Women are NEVER to Blame for Sexual Assault

Notice the length of that dress

It is not the first time I have written a post like this, but due to recent events in the Westminster Parliament, and the reactions of some men, I believe this needs emphasising.

On Friday, 15 June 2018, the UK government attempted to introduce a Bill to make "upskirting" illegal in England and Wales.  This odious practise is using a phone camera to photograph or film up women's skirts.  Many women have been victims of this, including celebrity figures who have been photographed / filmed getting in and out of cars, and those pictures then plastered all over the media.  LBC Radio host Beverley Turner told of exactly that happening to her.  It is also done however by men to ordinary women, either for their own sexual gratification, or the pics / videos then posted on social media.  Upskirting was made illegal by the devolved Scottish Parliament in 2010, and is now considered "Sexual Harm" in Scots Law.

So, 8 years late, you may think that the Conservative Party UK Government should be congratulated for trying to extend this to England and Wales.  And so they would have been, had one of their own backbenchers, Sir Christopher Chope MP, not blocked the Bill from proceeding, he claims due to Bills not being discussed properly in parliament.  Prime Minister Theresa May, a woman (I think), said she was "disappointed" at his actions.  Disappointed that perverts and sleazy paparazzi 'journalists' (I use the word lightly) are not stopped from their disgusting behaviour?  Really, Theresa?  As a woman you are "disappointed"?  That's got to be the most bizarre use of that word since Edward Teller, father of the H-Bomb, was "disappointed" to learn he couldn't produce a 'doomsday' bomb whose chain reaction would not stop.

Of course, it had to happen that some men would try "blame the victim" on this story, trying to claim that women would not get upskirted if they wore more conservative dress.  Not least among them was Nick Freeman, a lawyer known as "Mister Loophole", due to the number of obviously guilty clients he has helped walk free from courtrooms through legal loopholes; something he is so proud of doing that he actually uses i as his Twitter name.  Okay, by doing things like that, we can already see that Nick Freeman is a contemptible poor excuse for a human being.  However, in responding to Chris Chope's intervention, he really sank to the bottom of the polluted pool he inhabits.  He Tweeted "Whilst this is totally unacceptable conduct, if women assumed some responsibility for their attire, they would not be in jeopardy."

That's right, folks, Nick Freeman totally blamed women for upskirting.

Freeman's odious Tweet drew a lot of flak from people, not least from one young woman who put him firmly in his place.  She replied "what an ignorant and thoughtless comment. Upskirting can quite easily happen even when women dress conservatively... but the responsibility still lies with the woman? This is for sure one of the top 3 stupidest comments you’ve ever made."

Well said that woman for making such a valid and important comment.  And it was all the more important because it actually started "Get real dad," and was posted by none other than Sophie Freeman ~ Nick Freeman's own daughter.

So was Nick Freeman at all moved or contrite for his comments having been called out by his daughter?  Not one bit of it.  In fact he replied "Sophie, firstly it's most stupid and not stupidest. Secondly, please read the articles in the Press which amplify my views."  That's right folks.  Far from apologising and standing by his own flesh and blood, Nick Freeman instead chose to arrogantly deride her command of English on a public forum (in which he is actually incorrect), and tried to defend himself by referring her to press articles.  Like the media in the UK have ever been a bastion of women's rights.

I'm not a parent myself, but it seems to me that when any daddy seeks to deride his own little girl in public, he has not only completely failed as a father, but ultimately as a human being.  Shame on you, Mr Freeman.

I bring in the Twitter spat between Nick and Sophie Freeman as it underlines the entire patriarchal attitude to sexual assault upon women; that they were somehow "asking for it", and will willingly shout down and mock anyone who disagrees with their ignorant views.  And their views are ignorant.  The age old mantra of women would not be assaulted if they did not wear provocative clothing / dressed more conservatively, simply does not hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

First you have to ask what constitutes "provocative" clothing.  If a woman is dressed up to the point that she looks "sexy", if that 'provokes' some men, guess what?  That's not the woman's fault or doing.  For all anyone knows she may have dressed like that for her boyfriend or husband.  Indeed, who is to say she has not a lesbian who has dressed alluringly for her girlfriend / wife?  Or here's a bizarre idea, she may have merely dressed like that for her own self-esteem; to make herself look good and feel good as a result.  Regardless of gender, we all do that.  Go on, admit it.  If you are going out, the chances are you will put on nice clothes which make you look good, and that makes you feel good as a result.  And that is important, as it boosts your confidence.

