On 28 July a gender critical woman demonstrator, Julie Marshall, was “punched in the face” by a political opponent in Aberdeen. The man who struck her was questioned and issued with a police caution not to punch people.
He was neither arrested nor charged.
A month later, Scottish Government minister Patrick Harvie was giving a TV interview at the scene of the forthcoming Rutherglen byelection when a man heckled him, calling him a “deviant”. Harvie responded that the man was a “bigot”.
The heckler has now been arrested and charged, though when Stuart Campbell spoke with Police Scotland, they refused to confirm with what offence he had been charged.
Now we might conclude from this that Police Scotland believe it is not a serious criminal matter to punch a woman in the face in the street, but it is a serious matter to call someone a deviant in the street.
Or we might conclude that Police Scotland is very heavily politicised. That it is at the beck and call of ministers. That it has taken sides in the “culture wars” debate that poisons Scottish politics.
The latter explanation is obviously true. This is not an isolated incident;
- The prosecution of Mark Hirst for saying that those who plotted to fit up Alex Salmond would “reap the whirlwind”.
- The prosecution of David Llewellyn for a Facebook joke saying Angus Robertson should be dumped in the Water of Leith.
- The prosecution of Marion Millar for gender critical tweets so inoffensive the Crown Office had to drop it after the case had started
- My own jailing for “jigsaw identification clues” on the perjurers against Salmond, no greater than – and mostly identical to – many “clues” published by pro-Sturgeon journalists on much bigger platforms
- The arrival of two senior detectives at my home just three hours after I stated that I have Stewart MacDonald MP’s leaked emails – which, as they acknowledged, is no crime
- The three weeks warning given to SNP Ministers by Chief Constable Iain Livingstone of the progress of Operation Branchform, leading to Sturgeon’s resignation and giving ample time to dispose of evidence before the theatre of search tents
I could go on. Police Scotland, like the Crown Office, is thoroughly politicised. It is used as a personal tool against the perceived enemies of Scottish ministers. It has taken sides in the culture wars.
If you are on the “wrong” side, you will get prosecuted for an innocuous tweet or a remark in the street. If you are on the “right” side, you can punch women in the face or parade a sign calling for the decapitation of those who disagree with you, and face no legal jeopardy.
But, you say, surely it is wrong to call people “deviant”?
Well, I do not approve of yelling “deviant” at people in the street. It has unpleasant connotations. But I am absolutely opposed to the ever increasing encroachment of the power of the state into the lives of ordinary people.
The coercive power of the state is an awesome thing to set in motion, and terrifying to those it is used against. It is entirely disproportionate in a case like this.
Patrick Harvie is a government minister. He is used to the give and take. His robust reply of “Bigot” was an appropriate and sufficient response. That should have been an end to it.
Harvie is hardly a virgin in the rough and tumble of politics. Harvie was himself rebuked by Age Scotland only a week ago for dismissing the views of individuals on the grounds that they are old. Is ageism somehow a more acceptable prejudice than (alleged) homophobia?
Politicians should beware of ageism. Older people have a much higher propensity to vote.
With Scotland’s notorious Hate Crime Act due to come into force shortly and make this kind of prosecution much more common, I wish to reinforce the argument against over-use of the power of the state.
Modern discourse has lost sight of the fact that behaviour can be unpleasant and even morally wrong, without being illegal. It is thankfully impossible to involve the state in every social transgression, but its sphere is ever-widening.
Social sanction not involving the state is important. If a person is a routine adulterer, making the life of their partner a misery, they are likely to lose a number of friends and be socially shunned. We do not have them arrested for the bad behaviour.
Similarly if I come to a dinner party and make fun all evening of your big ears and bad cooking, you will presumably never invite me again and the other people present will be likely to follow suit. That is social sanction.
There is also the question of what is criminal and what is civil.
The defamation courts are open to Mr Harvie if he feels he was unfairly called a deviant. Interestingly, “vulgar abuse” has always been excluded from defamation. Just hurling silly abuse has not been taken as a legal matter, and I suspect that is how both sides of the “Deviant!”, “Bigot!” exchange would be viewed by a court.
I always turn to John Stuart Mill in these questions as a source of great wisdom, and to those who would scoff, I would add that there is no doubt that were it not for the profound influence of the philosophy of Mill on British political society, homosexuality would never have been legalised in the first place, or at least not for many more years.
In On Liberty, Mill cautions heavily against over involvement of the state in correcting actions even when they are harmful to others:
“The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects the interests of others society has jurisdiction over it, and the question of whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion…
…But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good, than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort.”
Mill also argues that the effect of speech should be viewed in context. He gives the famous example that to argue that corn merchants are thieves who starve the poor is a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion. But to yell the same thing to a howling mob armed with torches outside a corn merchant’s house at midnight might be a different thing.
