As a result of last night's bizarre episode, I was left with little option but to block another batch of 'trendy Yessers' on Twitter, so perhaps now I have even less to lose by saying what I think about the latest controversy related to Wings. I am, to put it mildly, a bit bemused by the suggestion that Stuart Campbell is causing a "schism" in the Yes movement simply by seeking legal redress. If a schism occurs over this (and I don't think it will), it'll happen because some people have lost their sense of perspective about Stuart to such an extent that they feel he shouldn't be able to exercise his basic legal rights. In the first instance, this is a private matter between Stuart and Kezia Dugdale as individuals. But, in order to bring a legal action against Ms Dugdale, Stuart requires funds. Some people have sufficient private means to go to court, but those that don't have to seek alternative methods. There is nothing illegitimate in the method Stuart has selected. On the face of it, it's very hard to see why anyone thinks they have a right to be angry about what he's done so far.
It seems to me the subtext of the complaints (and for the most part it is only a subtext) is that Stuart is 'obviously' guilty of homophobia, and that the court action is compounding it - in other words that taking Ms Dugdale to court is in itself a form of homophobia. That's getting into very dangerous territory, and it will come back to bite people if a judge decides that Stuart is not homophobic and was defamed. It may be a different story if the opposite verdict is reached, but that's a very big 'if', and at the moment too many people are putting the cart before the horse.
My own personal view is that what Stuart said about David Mundell was extremely hurtful but not homophobic. The comment would have been particularly wounding because it went to the heart of the experience of gay men in a society that doesn't accept them - ie. not being able to be true to themselves to such an extent that they might find a life partner of the opposite sex and start a family with them. It also arguably implied that any children that result from such a relationship 'shouldn't have happened', which is profoundly insulting for the individuals involved. But that's the point - it was insulting and hurtful for the individuals. To have crossed the boundary and actually become homophobic, I believe the comment would have had to say that society is/was right not to be accepting of gay relationships, and in fact it did the complete opposite.
The other justification for the "schism" argument is that Stuart is demanding support for his case as a "test of loyalty". As far as I can see, that's wholly untrue. He was irritated by attacks on him from the direction of CommonSpace, largely because he had strongly backed that website's editor in her dispute with the Sunday Herald and felt he deserved better as a result. But 'deserving better' does not necessarily mean active support - it could have just meant the absence of a rather gratuitous savaging. The idea that Stuart is trying to set himself up as some kind of overlord of the Yes movement is...well, it's a pretty obvious straw man.
I think that some are letting personal feelings twist their morals' arm. Others just don't do confrontation. I'm 100% in favour. Kezia has accused a person of something that blackens their character. If she'd done the same to me I'd be absolutely Gerald the Gorilla. What she's done goes far beyond a single person too. The entire Yes movement gets relentlessly and arbitrarily accused of being divisive, hateful, racist, homophobic, pick-an-ism, etc, etc. This kinda thing needs to be spanked blue.
ReplyDeleteIt's a class action. Rev Stu is selecting one insult as a proxy for many. Scots who wish for independence are insulted and slandered on a routine daily basis. We must bite back, and the political right must discover that, despite their broad spectrum media support, they are not untouchable.
ReplyDeletei know you've had your own differences with Stu so I'm heartened to see you defend him on this.
Good points never thought of it that way.
DeleteThat's my take. Yes, I'm sure Stu's comments were vicious and hurtful in the way you describe but I temper that with the knowledge that Mundell is vicious and hurtful towards Scotland and it's people every single day so people shouldn't shed too many tears when he gets a bit of Well-earned Karma. Sure, a cheap shot but this is a war against Scotland as far as I'm concerned and I have no qualms about the good guys taking the gloves off; in fact it's very long overdue.
Delete@maxstafford
DeleteI agree with you absolutely.
A lot of people are trying very hard to conflate Stu Campbell's tweets with the posts on Wings. The tone of both is quite different. I'm a follower of both so I can tell.
For a start there is hardly any Bullseye on Wings website ;-)
I have had some serious differences with Stu, but this is one case where he is 100% in the right. Being LGBT (and it happens I am) does not put us above criticism. It doesn't even put us above mean jokes, which the one Stu made was. I've been accused, by both James and Stu, of being excessively PC but I see no homophobia in the comment. As an LGBT person who did marry to hid my sexuality and had a child, I would have found the comment extremely hurtful aimed at myself, but it would have been hurtful not because it was homophobic but because it targeted my own choices.
ReplyDeleteDo you dress up in girlies clothing or has such clothing been declared unisex!
DeleteState of this.
DeleteWell said!
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of Stuart Campbell but I would not for one moment question his integrity.
ReplyDeleteDugdale ???
This 'test of loyalty' nonsense must be coming from the same crowd shouting 'schism'?? What is wrong with these people? They sound like Unionists. It's not a test, and if anyone thinks that, then leave the convo, forum etc. You would think he was demanding something! It's voluntary whether you engage. If I don't agree, I leave the thread discussion.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't Stu's first rodeo, he knows what he's doing, and he's seeking to protect his professional reputation, exactly the same as when the Scotsman had to pay damages for misrepresenting him.
