Dehumanisation is a psychological process whereby opponents of a section of the community or of the population view another section of the community, or population as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. In Nazi Germany, the Jews; and if you take a look at more recent times, the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda are prime examples of dehumanisation.

In life, we generally believe that all people should have some basic human rights which should not be violated, and that everyone deserves to be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect.

Victims of the dehumanisation process can be viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, and undeserving of basic needs and fair treatment. Basic fundamental human rights are often seen to be non-applicable, and irrelevant, and any harm that befalls those groups and individuals is accepted as being warranted, and perhaps even morally justified.

We typically dehumanise those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values, and some common criteria for exclusion can include religion, nationality, and those of different cultures.

During the dehumanisation process, it is necessary to psychologically, categorize the enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. According to psychologists, enemy images are accentuated by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves their own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side. Another factor which facilitates dehumanisation, is deindividuation. This is a psychological process, whereby individuals are seen a member of a category or group, rather than being seen as a person. This process of deindividuation serves to promote the image that those individuals should be viewed as less than fully human. It then becomes easier to rationalise contentious moves or severe actions taken against them.

When the extent of Rangers financial troubles first came into the public domain: aided by the Rangers Tax Case blog and a compliant Scottish media; the club became a poisoned chalice under the stewardship of David Murray. The fact that it yet remains to be decided whether the club, under the stewardship of Murray actually committed any crime by the use of EBT's is conveniently forgotten by those who wish nothing but ill on Rangers. According to the Scottish media, aided and abetted by the RTC blog, Rangers were, and are, guilty, and this led to a situation where the club became an easy target for someone like Craig Whyte.

In a Scotland wrapped up in the Independence debate, in the lead up to the referendum on whether to leave or remain a member of the United Kingdom, attacks on Rangers Football Club; often seen as a British Institution in Scotland, were seen as valuable propaganda to the pro-Independence political parties and supporters.
Rangers fan base is predominantly Protestant, Unionist, and Loyalist, and those three criteria are perceived to be a threat to those intent on breaking up the United Kingdom.

Remember this?

''We typically dehumanise those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values, and some common criteria for exclusion can include religion, nationality, and those of different cultures.'

When Whyte took the club into administration through his inability to pay taxes during his short tenure of stewardship; in the eyes of a large percentage of the Scottish public the club became a pariah. Accusations were made that Rangers football club had deprived children of education, and hospitals of funding, among other things. These accusations were made with one thing in mind: to promote the idea that Rangers football club should be viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, and therefore undeserving of basic needs and fair treatment. Any harm which was to befall the club, was seen by those intent on dehumanising the club, as acceptable, warranted, and morally justifiable. Basic human rights were seen to be not applicable to Rangers Football Club or its supporters.

Remember this?

''Victims of the dehumanisation process can be viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, and undeserving of basic needs and fair treatment. Basic fundamental human rights are often seen to be non-applicable, and irrelevant, and any harm that befalls those groups and individuals is accepted as being warranted, and perhaps even morally justified.'

When Whyte was replaced, the company which formerly ran Rangers Football Club was placed into administration and is currently in the process of being liquidated. Whyte currently faces criminal proceedings relating to his time involved with Rangers.

Charles Green, and his group of investors then became the next people to hold stewardship of the club, however due to ongoing criminal proceedings against Green I will not go into any details of his time at the club. What happened out with the club however, shows another example of how Rangers and its supporters have become victims of a dehumanisation process.

Those who would dehumanise everything to do with our club, refused, and still refuse to call it by its name. Instead Rangers Football Club is referred to as Sevco, and its supporters as Sevconians. Rangers Football Club is described as dead, and its supporters are referred to as zombies.

Remember this?

''During the dehumanisation process, it is necessary to psychologically, categorize the enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. According to psychologists, enemy images are accentuated by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves their own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

The Offensive behaviour at Football Act was pushed through by the Scottish Nationalist Party in their last period of governance in the Scottish Assembly. This Act was brought in to try and fight sectarianism in Scottish football. Initially it was greeted with grand acclaim by those affiliated with Celtic Football Club as a tool which would tackle anti-Irish-Catholic bigotry. Apparently though; anti-Irish-Protestant bigotry was to be deemed as acceptable. You can call a Rangers supporter a dirty orange bastard or Hun, and get a slap on the wrist from Sheriff Paul Crozier, however if you sing the song 'The Billy Boys' with the word 'fenian' in it, you will be given a custodial sentence of four months by the same sheriff. Such imbalances in the scales of justice can at best be described as flawed, and at worst seen as discriminatory.

