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.

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.

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.

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

Yes - that seems to getting a pass on here.

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.”

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.

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

And there we have it. Saying that TW are male = homophobia.

Kezia Dugdale says she is entitled to her own view of what she considers homophobia to be; as a gay woman she has encountered it in a number of forms. It remains her “honest” view that Mr Campbell’s tweet was homophobic.

I find that a rather problematic statement. Surely we cant rely on the law to enforce our own definitions?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

We’re back to words have to have an agreed meaning. Surely that’s a basic in a functioning society?

Counsel should have asked the head of Stonewall to define homosexuality, not homophobia alone. After all, they no longer accept that homosexuals are exclusively same-sex attracted.

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

It's only homophobic if you think it's an insult to be bundled in with 'girls', which it isn't btw 🤔

RepealTheGRA ItsAllGoingToBeFine

YY

Rather taken aback at KD's argument here. If the definition of what constitutes offensive speech now lies entirely with the individual, we are in serious trouble.

Without publicly, legally or otherwise agreed definitions that are concrete, specific and most importantly clearly delineated, we cannot have free speech.

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

It's only homophobic if you think it's an insult to be bundled in with 'girls', which it isn't btw

He was reviewing a game. He said the level of difficulty made it suitable for girls and homosexuals. Why would you lump girls and homosexuals in the same group in the context of their ability to play video games?

Girls and homosexuals thing is from 2009, it's a joke against people who classify games that way, it's meta. Also, taking one tweet, out of context, is disingenuous.

Was the point not that the gaming industry views girls and homosexuals in a lesser light?

That was yesterday's discussion.

Does he kick puppies too?

HorsewithnoWankhole yes, you're right of course. Either is cruel, but wish you were dead is worse, by some measure.

GabrielleNelson I think that's exactly why this case is important. It's a clash of either party's freedom of expression and the limits thereof. WoS expressed an opinion some found offensive but did not harm the person it was about other than being hurtful. KD expressed an opinion some found offensive and many agreed with but that could potentially be harmful to WoS. Is either party free to speak as they wish? If not, which one isn't? And why?

I generally agree that in a matchup between an elected politician and ex-leader of one of the main parties in a country (Scotland) vs niche but popular blogger, the power imbalance generally means the politician can do worse damage. But even if that is the case, is it ever justified for the politician to launch this kind of attack?

We all have our own ideas as to why KD did what she did, now it's up to the court.

He was reviewing a game. He said the level of difficulty made it suitable for girls and homosexuals. Why would you lump girls and homosexuals in the same group in the context of their ability to play video games?

I'm not trying to be disengenuous here. The point of the remark was most likely both sexist and homophobic, but it doesn't need to be read or taken that way.

You can either be insulted because

1. you're homosexual and think girls are 'lesser beings'. I.e. sexist
2. you're a girl and think homosexuals are 'lesser beings' i.e. homophobic.

I don't know what I'm trying to say tbh. Perhaps we shouldn't take these things as insults and they will lose their power perhaps.

Sorry for the derail 😬

You can either be insulted because
1) you're homosexual and think girls are 'lesser beings'. I.e. sexist
2) you're a girl and think homosexuals are 'lesser beings' i.e. homophobic

No, Neither of those things . It has nothing whatsoever to do with thinking less of either group.

I'm utterly puzzled why someone thinks the gaming ability of girls is the same as the ability of homosexuals of any age.

I naively presumed he'd made that comment about the game because it contained a load of hunky blokes and he meant male homosexuals. If it was because the game was "easy" then it is offensive to homosexuals and girls, although girls statistically spend less time on video games than boys (they have better things to do!) where as I wouldn't have thought that video game playing ability was related to sexual orientation. I have no idea what the game is though and am only following the case on this thread, can't be bothered reading endless tweets. Not much sympathy for either of them at the moment.

I wouldn't accept that someone making the (admittedly distasteful) comment about wishing someone had never been born as heterophobic if made in relation to a straight person so I'm struggling to see why it's suddenly homophobic simply because the subject of the tweet is gay.

When I was a child in the 60s the worst insult anyone could hurl at a boy was to label him a cissie. Men who were labelled effeminate were in big trouble. It's the same thinking that makes it impossible for a baby boy to be given a name that's usually given to girls, while a lot less risky for parents to give a baby girl a 'boy' name. In the eyes of the sexist neanderthals (of both sexes) who think gender roles are set in stone it's demeaning for a male to be lumped in with women - so much so that transwomen have to be cast out of the class of men and left for the women to sort out.

The gaming ability of girls is clearly not likely to be the same as gay men, but it's a shorthand way of saying this is not tough enough for real men.

As to what WoS might have meant by it, I have no idea, but Iggiepoppie has presumably dug out this ten-year-old tweet and looked at the context. I'm happy to accept her assurance that this was not meant to be taken literally.

That of course demonstrates the problem with Twitter. You have a few characters and it's terrifyingly easy to be taken out of context.

As far as I know it wasn't a tweet but rather was a comment under a review of a video game. I wonder if anyone here has a link to the review or a screenshot of the comment.

Ten years ago, though! Imagine how must time some young paralegal or trainee solicitor has spent trawling through endless Google searches, Facebook, Twitter, below the line comments on media sites, you name it, to find incriminating comments. I often forget what I've posted within the next few moments. I don't know how I'd handle being confronted in court with throwaway remarks I'd made ten years ago about topics I'd since forgotten all about/changed my mind on.

*much, not must

Sigh. Why are these things always obvious as I hit post and not before ...

I don't know anything about the guy except what I’ve just read here and on Wiki but in the context of this thread, it will be interesting if any evidence is produced to show him being specifically non-misogynistic or a friend of women, as it has been to show him as non-homophobic and a friend to gay people. Although I know that's not the question this case is trying.

It seems Dugdale has been rather bold with one of her statements:

twitter.com/DrMoragKerr/status/1110527851386859520