And even if a woman is dressed up and "on the pull", that does not mean she is about to jump into bed with just any man, and it is not a green light for any man to sexually assault her - no matter what Jordan Peterson and the incels would have you believe.  Some things are just off limits, and that includes up any woman's skirt or dress.

Then the reverse of the above is what does society deem as "conservative" dress?  The strict, "Tweedy" look?  Or women in no-nonsense A-line skirts, white blouses, and "death before dishonour" granny pants?  Sorry (not sorry) to burst your bubbles, but there are actually guys who get off on that, and imagine being dominated by a strict woman in such attire, while other men see such women as a "challenge".  How about uniforms?  Could there be anything more 'conservative'?  A quick look through the Ann Summers website will reveal all sorts of uniforms being sold for sexual roleplay.  Or when it comes to younger girls, what of 'conservative' school uniforms?  Except that ever since cartoonist Gerald Scarfe produced his first St Trinian's cartoons in the 1950s, and the movies which subsequently followed based upon them, school uniforms have been seen as "sexy".  The Britney Spears song "Hit Me Baby, One More Time" even had a video based on that very premise, and again, "sexy" school uniforms are sold for sexual roleplay.  Due to the popularity of such, one will even easily find porn based around girls dressed in school uniforms.  Even nuns are not immune from this, and there has for decades been an entire section of the porn industry devoted to women dressed in nun's habits - as well as such being sold for roleplay.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that there is nowadays even a section of the porn industry devoted to women in Islamic dress, such as hajibs, niqabs, and even burqas.

In the 1970s and 1980s, some feminists sought to cover up their bodies by wearing the most unshapely and 'unattractive' clothing possible.  This included the habit of women wearing denim or serge workers overalls.  Did that stop men from wolf whistling and shouting lewd comments to them?  Not a bit of it.  They really shouldn't have bothered, should not have had to bother, and in fact, by dressing like that, those women were playing right into the "dress conservatively" rhetoric.  And what happened then?  The fashion houses sat up and took notice, and started producing figure-hugging "overalls", to make them more "sexy", and this in turn led to that abject horror of 1980s women's fashion, the jumpsuit.  But even those did not stop women attracting the unwanted attention of sleazy men.

Here are the facts; girls and women are sexually assaulted and raped from tiny babies to the very elderly, and all ages in-between, wearing all sorts of clothing.  What then is provoking men?  Damn those sexy pull-ups and, and those erotic surgical stockings!  Even Christian nuns and Muslim women in full burqa are sexually assaulted and raped.  The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that attire is not and never was a factor in sexual assault.

Should anyone still disagree with any or all of the above, then ask yourself this; what are men wearing that is so very alluring, so sexy, so provocative, when they are the victims of male rape?  Are those men somehow asking for it?  Are they just 'sluts' who will sleep with any man, and as such the actions of the rapist are somehow justified?

Sexual assault and rape are not down to attire; they are down to toxic masculinity.  While many will think of the sexual aspects of women being approached, wolf-whistled, have lewd comments shouted at her in public, being upskirted, sexually assaulted, and / or raped, they ignore the more important motives behind all of these; dominance and control.  Any abuse - be it verbal, psychological, physical, or sexual - has one thing in common; the abuser is seeking power over someone less able to defend themselves, to humiliate them, and thereby to control them.  The abuser is at heart a bully, and in the nature of every bully, a coward.  Some men abuse women not only because they cannot control their hormones, but also because they fear their masculinity being brought into question.  The men on the building site will all join in shouting lewd comments at women, because if one does not, then he is immediately not one of the blokes.  That is the thin end of the wedge, and it grows from there to men thinking they can treat women - any woman - any way they want, and often do so to "prove" themselves as men.

And you guys can deny this all you want, but the very reason I write this, is because as a man I have seen and heard it for myself, many times.  Even when some men are rebuffed, or think women are unavailable to them, they will condemn them as "frumps", "frigid", or even lesbians - which of course brings in the whole homophobia aspect of toxic masculinity.  I well recall that there used to be a TV advert for a chocolate bar on TV, which showed two women jogging.  It came on a TV in a pub once, and a bloke sitting next to me immediately exclaimed "Lesbians!"  There you have it; women cannot even go for a bloody jog together, but if a man is not there, they are immediately "Lesbians!" - I kid you not.  But of course, were it two - or more - men together, that would never be "Gay", would it?  Heaven forfend!  Just some of the fellas being real men and enjoying blokish camaraderie.

