Celtic’s critics make no secret of their wish to force compliance on our club and our fans.

And here we are on Day Two.

It’s hardly surprising we’ve arrived here again, the talk of the media sphere. And it is no surprise that much of what’s being written and said is utter rubbish dredged up from the swamp of right-wing nationalism, prominently featured across some of the more notorious right-wing newspapers.

One thing that amazes me, especially now, is how newspapers and journalists—allegedly devoted to British values like freedom of expression—can take such a clownish, hypocritical stance towards any opinion they dislike.

It used to be that the left championed free expression, but only when it wasn’t “no-platforming” those with opposing views.

I remember being at a student council meeting where this was being discussed and was shocked to see people I considered friends advocating no-platform policies. They didn’t seem to grasp that these policies could easily extend in directions they wouldn’t like.

Many who got no-platformed were on the right, which perversely allowed the right to seize control of the issue. The right has no true interest in free expression and never has. Just look at right-wing media; it champions free speech only when it suits its own ends.

To understand where we are, you have to understand where they are. By “they,” I mean the UK’s right-wing media ecosystem.

Our right-wing newspapers have always leaned fascistic—don’t forget, the Daily Mail once openly supported the British Union of Fascists and even praised Hitler. The Telegraph has, on occasion, been just as removed from reality.

The stock-in-trade of these newspapers is waging culture wars, rallying against “wokeness,” and basically opposing anything left-leaning or that contradicts their narrow view of Britain.

The fact that these papers are often intolerant, racist, antagonistic, and vindictive doesn’t stop them from promoting themselves as paragons of tolerance, respect, and basic decency—traits their editorial boards largely lack.

They have no love for our club, no love for our supporters, and we know the reasons why. Everything from the poppy protests to singing during moments of silence, to the perceived disrespect for the monarchy, to our support for Palestine and welcoming stance towards immigrants—it’s as if we’re trampling their sacred cows one at a time.

So, I always say, when these people are out to get you, when they’re banging their drums and screaming at the top of their voices, you’re doing something right. If you’re actually bothering them this much, if they’re coming after you to this degree, then you’ve clearly struck a nerve. And since their worldview is a grotesque parody of the virtues they claim to uphold, you’re probably more in line with the mainstream than they’d have you believe.

This time, the Green Brigade went somewhat against the mainstream.

So let me put this on the record right now; I am not here to defend them. I am defending all of us. I am defending our right, as a support, as a collective, not to be forced into conformity, and that’s what the real issue here is. This has nothing to do with Remembrance. Very little of what’s happening here does.

I think if you polled people, most would find what the Green Brigade did over the weekend crass and insensitive; some, including many of our own supporters, might even find it embarrassing. I’ve run the gamut of feelings on this issue myself over the years.

I used to feel that it wasn’t too much to ask people to stand in silent reflection for 60 seconds. If they couldn’t, I thought it was best not to be in the ground at all. I even wrote critical pieces about those who disrupted silences, seeing it as disrespectful.

Then, I came to realise something: the critics of this club will never be satisfied with silence.

The right-wing medio ecosystem wants conformity in all thigs.

If we make one concession, we’ll be asked for another and then another.

Even when Celtic fans have observed silences respectfully, we’ve been criticised. I’ve read headlines about “coughing protests” during silences and seen stories where fans merely talking outside the stadium were cited as disrespectful.

These people have complained whether we’re quiet or not. If it’s not Remembrance Day, it’s our support for Palestine. If it’s not that, it’s our stance against the monarchy. They’ve decided our club is their enemy, and there’s no point trying to change their minds about that.

Frankly, I’m happy for these people to be our enemies. It’s far better than ever being perceived as their friends.

The right-wing media is one thing, but when you can’t even have an intelligent conversation about this topic, it’s another issue entirely. Most in the media have no interest in such a conversation; they simply want to impose their view on us and all else be damned.

I tip my hat to Graham Spiers, who at least tried to have the conversation on his podcast the other day, bringing on Andrew Smith and Graeme McGarry for a reasonable discussion without getting vindictive or personal against our supporters. I didn’t agree with everything they said—in fact, I took issue with quite a lot of it—but they made the effort.

Far too many of our hacks, however, are just lining up to moralise and grandstand, playing to the gallery. Tim Miller of The Bulwark said something spot-on after Joe Biden’s comment about Trump supporters being garbage: if you couldn’t wait to go public with your outrage, you probably weren’t truly outraged—you just wanted to appear to be.

And that’s precisely what’s been happening with many of our so-called journalists in recent days.

People like Bill Leckie, one of the most ignorant and dreadful writers in the mainstream press, are doing exactly that. The idea that he understands this issue properly or has ever looked at it from the other side is laughable—he wouldn’t even know where to start.

Spiers’ podcast, to his credit, actually tackled this controversial topic head-on.

He and his guests offered contrasting views. Smith understood the sentiment driving the protest but disagreed with the way it was expressed. His view was that the Green Brigade could have raised a banner stating their silence was “on behalf of Gaza and those who’ve suffered under British imperialism.”

McGarry, on the other hand, approached it as if Remembrance Day were sacred, implying that any disruption is a slight against the war dead. And here’s where my issue with this view begins.

For the vast majority, Remembrance Day is far from a solemn day of reflection. For most people, it was simply a brief pause—a sixty-seconds of silence, if even that – amidst the day’s routine. Sure, some take it more seriously, but their numbers are so low as to be inconsequential.

