Chapter 2
Restrictions on the Red and Black Bloc
Public order and enforcing standards of behaviour
2.1
In its capacity as the law-enforcement arm of the executive government,
a police force possesses a number of responsibilities, including the
maintenance of public order and public safety. In order to discharge these
responsibilities effectively, the police are generally granted a range of
powers, some of which are coercive. Subject to constitutional arrangements,
statute and common law, a police force is entitled to use these powers in some
circumstances and under certain conditions: its responsibilities and powers are
therefore defined.[1]
2.2
In relation to the policing of sporting events, such as an A-League
soccer match, the NSW Police has responsibility for maintaining public order,
either by preventing or containing violence, and maintaining public safety,
including by ensuring that stadiums are not overcrowded.
2.3
The policing challenges presented by crowd violence are many and varied.
Some restrictions on fan behaviour are clearly justified. These can sometimes
be coercive without becoming examples of the State overstepping its legitimate
authority.
2.4
A question remains as to the extent to which the current restrictions
are partly a consequence of an implicit assumption on the part of the NSW
Police that WSW supporters are more likely to engage in acts of violence than
supporters of other clubs or sporting codes. There is a danger that the police
might be predisposed to the assumption that WSW supporters – and members of the
RBB, in particular – pose a higher or unusual threat to public order and
safety.
2.5
Such an assumption has the potential to give rise to questionable
conclusions. Most significantly, it runs the risk that public order policing
becomes implicitly committed to a form of collective responsibility: the
genuine crimes of the few come to be seen as the responsibility of the many.
Justifiable restrictions on certain forms of behaviour become essentially
punitive measures that do not differentiate between the guilty and the
innocent.
2.6
The possibility that the NSW Police manage WSW matches through the
'lens' of collective responsibility, on the assumption that the violent
behaviour of the few justifies restrictions on the majority, brings with it the
possibility that supporters, including members of the RBB, have come to be seen
as undifferentiated. Importantly, if a complex situation, such as crowd
violence, is seen in an undifferentiated manner, then the risk of a
disproportionate response is likely to increase.
2.7
Given the possibility that the police response to crowd violence at WSW
matches might be influenced by a collectivised view of the club's supporters,
it is possible that the restrictions imposed on fans, including on members of
the RBB, are no longer solely focussed on maintaining public order, but have
been transformed into the imposition of standards of behaviour.
2.8
In situations where soccer fans are viewed as a threat to public order,
then some forms of behaviour, such as lewd chanting, which may be considered
merely offensive in a different context, can be interpreted as a precursor to
violence. Restricting these actions then comes to be seen as necessary for
public order.
2.9
While some of the restrictions placed on WSW supporters, including a prohibition
of the lighting of flares, may be justifiable on the grounds of public safety,
it can be argued that personal choice is being restricted on the basis of
holding fan behaviour to a particular (non-legal) standard. This is not a
police matter.
The Elaborated Social Identity Model (ESIM) and effective policing
2.10
International research suggests that the way in which crowds are policed
often depends on how law enforcement agencies understand the nature of crowds:
a large crowd, for example, is frequently interpreted as an inherent threat to
public order and safety. Professor Stephen Reicher, a social psychologist at
the University of Edinburgh, argues that contemporary public order policing is
based on the implicit assumption that crowds are inherently irrational and
dangerous.[2]
2.11
This assumption has significant practical consequences for the way
police attempt to reduce or eliminate the potential for violence within large
crowds. In particular, it leads to a view of crowd violence that is committed
to locating the source of conflict wholly within the crowd and implicitly
dismisses the possibility that such violence could be a consequence of the
interaction between police officers and the crowds they are meant to police.
According to Professor Reicher:
This assumption has profound implications for the ways in
which crowds are policed. Most crucially, because it relates the cause of
violence as lying entirely with the crowd as opposed to arising out of the
interaction between crowds and police, it neglects the possibility that police
actions may contribute to the production of conflict and hence provides no
basis for developing strategies, tactics and technologies that might minimise
such a possibility.[3]
2.12
In practice, the view of crowds as inherently irrational and dangerous,
treating them as a problem that requires a solution, produces public order
policing that is focussed on finding ways to repress crowds' supposedly natural
belligerence and irrationality. On this view, public safety necessitates crowds
be 'fenced in' by a series of strictly enforced restrictions on their
behaviour.
