Check your privilege Kezia, former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale says she stands by her article accusing Wings Over Scotland of 'homophobic tweets', her court case in Edinburgh looks like a loser, would ma’am want to pay by cash or cheque?

Dear All

In the eternal battle between the light and the darkness, we sometimes get side tracked by a story over words, and how they are used. One of the modern phenomenons is the use of ‘labelling’ by people involved in politics. The idea is simple, once you label someone as ‘homophobic, Islamophobic, racist or anything else, they are discredited forever and vere and ever. Cast adrift with their ‘tag’ by a self- appointed court of judge, jury and executioner.

Newspaper give politicians’ columns in newspapers to spout their views, they usually pay them a few quid per article, and the idea is that the politicians followers buy the newspaper. You could call it a marketing gimmick or you could say this is all about promoting a message.

Kezia Dugdale is a lesbian, she was also formerly the leader of Scottish Labour, although she found out that leadership of the Labour Party wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Too many people pulling in different directions, and too much identity politics which is killing it, although that message has been given at the ballot box, it still hasn’t sunk in for some. Being the leader isn’t easy, the modern oracle of know all but in reality covering up knowing nothing exists.

Kezia Dugdale has said that she was “entitled” to accuse a pro-independence blogger of making homophobic remarks because she is a gay woman and understands prejudice.

Entitled?

Entitled means; ‘believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment”.

Do you think that LGBT politicians deserve privileges or special treatment?

Some people seem to think that equality means everyone gets the same rights but, they are special so they get more rights.

I am working class, and I know about privileges or special treatment, it is the thing which I have experienced never getting, because I am working class. Should I demand special treatment as part of the largest discriminated majority in the UK? Kezia Dugdale can if she wants stand by her article accusing Wings Over Scotland of 'homophobic tweets' that’s her business. Her getting sued for £25,000 by Stuart Campbell, who runs the website Wings Over Scotland, that’s his business. In evidence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Ms Dugdale insisted she had labelled the tweet homophobic; and not Mr Campbell personally. Although this is an interesting comment, one wonders how the public will react, can a person make homophobic tweets and not be homophobic.

Homophobia is described as ‘dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people’. If you haven’t lived in a bubble, you will know someone or perhaps many people who are LGBT, that doesn’t mean you have to like them because of it.

You either like them as a person or you don’t.

Kezia said:

“As a gay woman, I’m entitled to view that as homophobic because I understand what homophobia is. I’m entitled to my own view of what I consider homophobia to be. I’m a gay woman – I have experienced it in a number of forms.”

In private she is, she can’t however in public, and certainly not by using a national newspaper as a platform. Her ‘views’ constitute opinion, which may or not be a fact, but to give her opinion as a fact won’t wash.

The row centres on a tweet that Kezia didn’t like. He wrote that the Scottish Secretary David Mundell’s son, the Tory MSP Oliver Mundell, was “the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner".

When I read that tweet, my first reaction was that the point Campbell was making was that Oliver Mundell was a poor speaker.

Do I find that tweet to be homophobic, the answer is no!

I am surprised that Kezia didn’t just pay the money earlier and walk away, having entered a minefield; she is treading very carefully now in an attempt to get out of it. As to her revelation that what she said is her honestly held view, that maybe but it could be a view that costs her plenty, £25,000 and costs to Campbell.

Kezia said:

“It considered, in my view, gay people to be lesser because they don’t have or can’t have children. So it was putting gay people in a negative light.”

She added she felt a responsibility to call out homophobia as a gay politician.

Asked by Craig Sandison QC, who is acting for Mr Campbell, whether she believed his client was homophobic, she said:

“No, I believe what he said in his tweet to be homophobic.”

Sandison said a “recurrent theme” on the Wings Over Scotland blog was that Ms Dugdale was a liar, and suggested this had given her a negative view of him.

One thing which didn’t go down too well for Kezia was Sandison saying Kezia’s legal team had previously claimed she did not know Mr Campbell was behind Wings Over Scotland at the time, or that it was pro-independence – something she confirmed was not true.

She said that was a legal misunderstanding!

Colin Macfarlane, the director of LGBT campaigning organisation Stonewall Scotland, also gave evidence stating the tweet was homophobic.

Appearing as a witness, he said:

“It was an unnecessary reference, or drawing attention to David Mundell’s sexual orientation as a way to have a go at Oliver Mundell, but at the same time using David Mundell’s sexual orientation as a punchline.”

LGBT pro-independence blogger Paul Kavanagh, who writes under the name “Wee Ginger Dug”, defended Campbell says the tweet was deliberately crass, tasteless and insulting, but not homophobic.

Although this case is a molehill in the grand scheme of things, Kezia who has made many wrong decisions doesn’t look to me to be on very firm ground for a win. What she needs isn’t her honestly held view, nor her sense of entitlement to privilege or special treatment, but evidence.

Finally, I have had the homophobic tag thrown at me in the past by a guy who I took to criminal court and got convicted. Law is a minefield but it is also interesting, in this case if I was betting, I think a tenner on Campbell would be the smart money unless Kezia can pull something out of the bag. To me, this case looks and smells like it is a loser because despite Kezia’s attempts to make opinion look like evidence, it clearly isn’t. Mind you getting in Stonewall Scotland was a nice touch of padding out her defence, but that is window dressing, MacFarlane’s opinion isn’t evidence either.

Yours Sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University