Wings of Scotland court case

That reasoning: if you don't believe men can change sex you are transphobic, and if you are transphobic, it means you must also be homophobic because LGB and T are pretty much the same thing.

Court back on to Mr Campbell’s views on Chelsea Manning, which Ms Dugdale says are discussed in a “twitter bubble”. Mr Sandison says at worst these views could be transphobic; KD accepts this has a different definition to homophobia, but says it is within sphere of LGBT rights

Mr Sandison says transphobia and homophobia are entirely different; “there is no overlap”. Kezia Dugdale says being trans has nothing to do with your sexuality, but says there is a connection in the history of the LGBT rights movement. “You don’t exclude the T.”

For example, his dismissal of a video game as being pitched at “girls and homosexuals”.

Yes - that seems to getting a pass on here.

It is being heard in front of Sheriff Nigel Ross , in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh.

Civil jury trials are competent in most civil cases but not commonly used. There is nothing to suggest this is a jury trial.

From the tweets it sounds like a judge.

Civil courts sometimes use juries in libel in England but I have no idea about Scotland. It probably makes the whole process more expensive.

Does anyone know if there is a jury in this case or if it's just the judge hearing it?

It's really worth catching the latter part of the twitter thread linked to above that relates specifically to Dugdale's evidence:

twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1110483738838876160

When her article was challenged Dugdale had the choice of either accepting that this approach is faulty and the rest of the world sees things differently, or deciding it was time for the rest of the world to wake up and see things like her.

Correct. And all her evidence seems to rely on her saying "the tweet was homophobic but I've never called him a homophobe".

Yes, dear: we all know "progressive" politics these days relies on throwing mud, hoping it sticks, and then being weaselly when called on it.

Compare and contrast with Stu, who, whether you agree with him or not, is able to make a frank, open, unequivocal case of what he's said and done.

Dugdale is swimming in the progressive sea where, if you want to shut someone down, you shout "-phobe" at them. It's the killer response. It is supposed to work all of the time.

When her article was challenged Dugdale had the choice of either accepting that this approach is faulty and the rest of the world sees things differently, or deciding it was time for the rest of the world to wake up and see things like her.

I am quite torn on this one
I don't think the joke is homophobic

but don't think its beyond the pale to label it in that manner

but not sure whether its fair to do that in a newspaper

I always vere towards free speech but don't like the way those who have a platform abuse it.

I think his comment was sufficiently ambiguous that if I had made it I wouldn't have trusted a libel court to say no I wasn't homophobic, especially if I was a prominent activist who had made enemies and I was prosecuting an MSP with high profile friends.

Kezia Dugdale appears to be saying that even referring to the fact that someone is homosexual is in some way homophobic

typically homosexual men do not have children (unless they chose to exploit a woman through surrogacy) due to not having sex with people who can gestate a baby. So it's hardly left field to imply that a gay man is less likely to have children

Isn't that at least 50% of tweets?

Quite possibly. Which leads someone to ask, what is the point of that part of the law? The answer is to have a law that might potentially apply to many people without a general intent to enforce it.

This has two side-effects: 1) people who know about this law can be made to feel unsafe, and 2) if the state wants to go after an individual, this part of the law might provide a tool to be used against them (ie make much of the population guilty in theory to have a stick to use against individuals, if needed, in practice).

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience ... to another, he—
...
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Isn't that at least 50% of tweets?

Others have recommended this twitter thread:

twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1110121231037149184

I agree. It's a fascinating read and way to get into the case.

libel cases are always tricky but I guess when people are being prosecuted for hate crimes over tweets, it becomes a serious business.

Not sure the libel case was a wise decision. Fine defend yourself if prosecuted for a homophobic hate crime but deliberately going out to test our increasingly PC legislation in a libel case seems unwise especially if he has made comments like the video one.

Some posters are getting lost in their dislike of Wings. I don't like him either but focusing on that is missing the point by quite some way.

One weakness I do see in Wings' case is that some of his comments could be interpreted as casual homophobia without him actively being homophobic himself. For example, his dismissal of a video game as being pitched at “girls and homosexuals”.

Also Patrick Harvie is a self serving dolt, so not surprised he's involved. He seems utterly humourless and was completely dismissive when I reached out to him about the silencing of women in the Scottish green party.

WoS coming across as a good egg. Witness, a gay man, says that Stuart Campbell helped fundraise for respite care for his same sex partner. twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1110270602944958464?s=20 deeds not words springs to mind.

If we've reached the point where saying you wish somebody had never been born is regarded as so offensive it can end up in a criminal case, we're doomed.

I know WoS isn't being prosecuted for saying this, he's taking legal action against KD for criticising him for saying it as he says that criticism was libellous - but the police and CPS actions in respect of Caroline Farrow, Posie Parker, Harry the Owl, Kate Scottow, Miranda Yardley and no doubt many others show we're really not that far off prosecutions for hurting another person's feelings by stating biological facts in a blunt manner. Jokes next.

Fyvie is sort of in the middle of Elgin and Aberdeen, you know, where Kezia is from. Nice part of the country but mighty cold in winter.

Never been born doesn't seem as bad as wish you were dead. Just sayin'...