2.13
The fundamental aim of policing becomes minimising the supposed threat
posed by crowds to public order and safety. Arbitrary restrictions on crowd
behaviour - such as those that have been imposed on the RBB – are rationalised
on the basis that crowds are inherently harmful to public order. This is
a radical miscasting of the 'harm principle' – which is properly concerned with
individual choice, not public order – and becomes the justification for
restricting individuals' personal choice while they are members of a crowd.
2.14
The assumption that crowds are an inherent threat to public order,
however, brings its own risks. First, by defining crowds as inherently hostile,
police create a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the police act on the assumption
that crowds are innately irrational and dangerous, then it becomes increasingly
likely that the members of a crowd will become hostile in response.[4]
2.15
Secondly, defining crowds as dangerous and irrational risks overlooking
a significant opportunity. If crowds are policed through restrictions that flow
from the view that they are inherently a threat to public order, then the
police will miss out on the opportunity of creating a form of interaction that
has the potential to reduce conflict. The possibility of de-escalating conflict
can be lost:
...the fate of crowd members is directly determined by what
outsiders (notably the police) allow them to do. That is, where police have
both the inclination and the power to treat all members in a crowd event as if
they were the same, then this will create a common experience amongst crowd
members...[5]
2.16
Central to Reicher's 'Elaborated Social Identity Model' (ESIM) of
effective policing is the idea that crowds are neither innately irrational nor
dangerous, and that violence is often a consequence of the interaction between
police and members of a crowd. In particular, Reicher argues that imposing
severe restrictions on crowd behaviour often leads to an escalation of
conflict, while also obscuring forms of policing that can promote
understanding.[6]
2.17
Reicher argues that a more effective method of policing crowds requires
police to interact with crowd members in such a way that the measures taken to
protect public order are not imposed in a unilateral way, but are developed in
consultation with the crowd.[7]
By working with crowds, and thereby helping to facilitate the crowds'
legitimate aims, the police are in a position to reduce the potential for
violence at the outset:
By facilitating [the crowd's aims], the police will not only
avoid violence from these participants, they will also gain their cooperation
in dealing with the minority of others [whose aims are illegal]...But this only
becomes possible where there is information which allows the police to
understand the priorities of these groups and to devise practices which will
allow legal aims to be met.[8]
2.18
For Reicher's ESIM model of policing, it is the interaction between
police and crowds that predominantly determines whether conflict can be
effectively avoided. The process of minimising conflict requires measures to
maintain public order devised in consultation with supporters and supporters'
organisations.
International perspective
2.19
The problem of crowd violence at football matches is not unique to
Australia. Experience overseas, especially in Europe and the United Kingdom,
suggests that there is no 'one size fits all' solution.[9]
2.20
Despite the inherent diversity of crowd-related violence, international
research and experience, principally in Europe, suggests that all successful
strategies to minimise soccer violence possess a common feature: the most
effective measures are those that have been planned and implemented in
collaboration with fans, rather than being imposed on them by authorities.
2.21
In their wide-ranging study of the dilemmas of maintaining public order
at soccer matches, Warren and Hay suggest that:
...it is generally agreed that a multi-agency approach
involving meaningful contributions from, and the development of sustained
partnerships with, football authorities, local governments, venue managers,
security personnel, club administrators and fan groups is crucial to the
policing role at both pre-event planning and operational stages.[10]
2.22
Based on the assumption that successful measures to curb crowd violence
require cooperation between fans and authorities, so that supporters begin to
self-police their behaviour, a number of European countries have instituted
so-called 'fan projects'.
