Wings of Scotland court case

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Brief context:

Ex Scottish labour Kezia Dugdale said (in print) that Wings was a homophobe because of a tweet he made.

The reason I think this case may be of interest is because so far:

Chelsea Manning is mentioned. @WingsScotland says Manning is ‘brave’ & a ‘hero’ but has repeatedly been accused of transphobia for his language towards the whistleblower. ‘An empirical biological fact that he is still a man,’ Campbell tells the court.

.@WingsScotland adds that he doesn’t know Manning’s sexuality & says it has no bearing on accusations of homophobia. Various comments by Wings referring to Manning as ‘he’. Being a transphobe does not make you a homophobe, Wings adds.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

Big fan of WOS. Hope he is vindicated.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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

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.

(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?

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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