This I think is useful guidance in the Harvie case. As I said, I don’t really approve of calling people deviants, but to use it to a powerful politician in his pomp, surrounded by aides and police and giving a TV interview, is one thing.
If a gang of big blokes were following a gay person at night down a dark street yelling “deviant” at them, the situation and the perceived threat would be entirely different.
Mill is absolutely right to say that context is important. The word deviant in itself has very different nuances in different contexts, not all insulting.
What should be plain to any person with any instinct for freedom and democracy is that the greatest danger to society in this particular situation is the abuse of power, by or on behalf of a powerful minister, against a member of the public attempting to make his peaceful protest known, albeit not as perfectly as we might wish.
To leave the particular for the general, this is part of the Scottish Government’s reliance on culture wars as the wedge issue which firstly, removed the fundamentalist Independence supporters from the SNP, and secondly, they hope will keep them in power on a specifically generational political platform.
The claim of various minority personal identities by Scottish government politicians has become an intrinsic part of their political culture. There has in particular been a remarkable foregrounding of sexual identity as part of political life.
Now I am entirely tolerant and non-judgmental on different sexual identities, as long as neither children nor coercion are involved.
But to me politics is about the governance of society in a way that improves the lot of those masses living in poverty, with few economic or social opportunities for advancement, condemned to lives of insecurity and struggle.
Politics is not about how middle class people choose to sexually pleasure themselves or their fashion choices.
It is now generally understood that identity politics has been used to neuter class politics on the left. That instead of focusing on the need to redistribute wealth, political power and personal agency to the working class, energy has been diverted into ending discrimination for minority groups, to the extent that putting very wealthy women in power becomes a “victory” even when, once there, the very wealthy woman does nothing to eliminate child poverty.
Humza Yousaf writes in the Guardian, not about Scottish Independence or even wealth inequality, but about “toxic masculinity“.
I am not sure I understand this subject. Would, for example, having sex with a female assistant working directly to you, then accepting large cash donations from her father to pave her way to a lucrative job, be an example of “toxic masculinity”?
In the SNP this obsession with identity politics has become institutionalised, part of the very fabric of the organisation itself.
On the ruling body, the SNP National Executive, members elected by the entire membership are substantially outnumbered by members appointed by affiliated minority groups, sometimes with only a couple of hundred members.
Any notion of selection on merit through the party’s democratic processes has been dispensed with entirely. All women shortlists, which were initiated on a firm promise they would be for one election only, have become permanent. Most pernicious of all, the effects of preference for disabled candidates – self-declared as such – gave some truly bizarre results.
In possibly the worst of these, Emma Roddick received just 3% of the vote to be selected as the MSP candidate, but was promoted top of the list due to mental illness. There are many similar examples.
Now as a lifelong sufferer from bipolar myself, I don’t think anyone should be unfairly disadvantaged from mental illness, but to be made an MSP because of poor mental health is just strange.
When I was in the FCO I never thought I should be made Ambassador to the United Nations because I was bipolar.
It would have been most amusing if, when I came second to Mike Russell in election for President of the SNP, I had been declared the winner because I am bipolar!
The result of all this is that Scotland is governed by politicians whose primary political identity is their personal victimhood, be it through gender, race, sexual orientation or disability.
They continually wave the bloodied bandages of their personal victimhood at us – and they have their own Police Scotland Gestapo ready to arrest anyone who dares to impugn it.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Well said.
In defence of Polis Scotland (the rank-and-file at least) they are following the letter of the law. There’s a lengthy thread posted by Roddy Dunlop KC on this.
Misogyny is not a recognised aggravating factor in the Hate Crime Bill (still to be enacted HCB).
Oor “feminist to her fingertips” former FM engineered this.
The defence case in this most recent outrage should in theory be a donner in the park.
Harvie is frequently in the company of known paedophiles, indeed, in the past he has praised these individuals.
In practice, “should” and actual are not necessarily concurrent in our corrupt legal system.
Perhaps the regime’s trusted Roland McFreisler, Leonna Dorrian will be given the case?
was there not an association with PIE upper ‘echelon’ a number of years ago?
Forgive my ignorance but what is PIE?
If one types it in a search engine, each letter separated by a full stop and using capitals, thy cup shall overflow.
wrong… it would be easier for others if people said what PIE is supposed to stand for..
living in canada, the search engine gives me prince edward island, and i have the letter in the proper order P I E
Worked for me old bean, I use DuckDuckGo
Expecting others to service your information needs seems a perilous strategy
Especially when we consider a part of the statement Mr Murray appends to each post he writes ” the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council “. These entities would happily service you in so many ways. So I think self-service is the order of the day but I’m sure you know what is best for you.