2.23
First set up in Germany in the early 1980s, following the killing of a
Werder Bremen fan by Hamburg supporters, fan projects have sought to reduce
violence by providing supporters with a variety of activities and support
services, including: guidance services; educational and career advice;
intervention in critical situations (if arrested, for example); and
recreational activities, such as organising travel to matches and producing fan
magazines.[11]
2.24
While the challenges of curbing violence are many and varied, the
international research suggests that fan projects – by channelling supporters'
passion into positive directions – have made a significant contribution to
reducing the incidence and severity of crowd violence in a number of European
countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom.[12]
Police presence at Wanderers games
2.25
In evidence to the committee on 3 November 2015, Mr John Tsatsimas,
Chief Executive Officer of the Western Sydney Wanderers, pointed out that the
club's opportunities for corporate sponsorship and commercial relationships
were being undermined by a heavy police presence, including mounted police:
It has been conveyed to me a number of times that people will
not come, because of the sheer number of police at the perimeter of the
precinct as they enter. I have had commercial partners say, 'It's not something
I want to get involved with; all I see is people on horses.' That is just being
candid.[13]
2.26
He went on to describe problems of cultural miscommunication:
Our concern is that there is a blanket approach to the
Wanderers as opposed to dealing with the issue specifically at hand, and that
the culture of football is not understood in this country, particularly with
the Wanderers being only a recent addition to the sporting landscape. The
football culture is not understood, and nor is the active support, in
particular by those who make those calls.[14]
2.27
This cultural miscommunication was of particular concern because the
Western Sydney Wanderers are a true local success story, contributing
significantly to multicultural harmony in the area:
Senator DASTYARI: To what extent has being able to build a
fan base and having a passionate and supportive fan base been a part of that
success story of the club?
Mr Tsatsimas: The prime platform for our success has been the
Western Sydney community. In the past, particularly in a previous life, the
National Soccer League had a raft of teams that came from the Western Sydney
region. A number of them represented a number of ethnicities. The Western
Sydney Wanderers brought those communities together to be represented at the
one junction. I think it is a point of difference that the community feels it
is more than just a football club; it is an advocate for Western Sydney on a
global and national stage. Our success on the global stage has precipitated us
having a mantra of being globally respected and recognised, and I think we have
achieved that in a very short period of time.[15]
2.28
Deputy Mayor of Parramatta, Councillor Steven Issa, echoed Mr Tsatsimas's
concerns and supported his account with data on the economic contribution the
Western Sydney Wanderers make to his city:
I make no apology for supporting the fans of the Wanderers
and the RBB. I say that for numerous reasons. Predominantly, it is about the
economic and social benefit that Parramatta receives as a result of these fans.
Let's make no mistake: visitation to our city increases. The number of families
enjoying restaurants, retail and accommodation in the Parramatta CBD
categorically increases. The direct economic benefit to Parramatta City is
estimated at $19 million for the 2014-15 season. In 2013, the first season, it
was around $17 million, so there is a steady increase in the economic
development and what that brings to Parramatta. In the first season, the gross
regional product increased to the tune of about 81 jobs, with a direct
correlation between the Wanderers' introduction into our city and the outcomes
it is perceived to have.
Further, in 2013 we surveyed visitors as well as businesses
in our city specifically related to the Wanderers and what they bring in
economic development terms. Of the businesses, 89 per cent surveyed saw an
improvement in Parramatta due to Wanderers' games and the involvement of fans.
Ninety-six per cent of businesses reported new customers and 81 per cent of
those spoke to repeat business as a result. For me, the games and activities
associated with the games, including the fans, the march and so on, improve the
perception of Parramatta for both visitors, at 78 per cent, and businesses, at
93 per cent. For us as a city, if you are improving the perception of
Parramatta, it is something we need to support.[16]
2.29
Councillor Issa then commented on the scale of the policing operations
at the Wanderers' games:
I have been quite vocal about police presence and the way
they conduct themselves in both marches and games. I will categorically say
that anything that stifles that sort of economic stimulus to a city should be
dealt with. Anything that stifles return visits or visitation increases should
be dealt with. I say that again with no apology. I support the police in all
their endeavours to make Parramatta a safer place. If criminal activity is proven
beyond reasonable doubt, I support the police going out with the full force of
the law to prosecute. For me, though, when we talk about what the police do and
their presence and managing situations such as the march where we have police
on horseback, we have the dog squad, we have public order and riot squad, we
have the two blues, we have Strike Force Raptor—which is the Middle East crime
squad, all dealing with fans and an alleged behaviour problem, I think that
detracts from the positive image the Wanderers bring to the city and the
economic development it brings to the greater Parramatta region.[17]
2.30
To that end, Mr Tsatsimas was anxious not only to improve relationships
between the fans and the police, but reduce the size and scale of the policing:
CHAIR: Again, in this scenario where you are commissioner for
a sufficient time to determine this policy of policing of sporting
games—including Wanderers games—how many police would you have at games and
what would they wear?
