Wings of Scotland court case

Big fan of WOS. Hope he is vindicated.

I sniggered at "is wankhole funny?"
Mumsnet debate of the day.

Oh, come on Lass - tell us your funniest joke! Favourite sit com? Don't leave us hanging!

I like Stu. I like rude, bolshy, an excellent swearing repertoire and lack of deference to the great and the good - so he is right up my alley even when I disagree with what he is saying.

Case is important because it is attempting to conflate "transphobia" with homophobia in order to prove homophobia and Stu is completely unafraid to explain, in blunt terms, why that particular emperor is wearing absolutely no clothes whatsoever. May he prevail.

twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow

Reflection on Day 1: Was surprised how much defence Counsel focused on trans-politics & general "abusive" tweets by @WingsScotland, given case is whether Kezia Dugdale committed defamation in allegations of homophobia. Tho tomorrow is day for defence to further outline their case

Indeed!

WoS is saying Mundell would not have fathered that child, because his life would have taken a different path

I think you are stretching the interpretation of what he said to get to that conclusion but we can agree the "never been born" comment is dreadful. It is an interesting case.

But the "joke" is still predicated on the assumption that Mundell Snr, as a homosexual man, would not have fathered a child.

That's your prejudice at play here. WoS is saying Mundell would not have fathered that child, because his life would have taken a different path. The butt of the joke is not Snr but Jnr who was giving the most boring, asinine, dull speech that you couldn't help but wish was over already. Hence the tweet.

I don't like it, because wishing that someone had never been born is such a strong condemnation of a person, such a clear statement that their worth to society is so negative that we would be better off without that person living in our world, that I wouldn't ever use it in this way. But other people do. WoS did.

So here we are with an opportunity to find out what the Scottish justice system makes of misgendering and the rejection of gender ideology.

If Mundell had come out sooner, would there have been a Mrs Mundell at all?

Probably no Mrs Mundell but it still does not follow there would be no Master Mundell, so as well as not being funny, it doesn't make sense- unless one starts from the premise homosexual men can't be parents because of the mechanics involved.

I'm assuming Dugdale will run with something like that argument in her case. I think she will lose as he wasn't saying homosexual men shouldn't be parents- which would be homophobic.

It's a nickname. Are people still allowed to have nicknames?

Is it a nickname? I'm curious about it. From an interview with him in The Herald.

One remaining mystery is Campbell's use of the word "Rev" before his name

He does not have a university qualification, but he says he became a reverend in the 1990s

Or another explanation.
As for the religious title, the 46-year-old claims he was once trained for church orders but is sketchy about the details, saying he does not want to bring religion into the independence debate.

I'm laughing at the thought of a bunch of very learned and well spoken barristers

There weren't barristers in that court- well spoken or otherwise. The Scottish term is advocate. Neither of the QCs are English qualified.

If Mundell had come out sooner, would there have been a Mrs Mundell at all?

He doesn't have to be on our side to make important case law.

I didn't ask what you don't find funny Lass, I was genuinely wondering if there's anything at all you do find funny. Anything at all.

It just struck me that I've seen you lots of times on threads saying you don't find something funny and I've never seen you laughing at anything. I'm genuinely curious and not asking to be goady.

Obviously I'm not laughing at the phrase 'wank hole' per se, I'm laughing at the thought of a bunch of very learned and well spoken barristers discussing the exact meaning of 'wank hole' in a court of law. It kind of spoils it if you have to explain it but do you have no appreciation of the absurdity of this?

Yes I get the point he is saying that if Mundell had split from his wife sooner there would have been no son.

But the "joke" is still predicated on the assumption that Mundell Snr, as a homosexual man, would not have fathered a child. It is not the same as he said of Katie Hopkins that she wished she had never been born. (Which is also nasty in a different way)

Why does he call himself "Reverend"? Which church ordained him?

It's a nickname. Are people still allowed to have nicknames?

Correction to the above: sequence was first column in paper, then parliament

Gay people don't become parents? I don't think it is homophobic but that defence of it makes no sense.

His point is that had Mundell Snr embraced his homosexuality sooner, he would have split up from his wife sooner and would not have fathered Mundell Jnr, the butt of this joke.

WoS is not saying gay people can't be parents, he's not saying they can't father children, he's saying this particular person would not have been conceived.

