Celtic: What's it all about?

The fallout from the Leigh Griffiths affair continues apace and I've spent the day batting away accusations of being an apologist for racism or being "stupid." I don't discount the possibility, but the person who alleged this stupidity on my part was unable to explain herself.

Now what could it be I wrote yesterday that merits being called an apologist for racism?

Could it be the part where I said Leigh Griffiths had stepped out of line?

Or the part where I said he should be fined to the maximum allowed (if found guilty after a proper investigation)?

Maybe it was the bit where I described the refugee chant as "stupid," "mindless" and "nasty?"

Perhaps it's because I said refugees should always be welcomed because we have a duty to provide a safe haven for the oppressed?

Or more likely it was because I do not consider the chant to be racist at all. You see, to defend anyone against the accusation of witchcraft... oops, sorry, racism, is to be guilty of it yourself. It stands to reason, doesn't it? Racism is bad, and can't possibly be defended or condoned so... er... did I suggest it is okay? Answers on a postcard...

Anyway, some of the criticism has got me thinking. Particularly the charge that no Celtic fan, on account of our history, should tolerate a song calling someone a "f****** refugee."

I actually agree with that statement and have said Leigh Griffiths should be punished if he sang it. But here's something that may be controversial to say - Celtic was not founded by refugees.

The founders of Celtic were, to a man, citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

When they left Ireland for Glasgow they crossed no international frontiers or borders. They required no special permission to enter, remain, work and live in Scotland.

They were migrants, not immigrants, no different from the Highlanders who likewise streamed into Glasgow throughout the 19th Century. The Donegal dialect spoken by most of the Irish in Glasgow was closer to the Gaelic of the Highlanders than it was to the dialect of Irish spoken in Kerry.

Of course, as if it needs to be stressed, this is not to lessen the inhumanity of the treatment meted out to the Irish by successive British governments. They were driven from Ireland by poverty and hunger, but unlike those who went to America for example, they were not refugees.

The point I'm trying to get to is, as we're told no Celtic fan should condone calling anyone a f****** refugee;" what is Celtic all about?

There seem to be various factions within our support laying claim to the heart and soul of Celtic and suggesting anyone who doesn't agree with them is not a "real" Celtic fan.

I alluded yesterday to a leftist, Atheist wing of our support, who make various claims about the views of the founders of Celtic, which no "real" Celtic fan should deviate from.

To listen to them, you'd think Brother Walfrid and Co. sat in St Mary's church hall quoting Marx and Engels at each other, founding a football club in order to facilitate the redistribution of wealth and impose equality of outcome on society, while planning an early campaign to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

To me, Celtic is about football. Preferably pure, beautiful, inventive football, but you can't always get what you want.

That's why I refuse to join in the hounding of Neil Lennon whenever we only beat St Johnstone by a single goal, or (horror of horrors) get knocked out of a cup competition before the final - something that apparently never happened to Celtic before Rangers went bust.

Another thing Celtic is about to me, is the Scots-Irish experience. As Tommy Burns said, "you're playing for a people and a cause."

Celtic is club and country rolled into one for me. The club represents the aspirations and dreams of all the children of Dark Roisin in Scotland.

Celtic is also about the underdog. We naturally side with the oppressed against the oppressor because we've been there ourselves, and in the not too distant past.

That's why when I see an enraged mob turning on Leigh Griffiths my sympathy is naturally with him. I want to examine exactly what it is he's accused of and I want him treated fairly, not tied to a stool and dunked in a pond to see if he floats.

Now Celtic may be all, some, or none of those things to you. Whichever it is, that's fine by me, you've every right to support Celtic for whatever reason you do.

What I can't accept though, is any insistence that your vision of Celtic is the only valid one and any attempt to marginalise and drive out opinions that dissent from your own.

There's one thing which can't be argued with though, and that is the ethos that made Celtic what it was from the beginning: the Catholic faith.

The first circular released by the club in 1887 makes that clear. It oozes Catholicity.

http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/The+first+circular.

I wonder what Brother Walfrid would have made of Leigh Griffiths?

Here we have a young man who has possibly (because the video is far from clear) joined in with a chant calling another player a "f****** refugee." Brother Walfrid would definitely not have approved.

Would this man of God then, have insisted on Leigh Griffiths being banished into the wilderness, career in ruins, as our lefty, anti-racist crusaders insist he should be?

I can't say for certain, but as a Marist Brother, I feel sure he would have been guided by Christ, who when asked how often you should forgive your brother who has sinned against you, said not seven times, but seventy times seven times.

I'm fully aware that many of my fellow Celtic fans do not share that Catholic faith of Walfrid's and  mine, and that's just fine. You are no less of a Celtic fan because of it.

But who can lay claim to be acting more in tune with what Celtic is all about when dealing with a Prodigal Son like Leigh Griffiths - the hang 'im high anti-racist brigade, or those of us who say he deserves a second chance (not to mention a fair trial)?