Mr Tsatsimas: The simple answer is: not the numbers we have
at the moment.
CHAIR: Fewer?
Mr Tsatsimas: A lot fewer.
CHAIR: What would they wear?
Mr Tsatsimas: I would prefer the two blues rather than the
OSG; it is less intimidating.[18]
2.31
Councillor Issa pointed out that police complaints about flares at
matches seemed disingenuous in light of heavy-handed policing:
I understand the police say that their aim is to protect the
safety of fans. I was at the Anzac Day match, and I put a post on
Twitter—probably against my better judgement, but I was a little bit
disheartened by what I saw. The assistant commissioner was talking about a
14-year-old in hospital with burns as a result of a flare. At that incident,
there was a 14-year-old in hospital with burns to his eyes as a result of
capsicum spray. So there is a disparity here that we should really be
acknowledging in the way we treat fans with a broad brushstroke as a
homogeneous group and how we deal with the handful, as you say, of members who
are antisocial.[19]
2.32
Councilllor Issa also suggested that an understanding of 'football fan
culture' was necessary, with the police learning to distinguish between what
was criminal behaviour and what was simple exuberance:
I think it is a paradigm shift that needs to happen. I do not
think we are used to this sort of exuberance in Australia. Essentially, there
is a learning experience that needs to happen, not only for the police but for
the fans and for the club, and for the FFA in general. Everybody needs to learn
from this because it is new in this country.[20]
Police and the Red and Black Bloc
2.33
In evidence to the committee, Mr Fadi Bushara of the Red and Black Bloc
reiterated comments made by Mr Tsatsimas and Councillor Issa with respect to
football culture, and the understanding that, with a modicum of care, it need
not be threatening or lead to violence.
We support the team: we are active and we are vibrant—flags,
colours, chanting and marching. This is the attraction for a lot of people to
this club. It is a club that is three years old and it has the second-highest
membership in the league. That is not only down to the fact that the club has
been successful in its first year, because in the last season the club almost
finished last and this season the club is not having a great start. But you
still have close to 18,000 members, and part of the attraction is the active
supporters and supporters throughout the stadium who also become active and
bring something to the table. This is the attraction, not just to people who
follow football but to people outside football.[21]
2.34
Mr Matt Adamson, also of the Red and Black Bloc, drew on his experience
working in crowd control and private security in the United Kingdom, also
citing Professor Reicher and Dr Stott and their approach to cooperative
policing:
Senator Leyonhjelm, you mentioned Professor Stephen Reicher.
As it would happen, in my own notes I was going to reference one of his
students, Professor Clifford Stott. I would like to read from a release from
Western Sydney University regarding the recent visit, in May of this year, of
Dr Clifford Stott. Funnily enough, he was just around the corner at the
University of Western Sydney campus. He delivered a talk called ‘Mad mobs and
football hooligans—debunking the myths’. As with Professor Reicher, Dr Stott is
also a proponent of engagement, and the RBB are as well. We in no way, shape or
form condone any sort of criminal behaviour, and we have always been very open
about this fact whether through social media or through interviews to media,
some of which I have given. I would like to read a quote from Dr Stott that I
believe is important to these proceedings: “If we want to solve the problem of
‘football hooligans’, we need to understand the nature of the problem
accurately, to see the crowd psychology not as madness, but a meaningful
response to circumstances. It’s often a matter of heavy-handed crowd management
practices that lead to circumstances where violence develops.”[22]
2.35
Mr Bushara pointed out the danger when authorities failed to appreciate
that football in Western Sydney has moved beyond ethnic rivalries, with the
Western Sydney Wanderers providing a focus for local unity:
Western Sydney does unite the people of the West and that is
nowhere more evident than in the RBB—as he said, in terms of different races,
religions and even cultures. People are surprised—they say, ‘How can you have
people of Croatian background and people of Serbian background together?’ That
all goes out the window because nobody thinks like that; people are just there
to support the team. But it becomes very difficult for us to do so when we feel
there is always someone watching over our back or if people feel intimidated.[23]
2.36
Members of the Red and Black Bloc – when they did meet with the police
to work out appropriate controls on crowd behaviour – perceived negotiations to
be somewhat one-sided.