‘Strewth…
Are you sure you want independence, if this is the way they carry on with the devolved power already granted? I mean, this is entirely generated through internal politics, and not through any external influences, right?
We seem to be heading in the direction of thought-crime here. I’m puzzled why these prosecutions you’ve mentioned aren’t simply laughed out of court, with the police warned not to waste the court’s time in this fashion.
It’s not just Scotland, though. I have been surprised at the reaction of some otherwise sensible, right-on commentators who get all shouty and sweary, if it’s even quietly suggested that – perhaps – a trans woman (formerly male) competing against more ordinary types of women makes the competition a tad unfair.
Well, the simple answer is that all this is happening with the union. The deeper one is that this is all a direct consequence of the Union’s infantilisation of Scottish politics.
glenn_nl
” I mean, this is entirely generated through internal politics, and not through any external influences, right?”
If as Craig says ‘On the ruling body, the SNP National Executive, members elected by the entire membership are substantially outnumbered by members appointed by affiliated minority groups, sometimes with only a couple of hundred members’, the question arrises ‘who controls the affiliated minority groups?’ They might be dependent on grants from NGOs with connections outside of Scotland who can thus influence the SNP National Executive.
The SNP is penetrated by MI5 from the top down and through and through.
A French philosopher stated that your personality depends on the relation between the individual self and the collective us.
If the ‘collective us’ is predominant, you have a traditional personality, driven by honor (‘He had to kill his sister to save his honor’). That personality has a strong sense for tradition (if it was good enough yesterday no reason to change today) and hierarchy.
If there is an equilibrium between the self and the collective, you have a modern personality, driven by moral choice. Such a person trusts science, and is forward looking (‘tomorrow will be bright’).
But there is a 3rd way. When the self is predominant, you have contemporary personality. That kind of personality is not looking to the past nor to the future, but only the present. It is not driven by honor or obligation, but by hedonism. As it does not know about “society”, they are always a victim, and people that do act are heroes.
And whenever I look at what is happening in society, that frame of perception helps me in understanding. It explains why “modern” people run from fad to fad. As Craig explains, society today is full of victims. From a ‘contemporay personality’ point of view, the standard view that scientists know things, disappears : a talking head selling toothpaste is no better nor worse than a talking head selling Covid vax; scientists warning about global warming don’t carry more weight than journalists pretending there always have been summers …
The problem is then on how to build a society out of those zombified hedonists claiming to be victims of anything…
Interesting, taking a step back and looking at bigger picture! Clearly many contemporary contemporaries around.
Pardon my ignorance (aggravated by… being French myself), but which philosopher are you referring to?
“scientists warning about global warming don’t carry more weight than journalists pretending there always have been summers …”
Shouldn’t that be “climate scientists warning about global warming don’t carry more or less weight than journalists pointing out there always have been summers …”
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1697018079950016522
Roddy Dunlop KC states the process here
‘an aggravation relates to certain (but not all) characteristics. Thus race is covered. As is religion; and sexual orientation; and gender reassignment.’
‘accordingly, neither an assault on a woman for being a woman, or for being a gender critical woman, is an aggravated crime’
but had that woman stated her belief that the attack was on her ‘sexual orientation’ then the law of aggravation would apply ? (not 100% on that but on a simple reading of the above)
it really is based on what you say to the polis at the time.
the wee green minister, sure as eggs are eggs, laboured the point – as is his wont
“ Similarly if I come to a dinner party and make fun all evening of your big ears and bad cooking,…”
========
A highly unlikely scenario, Craig.
The King will not invite you to dinner and he certainly does not cook for his dinner guests.
I predict you’ll have your friendly local plod knocking on your door again!
I have special seats for them now in my study.
I assume you did not fix the roof and they will be waterboarded. Powerful lamp would enhance the experience
My suggestion is to sprinkle the seats with Itching Powder from the prank shop.
or deploy a partially inflated whoopie cushion containing sulphur dioxide.
Initial reports of the Marshall incident state that the person accused was indeed arrested. Given such events are awash with accusations and counter-accusations, presumably the police got a lot of conflicting accounts. Harvie’s harassment was caught on camera and as a gay man, I happen to think it’s a good thing that people can’t shout clearly homophobic abuse at LGBTQ people on the street without consequence, and it’s weird how it’s almost entirely folk who have never and would never have to experience that who think it should be OK.
You appear utterly incapable to grasp the distinction between thinking something is OK, and thinking something is not OK but is not of sufficient gravity to involve the full might of the state being directed at an individual.
As it happens, I experienced a great deal of homophobic abuse and indeed genuine homophobic violence when at university, as my older friends will recall. I was not in fact gay but “looked like I might be” and spent time with my gay friends.
It seems an increasingly common delusion these days that a perfect world can be created simply by having the state make all bad behaviour illegal.
