools and hospitals were losing out because of Rangers â why shouldnât âgood peopleâ shun them?
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/norangersnewco
Despite the fact Rangers had not yet been tried nor convicted of the crime of âtax evasion on a scale of grand larcenyâ almost 17000 people signed that petition.
With both Antilocution and Avoidance apparent it is time to examine the third stage:-
DISCRIMINATION â Denial of opportunities and services which others enjoy and expect, with such denial intended to cause harm to the victim.
In Scotland a fundamental principle of our legal system, in fact its very foundation stone, is based upon the tenent that a party is innocent until proven guilty. That fundamental principle was completely usurped and cast aside when it came to dealing with Rangers. Guilty until proven innocent would more accurately reflect the manner in which the club was treated.
But it was far more than just mainstream journalists tweeting or writing columns suggesting Rangers were âcheatsâ, the conduct and behaviour of football authorities and some SPL Chairmen towards our club exemplified the lynch mob mentality towards Rangers.
The infamous 5 way agreement stands as an indictment on the Scottish Football Authorities. It represents conviction without trial, an attempt to punish a party by abandoning all the guiding principles of our legal system. Its existence, notwithstanding the draconian punishments contained therein, suggest little more than wholehearted submission to the aforementioned lynch mob mentality. I suspect in the fullness of time, the document itself and those responsible for it, will be subject to legal examination.
But that was not the end of it. An SFA judicial panel determining SFA charges of Rangers bringing the game into disrepute found Rangers, and Craig Whyte, guilty. Contained within the subsequent punishments was a 12 moth transfer embargo imposed on the club.
This prompted the following comments from Duff & Phelps Administrator Paul Clark :-
âIt appears that, on one hand, the disciplinary panel accepted our argument that responsibility for bringing the club into disrepute lay with the actions of one individual â Craig Whyte â as is evident from the unprecedented punishment meted out to him.
During this hearing, the club produced compelling evidence from a number of sources that, following his takeover, Craig Whyte ran the club in a thoroughly unaccountable manner, rather than adhering to a proper form of corporate governance.
The thrust of the charges against the club focused on non-payment of payroll taxes and evidence was produced that all such decisions in this area were taken by Craig Whyte during his tenure.
Given this evidence, it is difficult to comprehend that the disciplinary panel has seen fit to effectively punish the club even more heavily than Mr Whyte.
A ban on signing players will seriously undermine the clubâs efforts to rebuild after being rendered insolvent.
Furthermore, we do not know how bidders for the club will react to these sanctions and what effect they will have on their proposals. The club has asked for full written reasons for these decisions and intend to appeal.â (3)
Rangers did appeal against the transfer embargo and the hearing was subsequently heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh before Lord Glennie who ruled that such punishment was out with the remit of listed punishments available to the panel â in short it was unlawful.
This action and the subsequent reaction to it underline the depths of the discrimination being exercised towards Rangers. Despite the fact the Transfer Embargo was effectively deemed unlawful, the fact Rangers had the audacity and temerity to seek justice only served to re-enforce the prejudices against them.