We were always responsive to their requests, but some of
their requests were too much or over the top. The compromises were not
reciprocated. The compromises were always expected to come from us, not from them.
We did so on a number of things. He mentioned the swearing in chants and
whatnot. We were told we could not swear in chants while we were conducting the
march. We adhered to that. We were told we could not throw receipt rolls
because we might injure someone—mind you, it is a paper roll. We adhered to
that. This is not to mention that people were arrested and got banned for doing
such things. But we still adhered to that.[24]
2.37
On other occasions, members of the RBB found the police presence frankly
intimidating:
CHAIR: [...] The next issue I would like you to talk about is:
could you describe to the committee how the police behave towards members of
the RBB at games?
Mr Adamson: It would be unfair to those officers who are
fantastic and engaging to tar all of the police with the same brush. And it
would be hypocritical of us to do so seeing as we are asking not to have that
done to us. But in some instances there is aggression. In particular, in terms
of gestures: things like walking up and down the aisles with your hand on a gun
or pepper spray; riot gear at a sporting event. I believe that is absolutely
counterproductive and extremely intimidating to families and young people who
we have in our area.[25]
2.38
Mr Bushara went on to recount how police periodically pinned spectators
– including children – into their seating bays, sometimes for long periods:
But they travel around in numbers, especially the riot police
in overalls—or pyjamas, as we like to call them. They will travel around in
groups of four or five. We have been told by police that they will not send in
one or two officers into the bay, because they feel that it is too intimidating
for them. Meanwhile, they are the ones walking around with guns, batons and
pepper spray. But they need to send in four or five officers to apprehend one
person or to speak to one person and, in that process, they will infringe on
other people’s rights. If they are taking someone out of the bay to speak to
them at the back, behind the hill, nobody else is allowed to leave the bay at
that time, even if it is someone that needs to go to the toilet or buy a drink,
or small children, anyone. That bay becomes a lockdown zone. No-one is allowed
to leave.
CHAIR: Is that so? How long does that last for?
Mr Bushara: It is up to their discretion.
CHAIR: That is effectively placing an entire group of people
under arrest, isn’t it?
Mr Bushara: And if you try to leave the bay, you are told
that you will be escorted out.
CHAIR: You will be escorted out.
Mr Bushara: Correct.
CHAIR: From the match.
Mr Bushara: Correct.
CHAIR: That is their only sanction, because they could not do
anything else, could they?
Mr Bushara: They can. This is another point. What happens
after that is if you are escorted out from the venue, you are spoken to by
police, your details are taken and, in a matter of weeks, you are issued with
an FFA ban which prevents you from attending any FFA-sanctioned event. That
means no attending any game across Australia that is related to football. In
the same breath, you cannot participate in any grassroots football. I cannot go
and sign up to my local club and play Sunday football if I have been banned by
the FFA.
CHAIR: This is interesting. If you do not adhere to their
corralling into an area while they want to speak to somebody, so you decide you
want to go to the toilet or whatever, you will be escorted outside?
Mr Bushara: Correct.
CHAIR: And then you will subsequently be banned from
attending any matches?
Mr Bushara: That is correct.[26]
Football Federation Australia bans
2.39
In evidence to the committee, Mr Bushara pointed out that there was no
avenue of appeal once Football Federation Australia (FFA) decides to ban an
individual for disorderly behaviour. Mr Bushara suggested that the FFA did not
appear to see itself as being bound by the rules of procedural fairness and
natural justice:
Funnily enough, the FFA believe that they do not fall under
the rules of natural justice, and this is quoted here in no uncertain terms in
an email from them in response to someone who had requested information as to
the reason why they had been banned..."Please be advised that Football
Federation Australia (FFA) is not a government agency and, as such, is the
obligation to adhere to the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice
does not apply to our organisation. For this reason, FFA will not consider any
appeal".[27]
2.40
Mr Bushara suggested that the lack of an appeals process against bans
imposed by the FFA led to a situation in which people were excluded from all
FFA sanctioned events on grounds that were both unclear and without a
foundation in procedural fairness.