Still, it’s one of those issues where a lot of people like to claim to be more virtuous than they are.

Most know that the notion that this “day of reflection” was once universally cherished is laughable. It’s like the old American joke about people claiming their ancestors arrived on the Mayflower; if all were telling the truth, that ship would have sunk a dozen times before leaving port.

Smith’s suggestion that fans could silently reflect on their own causes is more valid, but only to a point.

The Green Brigade, and others, believe there’s already been far too much silence around Gaza and other pressing issues as it is and they are right.

To be silent is to consent.

A banner can go unremarked on and unreported.

To sing a song during a silence to commemorate the British military dead about a young Irish kid murdered by a British soldier … that’s a story.

Silence, in this case, feels like acquiescence, an inappropriate response when people are being urged to look away.

And let’s not kid ourselves—if the Green Brigade had held up a banner saying their silence was “for Gaza and for Derry,” some of the same right-wing voices would still be howling about disrespect, still demanding Celtic take action. There is no banner, there is no gesture, that would have appeased the hypocrites who see any dissent as an insult.

The reality is, these critics don’t want respect—they want compliance. This isn’t about remembering the dead; it’s about ensuring that they impose their will on other people.

One of Orwell’s most chilling passages in 1984 comes to mind, where O’Brien tells Winston, “Obedience is not enough… unless (a man) is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?”

This whole “event” has become coercive and that’s where myself and others – even some who agree with respectful, dignified silence – draw the line.

Any hint that fans might be standing for anything other than “the approved reason” invites vitriol.

And that’s because many of these people couldn’t care less about the war dead.

They’re not seeking remembrance; they’re seeking domination, eager to silence anyone who disagrees. They want to shame dissenters into submission. And I’d wager that more and more people, coerced into these displays of “respect,” are growing more resentful of that every year.

People need to think about this from the other side of the debate, and too few of them can be bothered to.

Yesterday, I wrote this, in relation to the killer of Aiden McAnespie; “The idea that people of Irish heritage might one day have to stand in respectful silence for the guy who did that – or those who shot 26, killing 13 outright with another dying later, on Bloody Sunday – is too grotesque even to consider soberly. It’s shameful to even make the suggestion.”

Don’t bang on about the rights of people without considering that. Those people have rights too, and the moment you try to force those people to do that you’re no longer interested in dignified remembrance but in imposing your will on others. It’s disgusting.

Personally, my views on free speech have shifted over time.

I don’t believe it should be absolute, and I would probably support some of those No Platform policies I once long ago decried; I’ve seen too much harm done by the spread of misinformation and lies to think people should be allowed to say whatever they want.

But the right not to be offended doesn’t exist, and it shouldn’t exist.

I think certain expressions of hate speech and misinformation are dangerous, and we would be crazy, as a society, not to curtail some of it, but silencing people just because you disagree with them is just as dangerous and puts all of society on the slippery slope towards tyranny.

But as for the critics who hound this club, I couldn’t care less.

I don’t lose sleep over the opinions of the Alan Cochrane’s of this world, who’ve spent their careers attacking anyone who doesn’t toe their line and whipping up hatred against whatever “out” group they have an issue with at any given time. They’re trying to impose values and beliefs on those who want no part of them, and some of us will simply not be pushed.

To me, this isn’t a complex issue at all.

The answer is simple: get this militaristic nonsense out of the sport. Make it a private matter again—a choice, not a public spectacle.

If you demand a public ceremony, you’re going to get public dissent, it’s that simple. Derek McInnes and others can cry about their right to hold a minute’s silence, but they have to understand that we have rights too, and if we’re expected to tolerate their views, they should be ready to tolerate ours.

The only mistake at the weekend was stopping the silence prematurely. It should have lasted the full sixty seconds. If that meant our fans sang through it, so be it. If this thing is “voluntary” as so many claim then that’s permissible. If it’s not voluntary, then we’ve got a real problem and one much bigger than what Celtic fans sing or when they sing it.

Don’t forget that this a relatively recent imposition.

It was only in 2003 that this insistence on remembrance at football matches began.

Many Celtic fans have made their feelings known from the start; many of us want no part in it. This debate has become toxic, and some of the goings on around it are absolutely embarrassing, and I’m not talking about Celtic fans. I’m talking about the spectacle at other grounds across Scotland, where remembrance has morphed into a display of jingoism and glorified militarism.

Nothing says “respect for the dead” quite like soldiers abseiling down a football stand.

If clubs had a vote on this, most would likely agree to end it if they weren’t afraid of right-wing media backlash. Most clubs probably do feel that this has gone on long enough and that there is now an element of coercion involved in it, and so the governing bodies themselves should take this out of their hands, show some leadership and get this out of grounds.

I’m not holding my breath for that, although it’s the best thing that could happen here, something which returns this to how things used to be.

McGarry on the podcast said he doesn’t remember this issue being this controversial, and he’s right—because it wasn’t. It was only once this became a mandatory, public event that controversy emerged. Celtic fans didn’t ask to be at the centre of this yearly uproar. It was forced upon us, and I think blaming us for that fails to recognise that fact.

And some of us will never be bullied into submission, and especially when it’s so clear now that this is no longer about respect but about enforcing conformity, about bullying and intimidating people and clubs into toeing the line.

The message from a section of our support is crystal clear; not in our name.

And whilst I don’t agree with these guys on everything, I’m absolutely with them on this one.