24 Hours to Save Convict Natalie McGarry, or is it 45 mins, it is time to say stop saying that the jailing of ex SNP MP Natalie McGarry is wrong, the virtue signaling middle classes need to get a grip on reality, McGarry committed serious crime, she deserves jail time, she showed no remorse, and tried to weasel out of taking responsibility, getting preggers isn’t a get out of jail free card

Dear All

Cat Stewart over at the Herald lamenting shoving Natalie McGarry’s posterior into prison as if a wrong has been committed. Is jailing people involved in serious crime now a crime or an injustice. How did we get here when people think that special treatment should be doled out because McGarry allowed herself to get knocked up and produce a sprog.

Well, we should all applaud Cat Stewart for an entertaining article.

This caught my eye;

“But for McGarry, is it right to jail a mother with a toddler?”

If you follow that logic, female murderers wouldn’t be locked up either, or does Cat wholeheartedly support the need to imprison female murders?

I am going to say she would say okay to female murderers doing prison.

Now let’s turn to this part:

“Mothers, in the vast majority of cases, are primary care givers for children and a custodial sentence impacts negatively and unfairly on family life”.

McGarry’s criminality is serious crime, of course there is a negative impact on family life, but in this case, the sentence is not unfair. This reminds me of the waffle spouted Albie Sachs, arguably the world's most famous judge who wrongly made the judgment in South Africa not to send a woman to prison because it would infringe the human rights of her three children.

That bizarre decision was silly, based on his emotion after hearing mitigation, that nonsense was even imported into Scotland by someone doing the role of child commissioner.

Article 8 of Human Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Presumably, Cat Stewart should read 8.2.

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

So, in this case, the human rights of Natalie McGarry have been respected in full, in fact Sheriff Paul Crozier gave her a light sentence of 18 months.

Did the ‘I have got a kid defence’ work for Tommy Sheridan?

No, let’s get real here, if McGarry was a crack head junkie from Possil, would this article have been written?

No!

McGarry was a public figure; the fact that she has been treated to a prison cell shocks some people who are also public figures.

Jail is for everyone, including people like Natalie McGarry.

Finally, these types of bizarre articles are entertaining, but in reality they don’t hold water, the saying nice to be nice applies, but justice isn’t about being nice. It is about upholding one of the cornerstones of society. Natalie McGarry did a lot of evil before she was caught; we should focus on that and not her former celebrity.

I doubt there is much public support for this type of virtue signalling.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University