Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Wings of Scotland court case

207 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/03/2019 16:39

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.

OP posts:
LassOfFyvie · 27/03/2019 17:03

"girl" means female under 18, not 16

There is no legal definition of girl although many on MN seems to think 18 is a magical number. In Scotland you can marry without parental consent at 16.

LassOfFyvie · 27/03/2019 17:21

Kezia's QC said read the article once - what impression does it leave on the reasonable reader?

The impression it made on me was it was a tasteless attempt at a joke the punchline of which depended on a person being homosexual.

Kezia's QC also said It was Mundell Senior who was the butt of the joke - it was his sexuality that was used to make the joke”. The only way the joke works is to focus on DM’s sexuality

When I saw the tweet that was my first impression. It did not draw my attention to David Mundell's speaking skills.

Campbell acknowledged it could be seen that way , as Mundell snr being the butt of the joke, by someone who is dishonest or stupid. I am not being dishonest so I guess I must be stupid.

MeAgainAgain · 27/03/2019 17:37

The girls and homosexuals thing is clearly both sexist and homophobic

It's about non men

Who are lesser.

Girls are crap at computer games /like crap computer games
Gay men are no better than girls ie crap

Just reading thread surprised anyone thinks otherwise

Is like runs like a girl /so gay

nauticant · 27/03/2019 18:16

I don't actually see the comment as being homophobic. Belittling, yes, homophobic, no. To my mind homophobia requires something much stronger than that.

Part of the difficulty seems to be that "homophobia" is changing in meaning from something having overtones of hate and violence to lazy and negative stereotyping.

LassOfFyvie · 27/03/2019 18:24

Belittling, yes, homophobic, no. To my mind homophobia requires something much stronger than that

Part of the difficulty seems to be that "homophobia" is changing in meaning from something having overtones of hate and violence to lazy and negative stereotyping

I suppose at what point, if at all, does belittling and lazy and negative stereotyping cross a line to be actual hate?

EweSurname · 17/04/2019 13:11

There's been a verdict:

wingsoverscotland.com/the-severed-baby/

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:18

It's an interesting one too: tweet not homophobic, Dugdale was defamatory but defamation negated by fair comment defence.

OP posts:
PlasmaRain · 17/04/2019 13:25

Bloody hell, that judgement has splinters so far up its fence-sitting rectum it’s giving itself a sore throat. So basically no homophobia or defamation to be seen here, move along?

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 13:27

He lost. Good. The decision states

Her comments were fair. Campbell's tweet contained a derogatory joke which was depended on a reference to homosexuality. The comments were fair because the content of the tweet formed the basis of fact for a rational belief it was derogatory about homosexuality people. As one witness said homosexuality provided the punch line of the joke

According to Campbell that makes her stupid- not that he expressed himself badly. Dugdale was not the only person who interpreted what he said in that way. I did. Are they all stupid too?

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 13:29

Oh and a wonderful comment at paragraphs 97 and 98.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:29

I think Dugdale was ruled as defamatory, but that you can be defamatory about someone as long as it meets the fair comment criteria.

There's some pretty worrying stuff in the judgement. It seems to suggest that believing words have defined meanings is just one viewpoint.

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:30

Can you link to the full judgement lass?

OP posts:
LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 13:30

Actually 91 onwards is good too.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:31

Can you link to the full judgement

Ignore me - I've found it

OP posts:
Hearwegoagain · 17/04/2019 13:34

It very clearly refuses to confuse transphobia with homophobia. Indeed, as I read it, it refused to agree that any alleged transphobia was transphobia. That was irrelevant in a case about homophobia. It is also not complimentary about Stonewall.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:36

"Wee Ginger Duck" Grin

OP posts:
Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:43

Paragraph 100 is good.

OP posts:
CharlieParley · 17/04/2019 13:44

That's a terrible judgement. It's basically an ignorance is a valid defence ruling. SC not a homophobe, the tweet wasn't homophobic, KD did therefore defame SC, especially as she couldn't explain what was homophobic about the tweet. However, as she interprets what homophobia means in her own individual way (which as the judge notes doesn't meet objective definitions of homophobia), she was allowed to defame him because she didn't actually know what homophobia is.

We're firmly in offense lies in the eye of the beholder territory here. According to this, there seems to be no objective, definable quality independent of an individual's perception and interpretation as to what constitutes offensive speech such as homophobia.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 13:47

I don't think it is a terrible judgement - if Dugdale had won, that would have been terrible.

I think it's actually quite important and good, that the fair comment defence stood.

I am not self-identifying as a lawyer though, so I may well be misunderstanding.

OP posts:
LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 13:51

There's some pretty worrying stuff in the judgement. It seems to suggest that believing words have defined meanings is just one viewpoint

The decision seems to me an accurate assessment of how defamation works.

There is a link on his website to the full decision in pdf form. It's not on the Court website yet.

CharlieParley · 17/04/2019 13:51

Having said all of the above, I'll add that I think the rest of the judgement is well argued and I am pleased for KD that the outcome is not as damaging for her as a full finding for SC may have been.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 13:53

If Dugdale had won, that would have been terrible

Dugdale wasn't the pursuer. Campbell brought the case. He lost so to that extent she did "win"

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 13:55

It's basically anignorance is a valid defenceruling

It most absolutely is not saying that. I'm glad he lost. He lost because he made a poor "joke" which only worked because of the reference to homosexuality.

CharlieParley · 17/04/2019 13:56

I don't think it is a terrible judgement - if Dugdale had won, that would have been terrible.

You're right, it's not a terrible judgement in and of itself. My "terrible" should more accurately be limited to that aspect of the judgement of why KD gets away with publicly implying SC is a homophobe.

I think it's actually quite important and good, that the fair comment defence stood.

Could you explain that please? Genuine question, also not a lawyer.

nauticant · 17/04/2019 14:05

I'm generally OK with the judgement for two main reasons. It's a warning against people being free to label anyone at "-phobic", which can be very damaging, just because it suits their argument/worldview, and it says that if you make a career of hurling shit at people it's best not to complain if someone hurls shit at you.