Friends at the event state that the assailant was definitely NOT arrested but taken aside and ‘spoken’ to.
He spent the rest of the event skulking around the perimeter.
The whole thing was filmed and the attending officers shown the footage, hence the mystification at the lack of formal charges.
Was he harassed, or was it someone passing an opinion?
Was calling him ‘deviant’ genuinely homophobic abuse (Harvie himself has used the expression on a number occasions)
Was it meant as ‘homophobic’?
politics is about the governance of society in a way that improves the lot of those masses living in poverty, with few economic or social opportunities for advancement, condemned to lives of insecurity and struggle.
Exactly..
The word “crisis” now comes after ‘Cost of Living’, the NHS, housing, business, and social care. People are struggling to live; not able to see a GP or dentist in a suitable time, and education in tatters with teachers at breaking point.
And what does Sir Keir stand for? Nothing! – except achieving power by treachery from within the senior elements of his own ranks – Hence undermining his Deputy and Corbyn’s demise.
“And what does Sir Keir stand for? Nothing! ”
He’s another politician who seems to think he has a right to speak without being heckled.
It’s about time we started putting “sir” in inverted commas, before the likes of “Sir” Starmer, to express our contempt for such a ludicrous supposed honorific.
Great column though you miss one key point. Harvie is literally, indisputably a deviant
“departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behaviour”
He is a proponent of queer theory that has deviancy at its core. He thinks boys can be girls and girls can be boys. He wants to smash accepted thinking, behaviours and institutions that have served us well for hundreds of years. He is a deviant. Only in his mind is the conflation between ‘deviant’ and ‘homosexual’.
Let’s pray this goes to court and plays out to a full public gallery.
Good point.
D: “He thinks boys can be girls and girls can be boys.”
Well of course they can be! Haven’t you heard ‘Lola’ by the Kinks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CzrYXcXweI&ab_channel=TheKinks
“Haven’t you heard ‘Lola’ by the Kinks?”
But that ended up in bitter disappointment and anger when the “girl” was found not to be.
No it wasn’t, are you sure you’re remembering it correctly?
Then I looked at her, and she at me
Well, that’s the way that I want it to stay
And I always want it to be that way for my Lola
Lo lo lo lo Lola
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
Except for Lola
Lo lo lo lo Lola
Well, I’d left home just a week before
And I’d never ever kissed a woman before
But Lola smiled and took me by the hand
She said, “Little boy, gonna make you a man”
Well, I’m not the world’s most masculine man
But I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man
And so is Lola
Lo lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola
Nope – definitely no “bitter disappointment and anger” there.
Well done Craig. Spot on with your analysis. I’m ashamed to be Scottish by the antics of this mob. Like many others I’m very careful what I say.
Many of those who will vigorously enforce the Hate Crime Act will be on the slopes of Ibrox Park this weekend, giving full-throated voice to the only hate for which Scotland is notorious. Perhaps some of those who enacted it too.
There’s plenty of doubt that JS Mill had anything to do with the current equality of hetero- and homosexual relationships in the eyes of UK law. ‘On Liberty’ was published in 1859. The amendment which criminalized gross indecency between men (under which Oscar Wilde was convicted and sentenced to two years hard labour*) was added to the statute books in 1885. That law was repealed in England & Wales by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which legalised homosexual acts between no more than two men both above the age of 21 – whereas in Scotland, people had to wait until 1980 for that. The ages of consent were finally equalised at 16 in England, Wales & Scotland in 2000, and in Northern Ireland in the Year of our Lord 2009.
Here’s a question: Should you allowed to call Harvie a deviant in the street without risk of criminal prosecution if you’re a roid-ridden 6 foot 10 No 4 lock for Edinburgh Academicals, who’s been getting lairy of an evening, and are making your way to the next drinking establishment with your fellow forwards? After all, he could always retort with: “Whereas you’ve allowed yourself to be filmed with your head between other men’s sweaty arses, mate. Nothing deviant about that!”
* These days Oscar wouldn’t have to do hard labour, but he might go to jail if it could be proven that he knew that the rent-boys he frequented were under 18. Even if it couldn’t, his career as a public figure would certainly be over: look at Schofield – all he did was to have a consensual sexual/romantic relationship with someone who was four years over the age of consent when it started.
If you look at the debate around the question in the 1960’s, including in the newspapers and in the debates in Parliament, you will find Mill extensively referred to.
If you don’t understand people like Roy Jenkins and Jo Grimond were consciously following Mill, you have a poor grasp of the period.
