Archive for the ‘Scottish Parliament’ Category

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

federation of scottish theatre logo Theatre productions that contain nudity will be exempt new repressive licensing laws covering sexual entertainment, the Scottish ‘Justice’ Secretary has said.Michael Matheson moved to reassure MSPs that the proposed new licensing regime will not impact on artistic freedom of expression on the stage enjoyed by the cultural elite.

Holyrood’s Local Government and Prudery Regeneration Committee has heard that measures in the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill could have an inadvertent impact on risque shows. The Bill would allow local authorities to ban sexual entertainment venues in an area.

Jon Morgan, director of the Federation of Scottish Theatre, told the committee last month that this could affect performances at the Edinburgh Festival which contain nudity or explore issues such as pornography. His concerns were raised by independent MSP John Wilson, who asked Mr Matheson to give theatres an assurance that they would be exempt from the legislation.

We’ve heard in evidence as a committee from theatre group representatives who were concerned that they may be impacted upon in terms of their artistic expression by some vexatious complaints or other individuals using the legislation as proposed to shut down certain theatre productions.

Matheson said:

I think it’s a fair point to be raised and a reasonable concern for some establishments to actually have. That is why we’re going to take forward some guidance in order to give some specific direction around this area about the types of premises and circumstances that would be exempt in these circumstances, so that could be for example a theatre production that does involve some nudity in it for a particular performance or series of performances that they are operating.

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

The Scottish Parliament Scotland’s new Licensing (Scotland) Bill iscurrently being discussed by the Scottish Parliament. A committee invited Professor Phil Hubbard, whohas been following such issues, to speak about the experiences in England where similar control laws have been in place for some time.He spoke of the expenses incurred by councils when their morality based decisions to ban table dancing clubs are formally challenged in the courts.

Hubbard noted that a one-size-fits-all policy for all Scottish councils would prevent the farcical situation in England and Wales where one council’s decision to refuse a strip club licence can be successfully challenged – at great expense to the council – because a neighbouring council is more liberal.

National guidelines should be set on licensing fees – which range from £300 to £26,000 down south – and the amount of nudity permitted on show, he told Holyrood’s Local Government Committee.

National guidelines were backed by the women’s anti lap dancing campaign group,  Zero Tolerance.

But the strip clubs’ trade association warned against central government imposing a draconian regime on councils, arguing that the ban on religious comedy Life Of Brian in Glasgow or the ban on cult French porn movie Emmanuelle in some rural cinemas demonstrates the diverse moral sensibilities in Scotland’s communities which should be respected.

Hubbard said:

I think the introduction of the Police And Crime Act 2009 in the UK was by and large farcical in terms of the way it was allowed to proceed.

What we have in England and Wales is a situation that I would like to see avoided in Scotland, where we have a licensing regime for these establishments in one local authority but not in a neighbouring one.

Fees for these establishments range from £300 to £26,000.

We have a situation where some local authorities will ban nudity and others will not.

The whole situation has led to a whole range of appeal cases and litigation in which legal unreasonableness and inconsistency have been raised as valid concerns, and some of these appeals have been upheld.

It has created a great deal of anxiety, expenditure and time for local authorities who have been left to evolve policies of their own.

He didn’t appear to mention much about the suffocating uncertainty and the effects of arbitrary moral censorship on businesses trying to make a living.

Read more UK P4P News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from icscotland.icnetwork.co.uk

Rhoda GrantA proposal to criminalise the purchase of sex has found support according to the results of a public consultation.

Almost 1,000 people responded to Labour MSP Rhoda Grant’s plan which she hopes will become law in Scotland. Of the total, 80% favour her ban. Grant claimed:

There has been an excellent response, and I now hope we can use the evidence provided to change society’s attitude towards buying and selling sex, thereby protecting vulnerable people.

The primary argument that the demand to buy sex will decrease was acknowledged in the responses of those in favour and against the proposed Bill. This would have a knock-on effect on sex trafficking as Scotland would not be seen as a profitable market by traffickers. This will ultimately mean an overall decrease in the level of prostitution in the country.

Of 953 responses, 758 favoured her approach which is based on legislation in Sweden.

Of the individual responses, 47 are from people who work or worked in the sex industry . One anonymous respondent wrote:

I chose to escort for money. I enjoy it. I do not feel exploited or dehumanised. I feel liberated, excited, expressive, creative and earning good money. I am one of very few people who actually enjoys their job.

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

The Scottish ParliamentRepressive laws against religious insult at football matches in Scotland have been passed after the Scottish government rejected complaints the rules were unworkable.

The offensive behaviour bill was pushed through Holyrood using the Scottish National party’s overall majority. The bill was opposed by all other parties and attracted widespread criticism from fans, clubs and the Church of Scotland.

