Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 · 17/04/2019 14:13

It is fair comment because anyone reading it might think why is Campbell making a joke which depends on the punchline of a person being homosexual? Why is he emphasising that?

When I read it the point about Mundell being a poor public speaker wasn't even the point I focused on. It is fair comment to make the point that the homosexuality is being centred.

Do you (general you) make jokes where the punchline depends on someone being homosexual? The likes of Jim Davidson did- wouldn't you wonder why that was the focus?

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 14:16

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

As I understand it fair comment means that even though Dugdale was wrong and defamatory as she effectively said what she did in good faith then it is fair comment ie she genuinely believed that the comment was homophobic.

I think that people should be able to say what they believe, even if it is incorrect or defamatory as long as it is being said in good faith.

As I said though, I may well be getting this very wrong.

OP posts:
nauticant · 17/04/2019 14:20

I like this commentary, written just after the case was heard, including relevant stuff like:

Strangely, no evidence was produced to show Campbell had suffered damage to his reputation. His counsel did not argue loss of face, income, prestige, or career prospects. If anything, Dugdale’s accusation raised his public profile attracting readers to his website.

Melroses · 17/04/2019 14:43

Six of one and half a dozen of the other verdict.

They both sort of win in different ways and neither do.

Defamation is a tough one to win.

ADropofReality · 17/04/2019 15:35

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.

That's not the argument. Paragraph 97 - which I paraphrase as "if you dish it out, you've got to be able to take it" - is more like it.

SpeakUpXXWomen · 17/04/2019 16:26

www.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland-1-4909109

“This is an important judgement for the right to free speech and a healthy press.

“This ruling clearly demonstrates that every citizen is entitled to make comments as long as they are fair and reflect honestly held views.”

“Despite incorrectly implying that Mr Campbell is homophobic, her article is protected under the principle of fair comment,”

SpeakUpXXWomen · 17/04/2019 16:34

twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1118498206311231489

Judgement here

An interesting legal opinion on the definition of free speech here.

SpeakUpXXWomen · 17/04/2019 17:03

In case anyone really can't be bothered reading the whole thing.

The issue of transgender rights is a different issue from homosexual rights. Sexuality has no bearing on gender. … The pursuer’s views on transgender issues are seperable from his views on homosexual rights, and no inference to the effect that he is homophobic can be derived from his views on transgender issues.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 17:51

she genuinely believed that the comment was homophobic

Do you (general you) make jokes where the punchline depends on someone being homosexual? The likes of Jim Davidson did- wouldn't you wonder why that was the focus?

He does himself no credit by continuing to call her stupid.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 17:55

Sorry I meant to be clear I was quoting myself.

I found some of the support for Campbell on this thread surprising. I don't really understand why anyone would want to make a very weak joke on that basis and why it didn't seem to bother posters.

Daffopill · 17/04/2019 17:56

How much has this cost them both in legal fees?

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 18:05

A lot they both had QCs. He lost- she can ask for expenses. She won't get all (as you never do, even when successful)but I hope she does ask and I hope she gets them.

He might claim the court action was necessary as technically it was defamatory but he lost as it was protected as fair comment. However he went straight to court for an overstated sum and didn't ask for an apology or a retraction so she had no option but to defend the case.

Melroses · 17/04/2019 18:06

How much has this cost them both in legal fees?

It is very kind of them to pay up for a judicial opinion on what is homophobic/transphobic/defamatory for the rest of us. Public service at its finest. Smile

nauticant · 17/04/2019 18:15

However he went straight to court for an overstated sum and didn't ask for an apology or a retraction so she had no option but to defend the case.

If I recall correctly, although this was asserted in court by Dugdale at the time, this caused considerable surprise and was said not to be true.

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 19:04

iI recall correctly, although this was asserted in court by Dugdale at the time, this caused considerable surprise and was said not to be true

If I recall correctly nothing was produced whether an email from him or a letter from him or his solicitors asking for an apology.

I think I recall seeing on Twitter thread it had been mentioned that he had asked on his website but why would or should she have been looking there?

LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 19:06

Those of you who were defending him do you regularly make jokes the punchline of which depend on a person being homosexual?

Daffopill · 17/04/2019 19:08

It will probably cost him a fortune but his devotees will no doubt crowdfund the lot.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2019 21:39

I think I recall seeing on Twitter thread it had been mentioned that he had asked on his website but why would or should she have been looking there

Para 29 of the judgement says that he had not asked for a retraction (seems rather foolish and risky to go straight for a defamation case?)

OP posts:
LassOfFyvie · 17/04/2019 21:41

The Sheriff was giving a strong hint that each party should bear their own costs. I assume The Daily Record is covering Kezia's cost and as you say I guess his fans will crowdfund his.

nauticant · 17/04/2019 21:55

That is remarkably foolish ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Assuming his legal advisors aren't incompetent, that would mean Campbell disregarding their advice to seek a retraction before starting proceedings.

Well, as someone who's no fan of Campbell I'll not be losing sleep over this judgement.

Trousering · 18/04/2019 00:25

lassofivie. Those of you who were defending him do you regularly make jokes the punchline of which depend on a person being homosexual?

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, why can't we make jokes that have references to homosexuality. Do you think it's something that has to be avoided mentioning in normal life, i.e. joking. My gay friends make jokes involving homosexuality and they don't get uppity if I do too. Plus the joke was about someone not being born if a perfectly normal occurance like coming out had happened instead of another perfectly normal event like having a child with a woman. You seem to think one of those things must be ring fenced from humour for all time. Why is that?

LassOfFyvie · 18/04/2019 00:48

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, why can't we make jokes that have references to homosexuality

Oh yeah right. Welcome back Jim Davidson whilst you are at it. I recall he made lots of jokes about it.

What a load of apologist nonsense. And a rather nasty twisting of what I said to suit your own agenda.

Trousering · 18/04/2019 01:00

Blimey, what a pompous self righteous arse you are.

Do give us the list of subjects about which humour is not permitted.

CharlieParley · 18/04/2019 10:21

SC posted back in 2017, before he started the court case that he contacted KD and asked for a retraction after the article but that she blanked him. He did sue at that point. Two months later, she smeared him in parliament to score points against the SNP, strangely calling him a colleague of the First Minister and demanding that they condemn him. I am not aware of him asking for another retraction after that performance.

CharlieParley · 18/04/2019 10:22

Sorry that should read

He did not sue at that point.