Thanks for your reply Boss. I think I can be excused for having a poor grasp of the period as, at the time, I wasn’t even a twinkle in my parents’ eyes. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to go trawling through Hansard, but I strongly suspect that a parliament composed almost entirely* of Labour MPs (many of them trade unionists from the manual professions) and Tory MPs (most of them with the traditional Tory – and indeed English – disdain for philosophers) would have been making much mention of JS Mill in the Sexual Offences Bill debates, and if they were, I very much doubt that he would have swayed their votes: I reckon that Labour MPs voted for legalisation of gay sex because it was seen the modern, progressive thing to do, Tories voted for it because they thought that the State shouldn’t get involved in people’s private lives if they’re not scaring the horses, and the MPs that voted against it did so mainly for religious reasons. If you were reading about JS Mill and the Sexual Offences Bill debates in the newspapers in 1966, British newspapers must have changed a lot, and you must have been a precocious child.
* As Cyril Smith was not yet an MP, Jo Grimond’s Liberals could have all fitted into a taxi.
I think your youth lets you down.
Parliament was once full of really interesting, heavyweight people on both Labour and Tory benches who were widely read, serious and wrote proper books themselves. You are just wrong. Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Jim Callaghan, Michael Foot, Denis Healey, Iain MacLeod, Robert Rhodes James, Gerald Nabarro, Nicolas Fairbairn, Enoch Powell – all of them would have been very well acquainted with Mill’s On Liberty.
It was a very different age. An entirely different calibre of politician.
Not much has improved in leadership over the years, has it? I wonder if its caused by mass media, the need to give slick, PR formed presentation at all time, the soundbite, and advertising in general. The notion that everyone is pretty stupid and uninformed, so sophisticated answers and positions would simply not be understood – the philosophy of advertising in general.
I heard a good argument recently that every field of human endeavour has improved enormously over the decades and indeed centuries, and we can achieve some truly remarkable things when we decide to do so – with one very great exception:
Leadership is absolutely terrible, particularly in large, important countries, and seems to be getting significantly worse. It cannot respond to dire requirements when it comes to preventing war and the destruction of our environment, meeting the most basic needs of the people, producing what they promise, making life more fair and agreeable…. in fact, it’s hard to think of an area of life in which leadership does not let us down extraordinarily badly.
Thanks again for your reply Boss. I’d put a grand on at evens that at least one of those wouldn’t have read ‘On Liberty’. Even if they all had, that’s ten out of 630 – as well as parliamentary heavyweights, you also get plenty of middleweights, featherweights & bantamweights.* Robert Rhodes James wasn’t elected to parliament until 1976; Nicholas Fairbairn not until 1974. The latter described anal sex between men as a psycho-pathogical perversion, so I’d say that whether he’d read Mill or not, he wouldn’t have voted for the Sexual Offences Bill had he been in parliament at the time.
Roy Jenkins was cajoled into giving the bill government time by Leo Abse. I’ve read a couple of the latter’s books in between slaving over a hot isomantle. He had all sorts of ideas about all sorts of things, not least the pyscho-sexual development of one Tony Blair. Believe me, he didn’t need JS Mill to tell him what to think.** Had Mill never existed, it’s likely that gay rights would have emerged in the UK around the time they did, or only slightly later, as part of the general sexual revolution, for which we largely have Mexican yams to thank.
Correction to my above comment: *wouldn’t have been making much mention* Dammit! Should have picked that up. Apologies for any confusion.
* Can any boxing fans tell me why bantamweight is lighter than featherweight when a bantam, albeit small, is a whole chicken?
** He also married his second wife when he was 83 – and she was 33. As far as I know, he was no J. Howard Marshall. These days he’d probably be branded a paedophile groomer.
glenn_nl: I would guess that the real problem is too much time without an unrest cure of some sort. See “The Unrest-Cure” in this book by Saki: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3688/3688-h/3688-h.htm for the origins of the term.
For a country, an unrest cure typically means a big war or a revolution, although a great economic crisis may have a similar effect. The important thing is that the corrupt old structures get utterly destroyed because for a long enough time there is no wealth to siphon off, so upright, well-meaning individuals have more interest in coming to power than the corrupt, and the corrupt do not have much interest in preventing them.
There has been way too much time since Oliver Cromwell. The two world wars had a similar effect, but since the UK was on the winning side in both of them, the effect wasn’t sufficient to prepare for eight decades of peace. To be a bit more explicit, the monarchy comes with institutionalised corrupt structures. Since they survived the war, wide-spread corruption was guaranteed to return quickly.
I was marveling how much knowledge, now esoteric, was needed to get the jokes in “1066 and all that”. I had to check few things myself, e.g. who were “Hengist and his wife (or a horse) Horsa” in actual history, but I got “venomous Beed” even though I was born and educated on the Continent.
Lapsed Agnostic, anecdotally, I was around at the time Mr Murray is talking about and all I know about Mill came out of the speeches and QT appearances of a group of intellectual politicians numbering about twenty, who had mastered the material and could speak freely concerning Mill’s thought.
