Wings of Scotland court case

Fan girls

Young females equipped with hand held devices for cooling down

There is not a soul in a bar in Scotland wouldn't read that as the joke it is, nothing homophobic about it.

Well said, Speak Up

I'm sure his fan girls on here more than made up for anything I said. I found the defences of him on here very hard to take seriously. As for lecturing me on what I should say, could you be any more pompous?

What do you find "so bizarre" about Scotland and England having different legal systems?

Scotland has always had a robust attitude to defamation with the requirement that the defamation should involve actual harm- that any right thinking person would think less of the person being defamed. Your final point is irrelevant in relation to defamation.

LassOfFyvie you have used this thread as your personal soapbox for Wings bashing throughout to the point of total derailment almost and totally ignored or berated any post that doesn't comply with your incredibly blinkered opinion. You seem to be taking any discussion of this case extremely personally which unfortunately makes it very difficult to consider anything you say seriously. Consider a different approach for a different outcome.

That Scotsman article is strange, it's a tenuous link to the proposed law change (which is interesting) front lined by an irrelevant lawyer statement. Not sure what the aim is there, is it simply because there have been so few defamation cases? It is bizarre that there is such a huge cultural difference between the Scottish and English system, perhaps that will change as the new Hate Crime nonsense becomes a regular sight in the Scottish Courts and people feel pushed to defend themselves against thought crime and protect free speech?

Oh come off it, you detested him before that

Come off what ? I never said otherwise than I detested him. It is possible to think someone is despicable and that person can continue to behave in ways which make them even more despicable. Corbyn for example manages it on a weekly basis.

Oh come off it, you detested him before that.

LassofFyvieas KD has now herself stated in that quote you posted that she was indeed contacted twice by lawyers on behalf of SCpriorto SC involving the courts, we can put your claim to bed now that he never even tried to settle this out of court. He did. Twice.

He tried to settle it out of court by demanding money with the sums increasing. Settling out of court in that way meant a win for him. The point was whether an apology would have been sufficient and it clearly never was.

I have a vague recollection from law lectures on defamation that there was a requirement that does the defamation make the ordinary person think less of the person being defamed. In this case so far as I'm concerned nothing KD said had that effect. I thought less of SC because of what he said. KD merely brought it to my attention.

It seems there is a postscript to this case.

www.scotsman.com/wings-v-kezia-case-would-be-thrown-out-after-law-shift-1-4913180
Wings v Kezia case would be ‘thrown out’ after law shift

Mr Deane said the abolition of fair comment and the introduction of a new defence of “honest opinion” would make it even harder for pursuers.

He said: “All Dugdale would have required to do was argue that the statement complained of was her honest opinion and have given, in general terms, some of the factors on which that opinion was based.”

I have mixed feelings about this proposed change. (Scotland only).

It would work both ways. I do note that it would be harder to pursue litigatious defamation cases or cases where pursing defamation is being used in an effectively malicious way. However it depends on what other changes to the law there are that go on along side it in other areas.

It generally speaking would be a good move for protecting free speech.

LassofFyvie as KD has now herself stated in that quote you posted that she was indeed contacted twice by lawyers on behalf of SC prior to SC involving the courts, we can put your claim to bed now that he never even tried to settle this out of court. He did. Twice.

FYI KD could have settled this out of court without paying a penny had she apologised, but as I am not in a position to prove this, you may chose to disregard this assertion.

What you cannot disregard is that he did try to settle this out of court and that while there is massive disagreement over whether this joke was homophobic or not, the judge declared it not to meet objective criteria for homophobia.

I have been be the butt of many xenophobic jokes for the past 25 years because of my nationality. So have all my compatriots. Many of these "jokes" are incredibly hurtful, and they are made by large numbers of people from the lowest to the highest levels in this country. Freely, happily and with complete abandon. Splattered across front pages, on TV, on radio, on social media. Today, tomorrow and I doubt it will ever stop. Some tell the same kind of tasteless jokes that SC made, some shout their unfettered hatred in my face (though it is a thankfully rare occurrence in Scotland).

When it comes to righteous anger about abusive jokes, I can't help but reflect this tweet comes nowhere near what other groups go through (by which I do not mean myself, but my experience does put things into perspective for me).

And I find it patronising to the extreme to state that gay people can't ever be the butt of jokes, even tasteless jokes like this one, because of their sexuality.

But as I've said, I am torn about this judgement. If I'm honest, I wanted neither party to win. However, the finding KD has indeed defamed him but that that is okay seems to go against my understanding of defamation laws and to give immense power to the establishment. Which is why I'm reading emerging legal comments with great interest.