Holyrood’s four opposition parties, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Tories and the Scottish Green party, backed by the independent MSP Margo Macdonald, issued a joint statement accusing ministers of railroading the Scottish parliament:

It is of real regret that the first piece of legislation passed by this new parliament has been railroaded through by the SNP. The SNP has used its majority to force through a bad law that risks doing more harm than good. It sets a worrying precedent for this parliament.

The new measures introduce two new offences of inciting religious, racial or other forms of hatred in public or on the internet, which will be punishable by up to five years in jail. The offences will cover football grounds, public places and pubs and clubs.

Allison McInnes, the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ justice spokeswoman, said the government was creating two new criminal offences without any kind of consensus:

They are unable to answer basic questions about how the law will be enforced or present evidence as to why it is needed. They can provide only the vaguest assurances that it will not impact people’s freedom of speech.

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from scotsman.com

The Scottish ParliamentScottish football fans could soon be arrested for singing what the authorities deem offensive or sectarian songs at football game. The repressive new legislation has led to suggestions that fans could face prosecution for singing the national anthem or crossing themselves.

The SNP government has been accused of using its substantial majority to steamroller through the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication Scotland Bill, despite widespread concerns from opposition parties and bodies outside Holyrood. But the measures are backed by the police and prosecution chiefs.

Ministers rejected a series of opposition amendments aimed at refining the laws and the bill is now expected to complete its third stage reading by parliament in mid-December. It should become law by mid-January.

Patrick Harvie, the leader of the Green Party, claimed the SNP has forced the measures through parliament, ignoring a growing chorus of objections. This prompted him to claim that the measures had been steamrollered through parliament. Ministers are stubbornly determined to force it through in the teeth of consistent and reasoned opposition from all quarters, inside and outside parliament, he said.

The freedom of expression clause was agreed though which covers communications, such as messages sent over the internet, which may contain insults or abuse of religious beliefs. But it does not cover online messages which are threatening or likely to cause public disorder. Neither does it apply to sectarian or threatening behaviour at and around football matches. Another change made by the committee widens part of the bill to include people not necessarily travelling to a football match.

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from scotsman.com
See also article from bbc.co.uk

The Scottish Parliamentcensorial laws to targeting sectarianism in football are the stuff of a tinpot dictatorship, opposition MSPs have told ministers.

In a debate at Holyrood, they said they could not support the Scottish Government because it had failed to make the case for the legislation.

Labour back-bencher Neil Findlay derided a recent comedy evidence session from justice minister Roseanna Cunningham, who appeared to indicate that singing God Save the Queen or making the sign of the cross could, in some cases, lead to fans being arrested. He said:

This is like some tinpot dictatorship where the national anthem could be outlawed and carrying out a symbolic Christian act could have you in the pokey. When the law is beyond satire, the law is an ass.

Fellow Labour MSP Michael McMahon called the bill:

the most illiberal legislation ever put before this parliament.

When the First Minister claims that he wants to stop people reliving 1690 and 1916 on our streets, I ask him to reflect on this glib statement and ask himself how prepared would he be to consign William Wallace in 1297 or Robert the Bruce in 1314 to the dustbin of history and set his culture and heritage aside because it may give offence to someone.

Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green and independent MSPs released a joint statement last night, saying they had come together to send the strongest message possible to the government, asking it not to use its majority to force through the flawed legislation.

The bill passed to its second stage after receiving narrow backing from the justice committee.

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from thescotsman.scotsman.com

crowd

  Police arrests for
insulting behaviour at a football match

Police armed with spy cameras and recording equipment will capture supposedly bigoted speech at Old Firm games as they enforce a new law that will see sectarian fans jailed for up to five years. Strathclyde Police will use the latest surveillance technology to identify supporters who offend against offensive behaviour laws.

Police will use the information recorded on their equipment to arrest fans after the final whistle, as they enforce a controversial anti-sectarianism law that is to be rushed through Holyrood before the start of next season.

Alex Salmond’s government introduced its bill in the Scottish Parliament, and the legislation is expected to be passed before MSPs rise for the summer recess in two weeks.

The bill, which outlaws offensive and threatening behaviour at football matches, and sectarian postings on the internet, was published amid concerns it could be challenged in the courts because it is being forced through too quickly.

The proposed legislation has shied away from producing a list of proscribed songs and chants. The law will instead create two new offences – offensive behaviour and threatening communications. Determining whether a football fan has been offensive will come down to whether the he or she is judged to have indulged in behaviour likely to lead to public disorder. Much will depend on the context of their actions.

Offensive behaviour covers not only football matches but also fans travelling to and from a game and supporters gathering to watch a match on a big screen or at a pub.