It spoke to the “post-war consensus” – the war generations. I think Thatcherism killed it off. She spoke of the “enemy within”, heralding a less discursive era, where the politics of confrontation and coercion were more highly valued than the prior form.. Capital became international with the “Big Bang” in 86(?) and labour rights and organising were suppressed. She employed expensive PR companies to market the government’s message to the masses, making intelligent discourse less relevant
Thanks for your reply Will. Question Time, if that’s what you mean by QT, was first broadcast in 1979, 12 years after the Sexual Offences Act came into force. You’re right, Big Bang (no definite article) on the London Stock Exchange did occur in 1986 – more importantly, the Big Bang (with a definite article) happened around 13.8 billion years before.
“happened around 13.8 billion years before”
Got any sources (not wikedped) for this ?
Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thanks for your reply Will. Apologies for my tardy reply – been a bit busy. This Wiki page provides several references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
As it happens, in between naps and protracted phone calls with the lonely women of the parish, my old man has been getting into cosmology, and has been reading several tomes from the library on the topic. Obviously, he doesn’t understand 90% of what’s in them, and is particularly having difficulty with the concept that, rather than occurring at a single point and expanding into empty space, the Big Bang actually happened everywhere and is actually creating space.
Did Julie Marshall press charges against the person who punched her? The police would have to follow up this assault and prosecute the person who did it.
We are all deviating from a sustainable solution to our lives, incl. Mr Harvie. What a prat to call the police, when he knew full well they would take his side.
Thanks for reminding us that election campaigns are now off limit for hecklers.
Btw. how’s the roof coming along?
In my Christian up-bringing I was taught that homosexuality was both sinful and ‘objectively disordered’ (sex being for the purpose of procreation – and homosexual sex very clearly unable to fulfil that objective).
A homosexual person was not per se ‘sinful’ or ‘objectively disordered’ – but if such proclivities were acted upon, the acts were both sinful and ‘objectively disordered’.
Charity precludes unkindness towards such individuals – but that does not extend to their sins – which are to be abominated.
Love the sinner – hate the sin!
The term ‘objectively disordered’ in this context could reasonably be construed as ‘deviant’. And such behaviour could therefore be described by a Christian, in good conscience, as ‘deviant’ – and indeed a Christian would be required to do so.
I have no idea what Mr Harvie’s sexual preferences are, let alone whether he acts, or has acted on them. I understand he describes himself as ‘queer’ – but that to me is a meaningless term – and could simply refer to his appearance and dress sense – which are arguably queer – in the original meaning of that word.
Roddy Dunlop KC states the law involved here:
‘an aggravation relates to certain (but not all) characteristics. Thus race is covered. As is religion; and sexual orientation; and gender reassignment.’
Now let us suppose that a heckler at a political event were to respond to his Christian upbringing and his deeply held religious convictions and describe a known homosexual as ‘deviant’ – that is ‘objectively disordered’.
Would not that person be entitled to his or her defence under the ‘protected characteristics’ described above – in this case ‘religious or philosophical’ belief?
I have little doubt that if such a scenario were to lead to a contest of ‘protected characteristics in a present day court of law, the protected characteristic of honestly held Christian belief would come a poor second to those of ‘sexual orientation’.
It is very clear who has won the ‘culture war’.
“Scotland is governed by politicians whose primary political identity is their personal victimhood, be it through gender, race, sexual orientation or disability.”
Yes, the independence movement, which is dependent on ‘the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group’ (Hechter), Scots in our case, has been hijacked by these various other groups. Helped along by the Brutish state of course. Which explains why the SNP membership has collapsed leaving little more than its payroll rump and some confused bourgeoisie.
I doubt Yousaf (or his predecessor) would understand that Scots are an oppressed ethnic minority group in the UK context; economically plundered, our territory stolen, sovereignty ignored, treaty violated, our culture and languages obliterated. Or that independence means decolonization and liberation from oppression, according to the UN, and postcolonial theory.
There were some funny ideas floating around the world about a hundred years ago. Certain ethnic groups could be legitimately discriminated against, and worse. I’m not talking about such trivial matters as landlords being allowed to advertise “No Niggers. No Irish. No dogs” of course.
You could also be discriminated against on the grounds of politics, who can forget those incarcerated in work camps under ‘Protective Custody’ orders in Germany. As we know, worse was to follow.
The politics of ‘woke’ are extremely reactionary and dangerous to the functioning of a free and fair society. To suddenly find a generation of English Literature students raised on Orwells’ “1984” designing laws on hate crimes is spooky. What is just as scary is they also had an education in Biology, and learned nothing there either.
But remember, ‘The Enlightenment’ came about at the same time as the last person was being hanged for blasphemy. In Edinburgh of all places. Now we just have journalists being imprisoned ready for deportation…_
I really hope Harvie gets his day in court, please let there be a good defence lawyer out there who can rip him a new one.