That's the whole point of the tweet and why it was mean-spirited. Wishing someone had never been born just because they are deathly dull is hyperbole of course. I've seen points like this made in other debates. I don't like it. I don't find the joke funny. I am saying however that what is being expressed here is not homophobia but extreme Toryphobia as well as Mundellphobia.

Evidence?

Wings /SC is a man who hates feminism and feminists with a passion. He is no friend to women unless it suits his agenda.

What it isn't is homophobic - quite the opposite as he expresses a wish that a gay person had embraced their homosexuality earlier than that person did in reality

Gay people don't become parents? I don't think it is homophobic but that defence of it makes no sense.

Mr Dunlop reads more Wings tweets calling Ruth Davidson a “dribblewit” and a “mouth-breathing dolt”;

I don't find this funny either PencilsInSpace Do you?

Why does he call himself "Reverend"? Which church ordained him?

It's unlikely that WoS would have sued had KD not decided to call him a homophobe in the Scottish Parliament and then in a big column in a daily newspaper.

However, WoS has supported gay rights vocally and persistently on his website (there are supportive articles about the same-sex marriage campaign going back to 2012 on his blog), and privately without talking about this as was revealed when gay people told their stories of his support for them.

The tweet is a tasteless, mean-spirited joke. What it isn't is homophobic - quite the opposite as he expresses a wish that a gay person had embraced their homosexuality earlier than that person did in reality.

I would guess that the reason the defence is going heavy on the transphobic stuff is because it is now widely assumed that if you oppose the T you oppose the LGB and because accusing someone as transphobic is almost a surefire way now to ruin that person's reputation (and more).

Whatever the outcome, this is an important case for women's rights campaigners in this debate, as WoS supports equal rights for trans people but opposes GRA reform, self-id, compelled speech, that sex is a construct and most importantly opposes the erosion of women's sex-based rights. He does this in uncompromising fashion, and ever ready with a swearword if he feels like it (he feels like it a lot).

If the defence convinces the court that WoS is transphobic, homophobia is an easier sell for them. It's a strategy that would seem to be promising right now, as many GC people have been branded as transphobic for far milder statements, with much success.

And it's interesting for us because he explicitly rejects TWAW with an absolute refusal that males who identify as trans can ever become women.

But freedom of expression actually includes the right to offend, so the rude tweets alone probably wouldn't do the trick. Never know these days though...

Are you still in the pub Lass?

Lass, is there anything you do find funny?

There is not a soul in a bar in Scotland wouldn't read that as the joke it is

I don't read it as a joke. I thought it was puerile, nasty and not in the least bit funny. I don't think it is homophobic- although a bit peculiar that the "joke" is predicated on the assumption homosexual men can't be parents.

he has won it already by being as sharp in court as on the page

How? The "wank hole" comment? Some of you are very easily impressed.

Other coverage running here
twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1110207232497647616

Mr Campbell rejects that he is a transphobe; he says he thinks Chelsea Manning is a “hero” and “fabulous”. But he says it’s “delusional” of CM to claim to be a woman. Mr Dunlop asks if that is intolerant; “no, I don’t believe the statement of biological fact is intolerance”

I'd be flung out of this court for applauding at this point.

Wings over Scotland is the first (possibly only) place I saw public polls of the general attitude to self id in Scotland. It was not what the govt would have us believe!

This is the IWD post.
wingsoverscotland.com/the-rights-of-women/

I don't agree with everything said on this site, because people are unique! I absolutely believe in free speech and totally respect that at some point, somewhere, people being accused of various hate crime "phobias" in an effort to discredit every word they have ever uttered, need to take a stand.

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

I can't tell you what a breath of fresh air Wings have provided against a backdrop of ever increasing lunacy at Holyrood. This is a great case, which ever way it goes (and I hope he gets his case) he has won it already by being as sharp in court as on the page.

The tweets about Mundell were not funny.

Well, that is not the issue. The issue is whether they were homophobic.

And whether Dugdale would have denounced him quite as fiercely if he had been a pro-Labour blogger rather than a pro-independence one.

It seems to me that Wings is attacked for being effective at what he does, rather than for any of his real or perceived sins.

Author can be very unpleasant but his integrity is respected across the political spectrum, I think

He has his fans. I can't recall seeing ringing endorsements of his integrity.