2.41
Given that the process of banning individuals could be based on
undisclosed reasoning, without any avenue of appeal, Mr Bushara suggested that
the FFA ran the risk of promoting a situation in which distrust between fans
and authorities is allowed to increase to the point that cooperation becomes
increasingly difficult.[28]
As a consequence, Professor Reicher's concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy
leading to inevitable crowd violence becomes more likely.
2.42
In particular, if the model of effective public order policing put
forward by Professor Reicher is taken seriously, then the FFA may be helping to
create a situation where conflict on the basis of mistrust becomes more
difficult to prevent. By refusing to disclose the justification for a ban, as
well as denying those banned an avenue of appeal, the FFA might be contributing
to a greater likelihood of crowd violence by refusing to engage proactively and
openly with supporters.
2.43
On 4 November 2015, following the committee hearing, the A-League's
Chief Executive Officer, Mr Damien de Bohun, was reported as having confirmed
that there was no right of appeal to FFA bans:
FFA takes the view that we have a right to decide if a person
is welcome among the football community at our matches. It's a general
deterrent to those who cause trouble that they face long bans with no right of
appeal.[29]
2.44
Yet, after the publication in the media of a confidential list of 198
people allegedly banned by the FFA from attending A-League matches, followed by
extensive complaints from fans, the FFA clarified that an appeals process had
always been in place. In a 26 November press release, the FFA stated:
Since the inception of the banning process, it has always
been the case that if a banned person can prove that they did not engage in the
relevant behaviour the ban will not apply. If a banned person can bring the
evidence that proves this to FFA through their club, the ban will be lifted.[30]
2.45
Media reports suggested that, while at least two fans had their bans
overturned after sustained lobbying by their respective clubs, a number of
clubs were not aware it was possible to have a ban overturned at all.[31]
Furthermore, it was reported that, while many of the banned individuals had
been charged by police, others were underage, not facing police charges or had
no avenue to appeal the offences for which they were named. There were
suggestions that some of those named had not been banned at all.[32]
2.46
On 24 November, the RBB and Melbourne Victory's main supporter group,
the 'North Terrace', issued a joint statement asking for the FFA to:
-
Issue a statement condemning the articles (that revealed the
confidential list of banned supporters) and supporting the fans;
-
Launch an investigation into how such information was leaked and
present the findings to the public in a transparent manner;
-
Work out and implement an independent and transparent appeals
process, agreed upon by all parties including every active support group.[33]
2.47
Five days later, Mr de Bohun argued that any fan could, in fact, appeal
their ban by providing evidence of their innocence. He noted in this regard
that in any case, the FFA will 'formalise its appeals process to review any
such evidence'.[34]
2.48
Amid the confusion over the appeals process – up to and including
whether it even existed formally – the following day, FFA Chief Executive, Mr
David Gallop, held a press conference. He acknowledged that the FFA had failed
to correctly communicate their appeals procedure. According to Mr Gallop:
The banning system has served its purpose for seven seasons,
but like any process it needs fine-tuning. We accept that the system needs some
clarification and better communication.[35]
2.49
However, Mr Gallop maintained that the onus rested with banned fans to
prove that they should have their bans overturned.[36]
He noted that proposals in relation to the banning system would be taken to the
FFA Board with a view to reviewing and improving the system. Further, he
explained that the process whereby a banned person can have a ban overturned,
if there were clear proof that they did not engage in anti-social behaviour,
would be formalised.
2.50
Active supporter groups including the RBB, North Terrace and Sydney FC's
The Cove denounced the proposed appeals structure on the basis that it placed
the burden of proof on fans when they should remain innocent until proven
guilty.[37]
The three support groups boycotted the subsequent A-League matches played by
their respective teams.[38]
2.51
The RBB said that match boycotts together with legal action over the
leaked list of banned fans would continue until the FFA and A-League present
active supporter groups with a transparent ban appeals process that is agreed
upon by all parties. This would include providing any banned person with the
evidence used against them and allowing them to refute it.[39]
2.52
In response to growing fan discontent with the FFA, on 3 December, FFA
Chairman, Mr Steven Lowry affirmed a proposal to review the banned fans policy would
be taken to the FFA Board later that week with a new policy finalised by
February 2016. Mr Lowry stated that the review, which would involve the fans,
would seek to improve the system whereby the FFA, police and security, and the
clubs and stadiums worked together.[40]
2.53
Following a meeting with representatives from all 10 active supporters
groups in Sydney on 9 December, the FFA's Mr Gallop announced a number of
amendments to its ban policy. These included the replacement of a ban notice
with that of an 'intention to ban' notice and an agreement to allow fans to
view evidence used against them. The changes apply retrospectively to the 198
people already banned, if the evidence against them still exists. Where a ban
is maintained, the individual will have an opportunity to go before an
independent panel. The changes form part of the review of FFA's appeals policy.[41]
Flares
2.54
Both at the inquiry hearing and in subsequent media commentary, it
became clear that much of the controversy surrounding Australian football’s
active supporter groups, particularly the Red and Black Bloc, concerned the use
of flares.