These sort of authoritarian measures aren’t just indicative of ideology and politicization of state institutions, but rather a sign of decay and insecurity.
The establishment have to increasingly force their quixotic, changeable and arbitrary fads down people’s throats, because they can’t persuade the masses to genuinely accept anything anymore. After all why should anyone ever take at face value; what proven crooks & liars say is righteous, regardless of one’s own world view?
The population of the UK is increasingly cynical & disengaged about the politics and socioeconomic of this country. In ways far deeper than the factional quibbles at Westminster or the East Lothian question.
The UK polity is an utterly moribund neo-liberal regime. That cannot competently govern nor address the serious fundamental issues the country faces. So we get a diet of niche issues, blown out any rational proportion and endless torrents of BS masquerading as political activity & public debate.
I keep expecting the press to run with the thing you suggest could be seen as “toxic masculinity”, but I suppose they are saving it to use when they’ll get most bang for their buck.
No elaboration required very droll Craig.
“Humza Yousaf writes in the Guardian, not about Scottish Independence or even wealth inequality, but about “toxic masculinity“.
I am not sure I understand this subject. Would, for example, having sex with a female assistant working directly to you, then accepting large cash donations from her father to pave her way to a lucrative job, be an example of “toxic masculinity”?”
If you want to see what action Police Scotland take when a man punches a woman in the face, hit your wife, , they will have you out of the marital home, away from aforesaid wife and children if applicable, on the islands it has been known that you have to leave them, thereby losing your income etc, but this was a Transactivist who hit the GC Female so has magic powers that amongst others means can’t be arrested, charged or face a judge, it’s a fecking joke now, but we all know Police Scotland are under orders by Humzas NuSNP, so any transactivist is untouchable
Thanks Wullie for putting a wee bit more flesh on the boneI
I know that the style many publications write in, are deliberately vague to provide interest and online research by readers.
But, as much as it is captivating, it also has an impact that is measurable, it is, imho, more honest and’green’ to bring these important nuances out instantly, if possible, less speculative waffle saves CO2.
An assult was committed against a women and the new domestic violence legislation does not cover it?
But with a credible witness a prosecution would be and still is possible to proceed, unless Im missing something.
P Harvie merely had his ego bent in the limelight, he must like attention to himself and see this pifle as a way to project his sad and sorry backside as he sees fit. He is giving the Green Party of Scotland a reason to eject him, release him from this antedeluvian perception of grandeur with nothing to show for.
Where are the ferries and the two harbors once being touted in your green manifesto? and why do you need the police and courts to pout and tout your useless self.
There, I said and meant it.
Given that the recent FIFA Women’s World Cup was such a deeply significant political event (as well as an enjoyably open and inclusive tournament) on national, colonial and global levels, I wondered how the Scottish Green Party had responded, since their leadership appears to consider ‘women’ an imaginary category. Well, quite reasonably, in the case of Gillian Mackay MSP (perhaps her background in biology helps).
If you want a recent, relevant and well-documented case of toxic masculinity, I suggest consideration of the Spanish Football Federation.
Well-documented? You mean this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12461601/Luis-Rubiales-sends-FIFA-newly-revealed-footage-Jenni-Hermoso-laughing.html:
@witters, no.
I agree, in part. Politicians everywhere have more immediate access to justice and they have access to pro active justice. Ordinary members of the public do not have access to this and unless it’s a serious crime it will be ignored. These days the police cautioning someone is more than would usually happen. This is not right but this is not new.
As for the other examples I’m not sure they’re all relevant to a single point. And quoting Stuart Campbell doesn’t sound good as despite being a former avid reader of his I feel he went too far down the rabbit hole of anti-trans. The fact that anti-trans is where this starts and the examples seem not to be completely on point I’d say that’s the undercurrent of this article.
AFAIK there’s nothing new to report on the trans front. The new law has been successfully prevented and unless there’s a miracle at the Supreme Court it’ll stay that way. The articles being anti-trans rights smack of being a poor winner..
The point is that, while trans rights are obviously the background to this, it is not about trans rights. It is about using the trans rights issue to close down free speech.
I agree Stuart became over-obsessed with the issue, and we discuss our differing view in a frank and friendly way. But I don’t believe in shunning people over a single issue. Actually I am generally against shunning people full stop.
Future candidates for independent Scotland’s Olympic squad:
https://babylonbee.com/news/can-you-spot-the-trans-woman-in-each-of-these-9-photos
JSM did manage to move the more hedonistic versions of Utlitarianism toward a more nuanced contextual narrative.
