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.

The timeline AFAIK was

SC: Makes Twitter joke
KD: Writes article implying SC is homophobic
SC: Demands retraction

Two months of silence on the issue

KD: Attacks SC on camera in Scottish Parliament
SC: Sues for defamation

When it comes to figuring out what went on with someone as divisive as Campbell the problem is that people will tend to apply an interpretation of what must have happened according to their like/dislike. The more intense their like/dislike, the more firm the interpretation becomes.

nauticant true. I'm torn, I like KD, and she is one of the first MSPs to ask a GC question in parliament. I also like SC's media analysis and that he's not an SNP fanboy. His stance, that purity politics will never win independence and that something so fundamental neds broadbased support, across all ages, classes and political leanings is one I agree with.

I disliked what KD did in attacking him in parliament intensely. In my considered opinion it was a cheap shot abusing parliamentary privilege and I expect better from my politicians. But I don't want to see her ruined either.

Furthermore, I am also a freespeecher and will accept a heck of a lot of offensive stuff to protect freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, judging from the comments I've seen from legal professionals this is a concerning verdict. The judge did not place a limit on just how sincerely one has to believe what one says about another person before it does become defamatory. Does it open the floodgates to real abuse?

On a slightly more positive note, where does a guy with past anger management issues stand who wishes to pursue for misgendering or for bringing up past misdeeds? If I sincerely believe no one can change sex and that a male's violent and otherwise criminal history are important data points when women debate their rights in light of the ever present danger of male violence, have I now an easier defense than just my article rights under the EHRC?

Blimey, what a pompous self righteous arse you are

I'd sooner be that an apologist for the sort of anti- homosexuality "jokes" which were starting to look lame even back in the 1970s. Does being "gender critical" mean suspending all critical faculties?

I'd sooner be that an apologist for the sort of anti- homosexuality "jokes" which were starting to look lame even back in the 1970s.

To be fair, the court ruled the joke as not homophobic, as did one of the witnesses.

From reading around the case it appears opinion on offensiveness is moderately split.

IMO the joke is not about homosexuality, it's about the theme of never being born. The joke would work equally as well as "I wish his mother had hit the menopause earlier".

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

Not according to the actual judgement. See para 29.

I recall one of his fan boys or girls saying on Twitter that he had put something on his website. If that is what the contact amounted to why would KD even be looking at his website?

Because he’s such a narcissist that he thinks everyone in Scotland hangs off his every word?

IMO the joke is not about homosexuality

No, of course it isn't. I guess I'm just stupid, like Kezia, the Mundells, the bloke from Stonewall and plenty of other people who commented on it.

I am puzzled why some of you are falling over yourselves to defend this man. It's not even the same way that the likes of Rod Liddle or Piers Morgan get treated when they say the odd thing you (general you) agree with. They are accepted for that one thing but that doesn't prevent the operation of all critical faculties. The apologism for SC is bizarre.

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.

For background to those outside Scotland, although he runs a pro-indy blog, Campbell is not a member of the SNP and according to himself has never even voted for them.

There is some more info here:

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/kezia-dugdale-reveals-family-toll-14388631

According to the article after she published the piece in the Record:

He sued her for defamation and demanded an apology, an undertaking not to repeat the comments and damages of £10,000

After she said it again in Parliament:

another lawyer’s letter accusing her of repeating the defamatory remark. Campbell’s demand for damages went up to £25,000

strangely calling him a colleague of the First Minister and demanding that they condemn him

She didn't call him a colleague of Sturgeon. She clearly referred to 3 SNP msps- who clearly are colleagues of Sturgeon who appear to promote Campbell.

The Labour MSP said she had received a lawyer's letter demanding £10,000 for "damage to reputation" on behalf of the site's founder, Stuart Campbell, after she accused him of homophobia

Miss Dugdale used the weekly session to call on Ms Sturgeon to order SNP members to "denounce and shun" the controversial pro-independence website Wings Over Scotland

Ms Sturgeon told MSPs: "Kezia Dugdale is asking me about this today because she hopes it means I won't be able to remind her that her colleagues in Aberdeen yesterday voted for a Tory administration there."

The Labour leader insisted: "When my colleagues do something I disagree with, I take action. I'm asking the First Minister to do the same."

Ms Dugdale said elected SNP politicians, including senior members of the Scottish Government, "positively engage" with Wings Over Scotland by retweeting its comments - saying this group included Finance Secretary Derek Mackay, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson and transport minister Humza Yousaf

"denounce and shun" doesn't sound like intolerant bigotry at all.
They're both as bad as each other.
I was surprised such a fervent Scottish nationalist chooses to live in England, softie southerner England at that. It's easy to say a small country should be independent from a large one if you don't have to live in and face the consequences of that decision.