2.55
The Western Sydney Wanderers Football Club has opposed the use of flares
since its inception, as do all other A-League clubs. Fans who use them at games
are routinely subjected to bans, and teams have had competition points deducted
if the behaviour becomes commonplace.[42]
2.56
Flares are particularly associated with European and South American
football supporter groups, and do not have a significant presence in other
Australian sporting codes.[43]
2.57
Flares are not strongly associated with English or Scottish football,
and in the UK they are widely viewed as an import from the Continent.[44]
2.58
Because of their significant presence in European and South American
football, sporting authorities and police in those jurisdictions have had to
develop arrangements to ensure they can be used safely.
2.59
In their paper 'The role of fan projects in avoiding conflict at
football matches', Professor Richard Giulianotti and Dr Peter Millward describe
how fan project workers arranged with security officials before a match in
Germany to allow flares to be set off safely.[45]
2.60
Similarly, in Australian football magazine The Roar, commentator Janek
Speight describes how a flat prohibition on flares actually increases the risk
of injury to spectators:
What if the A-League introduced pyro-friendly zones for the
big games? Fenced off, so those who love inhaling a little smoke and staring
into bright lights can have their fun.
The biggest danger that comes from using flares is when they
are thrown, that’s when injuries become likely. Why are they thrown? Because
users are threatened with lengthy bans, they are not going to hold onto that
flare for long enough to get identified.
If a flare is held by one person, in a designated area, it
could work. Couldn’t it?
There does not seem to be another immediate answer. The more
police condemn the actions in their current manner, the less likely they are
going to convince pyro-loving fans to change their ways. [46]
2.61
The committee is aware that the use of flares at games deeply divides
Australian football supporters, with passionate voices both for and against. [47]
2.62
The committee holds the view that, with appropriate consultation and
cooperation between A-League clubs, the FFA, police, and active supporter
groups, it may be possible to ensure – if flares are used – they are at least
used safely.
Restrictions on the RBB – police perspective
2.63
In his evidence to the committee, Assistant Commissioner Denis Clifford
suggested that the violence that has marred some WSW matches is due to a
'handful' of 'troublemakers', who have managed to incite larger groups of fans
to commit criminal acts, including damaging stadium property.[48]
2.64
Assistant Commissioner Clifford argued that the restrictions that have
been placed on the RBB are not intended to treat the majority of law-abiding
fans as potential criminals, but to 'target the people that are causing the
problems'.[49]
2.65
While the Assistant Commissioner agreed with the committee that
alternative methods of policing soccer crowds, such as those suggested by
Professor Reicher, are potentially valuable, he pointed out that, in some
situations, a cooperative approach to policing crowd behaviour is incapable of
meeting the threat posed by small groups of 'troublemakers':
There is a time when you do need to have a police force that
will step in and take action in relation to people who break the law – if
people threaten the safety of others or put them in danger. It is okay to adopt
those principles, and of course they are valid comments that you make, but
there is a time when we cannot stand back and let people engage in violent,
threatening behaviour.[50]
2.66
According to Assistant Commissioner Clifford, although the police have
attempted to engage with the RBB, including by deploying dedicated Fan Liaison
Officers, violent outbursts at some matches have had the potential to cause a
'large-scale public disorder'.[51]
In those situations, a coercive police response is the only effective way to
prevent further violence. In his evidence to the committee, Assistant
Commissioner Denis Clifford pointed out that a disproportionately large number
of WSW supporters have been either removed or arrested for public order
violations:
Since the inception of the Wanderers, I understand that there
have been over 100 Western Sydney Wanderers supporters banned, then it drops to
something like 50-plus for the Perth Glory club and about 30-something for
Sydney FC. I do not know about other clubs, but, interestingly, in that period
of time, I am told that Pirtek Stadium has banned eight people from NRL games...[52]
2.67
Assistant Commissioner Clifford suggested that small groups of
individuals have the capacity to incite a violent reaction from the majority in
a crowd, referring to the Cronulla riots in 2005. Major threats to public order
and safety, the Assistant Commissioner maintained, often have their origins in
smaller instances of violence and disorder.