For instance he redefined the ‘good’ in the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ to encompass a good which was higher in intrinsic value than the more obviously hedonistic visceral and materiallistic interpretations which most then and probably many would still, contend to consititute the totallity of personally acquired ‘good’. He maintained there was a higher good beyond the materialistic. Things like appreciation of art, literature. music. philosophy etc. which were superior to the acquisition of pleasures gained from wealth, power and visceral activities.
Of course, this is open to ready accusations of intellectual snobbery, however I think most people will get what he meant by it, that it was not all about wealth, power and physical gratification.
He was also, as the Utilitarianism principle almost demands it, in favour of democracy, ‘the greater number’. This for him, included emancipation for women also, making him one of the first prominent male feminists.
The rationality of the accountancy logic of Utilitarianism may have have helped herald in democracy but the baggage it carried was this idea of a potential superior good generating elite, those who contribute disproprtionately to the greater good by virtue of the higher nature of the good they pursued. However, this idea no doubt helped sell the idea of democracy to the upper classes because, surely it was they that were that higher good generating demograph. It was they who appreciated the arts and literature and music and philosophy and science etc. so it is they who would remain the drivers, they who would remain in control and it is they who could expect continued appropriately greater remuneration for doing so.
Sadly for that elite, since the democracy Geni has been let out of the bottle, it has all gone pear shaped for them. It is they who are now almost entirely greed-centric and materialsitic and corrupt with the best literature, music, art and technological ideas, God how they hate technology, it spells their final doom, coming from those bloody plebs.
Mr Murray, I don’t always agree with all of your opinions, but on this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with every word you’ve said. I loathe identity politics and all that goes with it. I feel utterly alienated by the SNP, the party for which I voted in every election from 1983 when I was old enough to vote, until its despicable attempt to ruin the life and reputation of Alex Salmond, the man to whom the SNP and all genuine supporters of independence owe everything.
I entirely agree with you that the imperatives of Scottish politics should be to a) secure independence for our country, and b) address inequality and poverty for all of our people, regardless of race, ‘gender’, sex, sexual orientation, or any other identity-group, contrived or otherwise.
As for Mr Harvie, I think politicians who can’t accept a bit of heckling and criticism as an essential part of their job are pathetic cry-babies. If somebody had thumped him, he might have reasonable cause for complaint. I can only assume he didn’t attend the primary and secondary schools that I attended, because if he had, a few uncomplimentary words would have been the least of his worries. Of all people in society, surely politicians, with all their power and privilege, are amongst those who should be most deserving of and least immune from criticism? After all, they consider themselves entitled to dictate and regulate the lives of the rest of us mere ordinary mortals. Why the hell should they be above criticism?
Back in the 1950s, as a primary schoolboy, I accompanied my mother from our Ayrshire home to Peebles, to visit my elder brother, who was away at the annual Scout camp. While we were there each patrol took its turn to provide an entertainment skit.
One such skit involved one in trying to complain about muck being dumped in his garden by a neighbour. In he went, getting no action when the muck was knee-high, waist-high, then chest high – because he wasn’t a member of The Party.
I didn’t understand the skit at the time; but, I now see its relationship to political discourse in Scotland these days.
Only when the complainer went in and gave an obvious Nazi salute, did the party official pay attention, saying: “Ah! I see you are a member of the Party?” The response was: “No, that’s the height of the muck in my garden.”
I suspect, in 2023 Scotland – if you’re a Party insider, you will get action; otherwise, forget it. Is this progress?
If a man decides to punch a woman in the face in Uzbekistan, the result is going to be a LOT different, and he’d be lucky not to get his hands broken to ensure he thinks long and hard before doing something so stupid ever again.
What else can I say? Your resolve to go down with the ship (Scotland) is admirable, even if it is foolish. From a distance, it truly does look like Scotland is rapidly heading towards mass chaos, poverty, and drug addiction.
Sounds like the Labour Party where you can be expelled for liking a tweet from Nicola Sturgeon saying she’s tested negative for Covid if you are on the left of the party, but feted if you called for people to vote for another party to deny Labour a majority in 2019 if you are on the right of the party (eg Tony Blair) https://twitter.com/LaurenJTownsend/status/1583910058793914368?s=20
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tony-blair-tactical-voting-corbyn-johnson-unwise-risk_uk_5ddbba48e4b0d50f32931a10
At least the SNP get criticism from some quarters. What you highlight there of the Labour party is willfully ignored by the press and other political parties, including by Labour’s “far more leftwing” rivals the SNP. All approve because they know it is being done for the greater good as they see it: namely, thwarting meaningful democracy and change.
When «ideology» bestrides the law like a thug the political direction headed is «get your things and leave time» before the 03:45 hammer on your door.
Maybe the ideologists of independence doublespeak have a «new Scottish clearance» an intellectual cleansing in mind?
I do doubt, however, they possess the wit to be so calculating, thugs are not so well endowed in that particular, fortunately.