We have seen sectarian bigots in the mainstream Scottish and British media, such as Jane Hamilton of the Daily Record, who describes Rangers supporters as Huns, and her editor Murray Foote, who also describes Rangers supporters using the bigoted term 'Hun', and many other people either in the written media, radio, or television, who have described us as Huns, scum, knuckle draggers, and worse. Individually Rangers supporters are not recognised; instead they are merely categorised into a group.

We also have sectarian bigots such as Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, writing sectarian blogs in which Rangers supporters are described Rangers as 'Herrenvolk' and 'the Klan.'

Remember this part?

'Another factor which facilitates dehumanisation, is deindividuation. This is a psychological process, whereby individuals are seen a member of a category or group, rather than being seen as a person. This process of deindividuation serves to promote the image that those individuals should be viewed as less than fully human. It then becomes easier to rationalise contentious moves or severe actions taken against them.'

Never though, has the process of the dehumanisation of the Rangers Football Club and its supporters been more apparent than in the aftermath of the events last Saturday which saw Rangers football players, Rangers officials, and Rangers supporters attacked and assaulted by supporters of Hibernians FC.

What followed Hibs deserved Cup Final success after 114 years of misery, was disgraceful, disgusting, and totally unacceptable in this day and age.

Rioting Hibs supporters, illegally invaded the Hampden pitch. They then attacked Rangers players, Rangers officials, and advanced the full length of the Hampden pitch, to goad and attack the Rangers supporters. Less-abled Rangers supporters, men, women, and children, feared for their safety as Hibs thugs spat at them, and attempted to get over the barriers and into those Rangers supporters who had remained until the final whistle. It should be noted, that prior to, and immediately after the final whistle, the majority of Rangers supporters had already began leaving Hampden Park, and most were oblivious to what was unveiling on the pitch. With Police Scotland officers seemingly more interested in recording Rangers supporters in the Hampden stands, and stewards: rightfully unwilling to put themselves in danger by attempting to intervene in what was essentially major public disorder, some Rangers supporters left the Hampden stands and confronted the Hibs supporters. A small number confronted the Hibs supporters, forcing them to retreat back beyond the half way line, where Police Scotland were able to control them with the arrival of mounted police.

It is to be noted that Rangers supporters did not try at any time to instigate attacks on Hibs supporters once they appeared to be backing away; instead the Rangers supporters returned to the Hampden stands.

Since then, instead of fair and balanced reporting and condemnation of the Hibs supporters who assaulted Rangers players, officials and supporters, we have seen no apologies, and instead the focus has now been turned back onto the Rangers Football Club and its supporters. An official statement from our club has been attacked by the first Minister Nicola Sturgeon: who is herself married to a Hibs supporter. Others quick to attack the statement include discredited reporters such as Graham Spiers, media correspondent with sympathies to the Irish Republic, Tom English, and the likes of Hibs Chairman, Rod Petrie, oh and don't forget self-admitted former football hooligan Stuart Cosgrove.

Did I fail to mention Police Scotland? My apologies, because according to Jane Hamilton of the Daily Record, (the aforementioned sectarian bigot); according to Police Scotland, it was Rangers supporters fault that a swift Police response to the actions of the sectarian bigots who followed Hibs, illegally invading the pitch and attacking Rangers players, officials and supporters was not possible.

The dehumanisation of Rangers Football Club and its supporters has left us with this. We have no human rights, no right to sympathy, no right to be classed as an equal, no right to be allowed an opinion, no right for morality or justice, and we no longer have the freedom to be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect.

In short; due to the dehumanisation of Rangers Football Club and us, as its supporters, it appears to be that our basic human rights are now non-applicable, and irrelevant, and any harm that befalls us acceptable, warranted, and morally justified.

We are not allowed to be victims, because maybe someone may have sympathy to us, therefore the dehumanisation of our club, its supporters, and the PUL community, must continue.

Maybe that was the end game all along?