2.68
During the course of his evidence before the Committee, Assistant
Commissioner Clifford also argued that some of the chants and songs performed
by the RBB at games were unusually foul and abusive. This view had the effect
of drawing police into controlling activity that may be uncivil but is not
criminal:
CHAIR: All right. It is not a criminal offence to stand on
seats. It is not a criminal offence to chant foul and abusive language,
notwithstanding the fact that it is foul and abusive.
Mr Clifford: You asked me a question about the chants. Look
at the nature of it. If somebody said that to any one of us, I would suggest
you would react violently. That is a vulgar chant. The one I referred to is
talking about ‘your mother’. If that is not inciteful—people might wonder why
people leave the games after hearing that sort of chant and engage in violence
outside the game. That is what I am trying to stamp out, not someone dropping
the magic word here and there. It is about that organised, inciteful, vulgar
chant.
CHAIR: It seems to me that you have a particular view of how
football fans behave and you are determined to ensure they behave in that way.
They have a different view of how they should behave—
Mr Clifford: Not all fans. I would like to think the majority
of decent fans would support what we are trying to do, and that is to keep them
safe.
CHAIR: If they agree with you, they are decent; if they do
not agree with you, they are not decent?[53]
2.69
Mr Clifford also drew a distinction between the behaviour of A-League
fans and NRL fans, pointing out that, since the foundation of the Western
Sydney Wanderers, 100 fans had been banned, while in the same period, only
eight National Rugby League (NRL) fans had been banned.[54]
2.70
The committee notes that the number of bans handed out may not be
indicative of crowd behaviour at any given sporting event, given that different
codes have different banning procedures. In addition, the day immediately after
the hearing, the NSW Police Association (the peak representative body for NSW
Police officers) issued a press release referring to all Western Sydney
Wanderers fans – not just members of the RBB – as 'these grubs'.[55]
2.71
This would seem to indicate a degree of pre-existing acrimony between
NSW Police and Wanderers supporters more generally.
Committee's view
2.72
The committee notes that a number of measures to address the root causes
of fan violence, including the deployment of dedicated Supporter Marshalls and
Fan Liaison Officers, have already been introduced by both the WSW club and the
NSW Police. The committee supports these measures, and suggests that they be
further developed.
2.73
Furthermore, as the committee recognises the fundamental importance of a
transparent, well communicated and fair appeal process in relation to the
imposition of a ban by the FFA, it is encouraged by the recent FFA announcement
regarding changes to the ban appeal process.
2.74
The committee encourages the NSW Police to build a positive relationship
with A-League clubs and their supporters, to ensure that interactions between
police officers and fans are productive in achieving both safety and enjoyment
for all.
2.75
The committee also encourages both the NSW Police and media
organisations to view A-League supporters in the same way they view other
dedicated sporting fans, without resorting to stereotyping or demanding they
behave in an identical manner to the supporters of other football codes, or of
cricket.
2.76
The committee is also of the view that NSW Police should remain mindful
of the fact that criminal behaviour is undertaken by individuals, not groups.
It is important to be wary of attributing negative behaviour to members of a
group solely on the basis of their appearance, dress, or presence within a
group. This is particularly the case in light of the jury's findings in the
recently concluded Hillsborough Inquest.[56]
The jury found there had been 'errors or omissions in policing on the day of
the match which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at
the Leppings Lane turnstiles'. Much of this came about because police viewed
Liverpool fans as an undifferentiated group.
2.77
Furthermore, the committee encourages police to distinguish between
criminal behaviour and activities that are legal but uncivil or vulgar. The
police are meant to ensure public safety; it is not their role to impose or
maintain any particular mode of behaviour or speech on the basis that it does
not accord with a particular set of values.
Senator Chris Ketter
Committee Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page