He certainly doesn't need me or anyone to defend him, but it sickens me that they lambast him for seeking redress for defamation, which is his legal right, regardless of what you think of him or his remarks.
As someone who is ostensibly a gay man (although I refuse to accept the need for labelling myself in this way), I fail to see how Stu's comments about Mundell are in any way homophobic. They are the polar opposite. I can understand why Dugdale would attempt to make political capital from them, but it was a particularly stupid thing for her to have done. Good luck to her, but I don't think she'll win the case and I wonder what effect it may have on her position at the Branch Office.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 'trendy Yessers', who cares? Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, isn't a domain for cogent, sensible discourse; it's chock-full of idiots; and moaning about people's behaviour on there is a bit like expressing surprise at the contents of the Daily Mail's letter's page.
Well, it's certainly not always like that. I've had plenty of unpleasant experiences on social media (including some that were far worse than last night), but I've never before encountered what appeared to be a premeditated, targeted trolling operation from several people who I'd never previously heard of.
DeleteI have experienced that when the trolling was at its worst about the US presidential election. Not fun at all.
DeleteI think the remark is homophobic.
ReplyDeleteLet's assume the law says that you can't insult people *on the grounds* of their gender, race, religion. So if, of well-known black person X, I say, "X is a total loss because, on Brexit, nobody can see where he stands", that doesn't break the law (I haven't insulted him on the grounds of his race). But if I say, "X is a total loss because, when the negotiators are gathered in a darkened room, nobody can see where he stands," then his being black is a material part of my insult, so I've broken the law.
Wings insulted Fluffy on the grounds that his dad should have acted on his homosexuality earlier, and the homosexuality is therefore a material part of the insult. So although I hope Wings wins, and I've contributed to his fundraiser, I hope he has a Plan B.
Wings didn't insult David Mundell, on this occasion, but Oliver Mundell. As such, there is no insult on the grounds of anyone's sexuality, regardless of sexuality being mentioned.
DeleteDo not agree with that reading of the case. The statement makes the point that if Mundell Snr had embraced his sexuality sooner then Mundell Jnr more than likely would not have come into existence. That is just a statement of fact as two gay men can not produce a child if they are together / married. Hurtful yes but it does not say anything about the speaker's views on homosexuality and that is the key point.
DeleteIn addition:
"In Scots Law, an offending statement may not necessarily be defamatory as it may fall into another category of hurtful words, such as being a malicious falsehood or a slander of title. To be defamatory a statement must be false and must lower the defamed in the estimation of right thinking members of society. A court will ask itself what that standard is today as it is within this context that the court will look at the allegedly offending statement. "
As such I believe Wings has a case. The statement made by Dugdale can be argued to be false and it is indeed the case that in this society that being accused of being homophobic does damage ones reputation.
What exactly was the statement made by Dugdale?
DeleteDo the radical left not realise that if they were more inclusive then people may actually vote for them?
ReplyDeletePS contributed to Stuart's fundraiser as well as WGD and IScot fundraisers.
Better that than paying the BBC tax.
Certainly seems to be a great distraction to whatever the britnats are actually doing or not doing to ensure that Scotland is not 'hardest hit' by Brexit. It will be 'hardest hit' and so to have some way of taking peoples' minds off that, is essential. For all you know these twitter trolls could be establishment plants, nothing would surprise.
ReplyDeleteThe britnats hate the fact that pro independence blogs/news/analysis even exists online.
They will do anything to try to stop it, and as that is proving impossible, they will demonise, divide and distract.
Keep up the good work James.
Dugdale was way out of order in her slandering of Stuart and her reason was wholly political. She was attempting to damage anyone associated with WoS, the wider YES campaign and the SNP all at the same time. To take it as far as she did, was a disgrace. She deserves to pay the price in court, whether she will is another thing. She will be protected by the eatablishment, even though she is small fry politically.
Hetty.
establishment, not eat...but almost the same!
DeleteWhat has been totally lost in all this is the implied comment that Mundell Minor is an appalling public speaker and further that his election to public office is nepotism writ large.
ReplyDeleteDugdale is arrogant and ignorant. She defamed Stu in the Daily Record. Stu's lawyers wrote to Dugdale, requesting £10,000 damages.
ReplyDeleteInstead of seeking legal advice, this apparently incensed Dugdale, who seems to think, as a Yoon politician that she is above the law. She also stupidly thought the MSM and BBC would protect her.
S not only ignored the letter, she and compounded her folly by repeating the defamation in Holyrood at First Minister's Questions!
The three questions she is permitted to hold the SNP to account,she squandered on telling the world about the said lawyers' letter and how dreadful it was that she had been 'bullied' in this manner. It begs the question, if she can't stand the cut and thrust of politics she should perhaps think about a different career!
