I see The Herald were forced to reconsider Martin William’s hasty article, posted first online last night but now amended, where they repeat an erroneous claim that in 2001 Celtic claimed the word ‘hun’ is sectarian. The current version of the article makes no such reference.
Much of what remains of the article is a random collection of quotes, appeals and one assertion by Williams that “Celtic warned fans they can no longer call Rangers fans ‘h***’ 14 years ago”, which appears to be based on a quote by then club employee John Cole’s etiquette requirement for a forum he administered.
This is a classic manipulative argument technique (and by classic I mean the ancient Greeks first identified it). Take a statement by someone, for example:
The word f*** is not allowed on CQN, because the administrator acknowledged that it “can cause offence”.
Ignore the fact that the same administrator would never dream of chastising someone for using the word away from the blog, as the word is not inherently offensive as it does not, for example, offend at a comedy show.
State that some people believe the word to be inherently offensive in itself, or worse.
Build momentum for your argument by reminding readers that CQN’ers have been warned they can no longer use it, without issuing any caveats to the context.
Then allow your tenuous references to dovetail into an argument.
It’s an absurd and driven technique for the hard of thinking. It is also patently transparent.
Celtic picked this matter up at the time of first publication and are considering their position in relation to various items published yesterday.
As a friend said last night, “What a sad little country”.