I think it's quite extreme to characterise anyone that thinks joking about aspects of people as automatically anti that aspect of human life. Or somehow unable to joke without being offensive or from the 70s or Rod Liddle or however else you wish to characterise bad people.

This really is intolerant behaviour. I can make jokes without being offensive. If you are unable to imagine that is possible then I would suggest that opening you might consider the idea that treating everyone as too delicate to laugh at jokes about characterics they may possess is quite offensive in itself.

It has gone a bit "you either love Campbell or you hate him" on this thread.

That's too binary for me, since I think it's actually possible to be somewhere in between.

And I know it's difficult, but ignoring the fact it's Dugdale and Campbell, this is actually a very interesting case about defamation and fair comment.

It is an interesting case and my comments relate to that, it's definitely a quite questionable viewpoint to assume motivations are invariably bigoted or phobic and you feel offended on their behalf because you think their characteristics make them inherently beyond normal treatment?

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/power-fragile-now-get-attention-status/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_em

A timely piece from Stella about the power fragility has. This has made me think how bizarre this case is, two people using the courts to shout at each other about the assumed fragility of a third party

Can't read it but it sounds good. Being strong and being stoical are very under rated at the moment, unless you have cancer and then you aren't allowed to be weak and have to "fight" it and be a "survivor" and go on marathons etc. Everyone else campaigns for victim status and compensation for their pain and suffering and special laws to protect their protected characteristics.

People who get offended on someone else's behalf are usually worth avoiding IME.

More apologism I see. Clearly in some cases being "gender critical" does drive anything and everything else out.

I'm not treating anyone as being too delicate- I'm questioning why anyone would feel the need to make a joke where the punchline of it depends on someone holding a certain protected characteristic. A joke which wasn't funny to begin with but depends entirely on that one aspect. The sort of humour which even in the 70s was looking a bit tired. Is Jim Davidson still appearing anywhere?

Aplogism.

Another one for the SJW dictionaries. And who the fuck is Jim Davidson and does he know you want to meet him so badly?

I suppose I should apologism for joking about you having a crush on Jim Davidson. You have mentioned they in so many posts so we should all respect your feelings for him/her/they, avoiding any misgendering of course. Love whoever you want to.

Lass
You think the joke was homophobic - I don't
KD thinks it was homophobic - the judge didn't.
Differences of opinion are the stuff of life and the judge more or less said this was not a matter for a court of law.
I can't think of any of the gay men I've known who would be as 'offended' by this joke as you seem to be. I have heard jokes a lot worse than this. This extreme reaction is counterproductive.

LassofFyvie as KD has now herself stated in that quote you posted that she was indeed contacted twice by lawyers on behalf of SC prior to SC involving the courts, we can put your claim to bed now that he never even tried to settle this out of court. He did. Twice.

FYI KD could have settled this out of court without paying a penny had she apologised, but as I am not in a position to prove this, you may chose to disregard this assertion.

What you cannot disregard is that he did try to settle this out of court and that while there is massive disagreement over whether this joke was homophobic or not, the judge declared it not to meet objective criteria for homophobia.

I have been be the butt of many xenophobic jokes for the past 25 years because of my nationality. So have all my compatriots. Many of these "jokes" are incredibly hurtful, and they are made by large numbers of people from the lowest to the highest levels in this country. Freely, happily and with complete abandon. Splattered across front pages, on TV, on radio, on social media. Today, tomorrow and I doubt it will ever stop. Some tell the same kind of tasteless jokes that SC made, some shout their unfettered hatred in my face (though it is a thankfully rare occurrence in Scotland).

When it comes to righteous anger about abusive jokes, I can't help but reflect this tweet comes nowhere near what other groups go through (by which I do not mean myself, but my experience does put things into perspective for me).

And I find it patronising to the extreme to state that gay people can't ever be the butt of jokes, even tasteless jokes like this one, because of their sexuality.

But as I've said, I am torn about this judgement. If I'm honest, I wanted neither party to win. However, the finding KD has indeed defamed him but that that is okay seems to go against my understanding of defamation laws and to give immense power to the establishment. Which is why I'm reading emerging legal comments with great interest.

It seems there is a postscript to this case.

www.scotsman.com/wings-v-kezia-case-would-be-thrown-out-after-law-shift-1-4913180
Wings v Kezia case would be ‘thrown out’ after law shift

Mr Deane said the abolition of fair comment and the introduction of a new defence of “honest opinion” would make it even harder for pursuers.

He said: “All Dugdale would have required to do was argue that the statement complained of was her honest opinion and have given, in general terms, some of the factors on which that opinion was based.”

I have mixed feelings about this proposed change. (Scotland only).

It would work both ways. I do note that it would be harder to pursue litigatious defamation cases or cases where pursing defamation is being used in an effectively malicious way. However it depends on what other changes to the law there are that go on along side it in other areas.

It generally speaking would be a good move for protecting free speech.