Lass
You think the joke was homophobic - I don't
KD thinks it was homophobic - the judge didn't.
Differences of opinion are the stuff of life and the judge more or less said this was not a matter for a court of law.
I can't think of any of the gay men I've known who would be as 'offended' by this joke as you seem to be. I have heard jokes a lot worse than this. This extreme reaction is counterproductive.

I suppose I should apologism for joking about you having a crush on Jim Davidson. You have mentioned they in so many posts so we should all respect your feelings for him/her/they, avoiding any misgendering of course. Love whoever you want to.

Aplogism.

Another one for the SJW dictionaries. And who the fuck is Jim Davidson and does he know you want to meet him so badly?

More apologism I see. Clearly in some cases being "gender critical" does drive anything and everything else out.

I'm not treating anyone as being too delicate- I'm questioning why anyone would feel the need to make a joke where the punchline of it depends on someone holding a certain protected characteristic. A joke which wasn't funny to begin with but depends entirely on that one aspect. The sort of humour which even in the 70s was looking a bit tired. Is Jim Davidson still appearing anywhere?

People who get offended on someone else's behalf are usually worth avoiding IME.

Can't read it but it sounds good. Being strong and being stoical are very under rated at the moment, unless you have cancer and then you aren't allowed to be weak and have to "fight" it and be a "survivor" and go on marathons etc. Everyone else campaigns for victim status and compensation for their pain and suffering and special laws to protect their protected characteristics.

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/power-fragile-now-get-attention-status/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_em

A timely piece from Stella about the power fragility has. This has made me think how bizarre this case is, two people using the courts to shout at each other about the assumed fragility of a third party

It is an interesting case and my comments relate to that, it's definitely a quite questionable viewpoint to assume motivations are invariably bigoted or phobic and you feel offended on their behalf because you think their characteristics make them inherently beyond normal treatment?

It has gone a bit "you either love Campbell or you hate him" on this thread.

That's too binary for me, since I think it's actually possible to be somewhere in between.

I think it's quite extreme to characterise anyone that thinks joking about aspects of people as automatically anti that aspect of human life. Or somehow unable to joke without being offensive or from the 70s or Rod Liddle or however else you wish to characterise bad people.

This really is intolerant behaviour. I can make jokes without being offensive. If you are unable to imagine that is possible then I would suggest that opening you might consider the idea that treating everyone as too delicate to laugh at jokes about characterics they may possess is quite offensive in itself.

"denounce and shun" doesn't sound like intolerant bigotry at all.
They're both as bad as each other.
I was surprised such a fervent Scottish nationalist chooses to live in England, softie southerner England at that. It's easy to say a small country should be independent from a large one if you don't have to live in and face the consequences of that decision.

strangely calling him a colleague of the First Minister and demanding that they condemn him

She didn't call him a colleague of Sturgeon. She clearly referred to 3 SNP msps- who clearly are colleagues of Sturgeon who appear to promote Campbell.

The Labour MSP said she had received a lawyer's letter demanding £10,000 for "damage to reputation" on behalf of the site's founder, Stuart Campbell, after she accused him of homophobia

Miss Dugdale used the weekly session to call on Ms Sturgeon to order SNP members to "denounce and shun" the controversial pro-independence website Wings Over Scotland

Ms Sturgeon told MSPs: "Kezia Dugdale is asking me about this today because she hopes it means I won't be able to remind her that her colleagues in Aberdeen yesterday voted for a Tory administration there."

The Labour leader insisted: "When my colleagues do something I disagree with, I take action. I'm asking the First Minister to do the same."

Ms Dugdale said elected SNP politicians, including senior members of the Scottish Government, "positively engage" with Wings Over Scotland by retweeting its comments - saying this group included Finance Secretary Derek Mackay, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson and transport minister Humza Yousaf

Two months later, she smeared him in parliament to score points against the SNP, strangely calling him a colleague of the First Minister and demanding that they condemn him.

For background to those outside Scotland, although he runs a pro-indy blog, Campbell is not a member of the SNP and according to himself has never even voted for them.

IMO the joke is not about homosexuality

No, of course it isn't. I guess I'm just stupid, like Kezia, the Mundells, the bloke from Stonewall and plenty of other people who commented on it.

I am puzzled why some of you are falling over yourselves to defend this man. It's not even the same way that the likes of Rod Liddle or Piers Morgan get treated when they say the odd thing you (general you) agree with. They are accepted for that one thing but that doesn't prevent the operation of all critical faculties. The apologism for SC is bizarre.