She, bizarrely and ludicrously, labelled, in the chamber, Stu as Sturgeon's 'colleague' when he has never voted or been a member of the SNP party. Stu previously voted Libdem. Dugdale was basically accusing the SNP of promoting alleged homophobia along with Stu!
The MSM and Yoon politicians, like Dugdale, are overcome with quite made jealousy of Wings. They can all only dream of the popularity, loyalty and support which Wings has very much earned, single handedly, in Scotland.
So the MSM and the Yoon politicians deliberately malign and denigrate Stu at every turn. They demonised Salmond during Indyref1 and they are doing it to Sturgeon again now, day in day out.
But the simple fact which Dugdale has missed is that Stu's not standing for election so the Yoons and MSM can't hurt him.
That really really annoys them; they have absolutely no power over Stu at all. Indeed every time they malign him, it has the opposite effect and Stu's ratings and following increases.
Stu dances rings around them all. They have not been able to lay a glove on him but that does not stop them from trying. The MSM plays the Sheriff of Nottingham to Stu's Robin Hood, or even, dare say it, they play Longshanks to Stu's William Wallace. Stu is the guerilla fighter, waging a war of ambush, sabotage, raids, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility of mind against a much larger and less-mobile traditional MSM. Stu is our modern day folk lore hero. That drives Dugdale and the BBC and the daily Record etc. etc. absolutely bat shit crazy. The more they try to stamp him out, the more he jumps back up.
I take my hat off to Stu for his forensic mind which exposes the sheer depth of Yoon lies, day in day out. Hundreds of thousands of Scots read Wings regularly. Just like the SNP, Wings presents a clear and present danger to the British State and they have declared war on Stu's Wings site. They want rid of Wings before Indyref2 is called, that's self-evident. This is a deliberate assault on Wings by the establishment of which Dugdale is a zealot. She's so mad she urged her own party members to vote Tory. Her councillors united with the Tories to form councils the length of breadth of Scotland. The Scots yoons are Britnat zealots. They would rather destroy Scotland than see us indy. They will deploy a scorched earth policy to keep us enthralled to the Union. WE cannot be seen to be a successful part of the UK as this might make us think we can be indy. Project Fear never ended and Dugdale's stunt has boomeranged into defamation.
But the Yoons and Dugdale forgot that Stu is not a political party, he's an individual and he has rights as an individual. He's going to see Dugdale in court and it is right of Stu to take this stand agaisnt the Yoon smears as if we thought Project Fear Mark I was bad, just wait for the flood gates to open on Project Fear Mark II.
Thew other point I'd like to make is that before embarking on the case, Stu held a poll asking his supporters if he should sue Dugdale and 70% said 'go ahead'!
He should do it without further ado and give us a good story to pass the time while you nat sis losers slit your wrists.
DeleteStench of this.
DeleteBang oan, yoan nail-heid. Ah, thoan Bickering Bush.
DeleteDugdale is full of the "poor me,everybody hates me,because I'm a Tory or got dark hair"or some other such nonsense.She seems to have saw an easy way to help her fellow Tory who is big enough and ugly enough to stand up for himself,to me proof that she is a Tory.
ReplyDeleteRight wing nat sis like you would know Tories, simmit and drawers...You nat sis make Thatcher look like an old leftie grandmother. The streets of Glasgow were never like they are today with beggers on every corner and under the Nat si watch...You are a detestable bunch of scum, I have stood on shite but nothing like you lot.
DeleteBetter together you know it makes sense. WATP FTP GSTQ
DeleteImpersonator, I would not be better together with you... I would keep my troosers up...You nat si bum bhoys are the Unionist wet dream.
Delete#impotentrage #snivellingwretch
DeleteWell said and well argued, James. I do not for a moment think the Rev.'s comments were homophobic though they were undoubtedly cutting and hurtful. I have to confess, when I first read the remark, it made me chuckle.
ReplyDeleteI just waded through, till I got tired and stopped reading, the most turgidly written "venerate me 'cos I'm gay" piece of hostile drivel against Campbell by a character called Juan Mac on a Thousand Flowers. Please, Mac, give us a break. Independence campaigners have suffered egregious insults over several years, nazis, primitives, blood & soil nats, thick heads etc.... This move by Dugdale to capitalise on Campbell's remarks, accuse him of homophobia, then repeat them in Parliament, trying to smear the SNP in the mix, is just low, dirty and vile, though perhaps not a surprise, given who she is. Let the courts decide. That's what they are there for.
I would just ask the good Rev. : please think before you sting! We need you. Of course they detest you: you analyse Unionist lies and turpitude with laser-like precision and demolish these charlatans in the most glorious, heart-warming (for indy supporters) manner. No-one has ever to my knowledge faulted you on any fact, not once. You are a true jewel and we are damn glad you are there for us. So from time to time please just hold your tongue, ok?! Those witticisms are best left unprinted. We don't need another distraction like this. We need you for the main game