But if any guys still wish to deny this, let us assume it was any woman you are close to who was treated by other men as objects.  If it were your wife or girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece, or a female friend who was upskirted, and had the photos plastered all over the internet, who would you blame?  The woman, or the sickening pervert who did it?

As a Scot, when I posted articles about upskirting on Facebook, I had friends ask me "What about upkilting?"  Well, my reply to that was that while it would still be an offence to do that, if it were a woman doing it, no doubt the man would laugh it off, but then it is not men who have to be constantly aware of what they are wearing, where they go, at what times, and what may happen to them.  It is only women who need worry about that, and that is down not to them, but to toxic masculinity which creates that situation.

I certainly do hope that the UK government get upskirting banned in England and Wales.  For as we have already agreed in Scotland, it does constitute sexual harm, and the posting of photos and videos online merely serves to underline the control aspect allied to it.

The simple fact is that every woman and girl should be able to go where she wants, when she wants, wearing whatever she wants, without the unwanted attention of testosterone-filled idiots with fragile egos, who see women not as people, but objects for them to do with as they like.  There's a long way to go, but Scotland has already taken a huge step towards making the streets safer for women.  I sincerely hope it spreads to the rest of the UK.

If There are No Collectives, Jordan, What Are the Churches?

Jordan Peterson

Sunday mornings on BBC Radio Scotland is usually an unbearable Godfest, but when they interview right-wing religious lifestyle guru Jordan Peterson, enough is enough. I know this scumbag has a cult following nowadays but he's not very bright. Peterson suggested that there's no such thing as collectives; that everybody within a movement was working for self-interest. In this he includes the civil rights movement and the suffragettes. He then went on to say that the entire basis of western civilisation is based on a Biblical moral code. Leaving aside the fact that morality is subjective, if there is no collectivism, only individuals, then how could they possibly have a shared moral code? That's clearly baloney. Morality changes between cultures and with time. As to there only being individuals, this is the crap that Thatcher once came out with; "There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals." It could be argued that collectives are made up on individuals who all seek the same goal for their own personal gain. But is this always the case? I support and campaign for an independent Scotland. As a single male in his 50s, what would I gain from independence? Very little to nothing in fact. I do it because I want others more vulnerable than I to have a better Scotland. Particularly I do it for today's children and young people, and the generations of Scots yet to come. Likewise the suffragettes fought not only for votes for themselves, but for the generations of women who would follow. And the civil rights movement swelled so that African Americans of the future would have a better future than they did. Even taken to it's extension of what makes society, Peterson's ideas fall down. For if there were no collectives, only self-seeking individuals, then who would join the armed forces? Who would join the emergency services? Who would be willing to put their lives in danger and even lay down their lives for their country and / or society? No-one. When someone loves someone else, but the other person wants to be free, would they let them go because they only seek their happiness? Where is the personal gain in that? For a man who professes to be a Christian, Jordan Peterson grossly underestimates the selflessness that human beings often display. I'd also like to know where in his Bible it teaches "Me first, second, and last." That doesn't sound very moral to me. Peterson also stated that western Judeo/Christian society has done more to enhance the freedom of the individual than any other portion of the planet, and that those freedoms were based on common law. Well, right away he again contradicts his claims about there being no collectives, as if that were the case, then it would take a society with shared ideals to uphold those freedoms. He also makes the mistake of thinking that common law - he says "British common law" when there's never been any such thing; Scotland and England have always had separate law systems - is based upon Biblical laws. They are not; for the most part they are secular and based upon Roman Law. But even then, the freedoms we enjoy were bought dearly by those who fought for them - often at a terrible price - and Judeo / Christian ideals not only rarely came into them, but it was people who claimed to be Christians who often very strongly opposed them, based upon Biblical teachings. Where was the church support for the suffragettes? There was none. If anything it was the churches who were telling women that their husbands ruled over them. Sure, Martin Luther King's faith played a big part in his struggle, but at the same time he and the civil rights movement were coming up against people - and laws - which opposed them based on what they claimed were Biblical teachings. It's like the Christians who try to boast they ended slavery. And so they should have - given that it was Christians who introduced slavery to the west in the first place, and used the Bible to back up their case for doing so. And most slave owners honestly believed they were doing right by their slaves; that in giving them a roof over their heads, work to do, and food to eat, they were doing the "Christian" thing. Feminism, which Peterson is opposed to, only became a movement because women fought and fight for the rights of women and girls, and the churches remain largely opposed to it. And don't even suggest for a moment that Judeo/Christian 'moral' ideals have ever been behind the struggle for LGBT rights. Even in his own narrative and at the basest level Peterson contradicted himself. While claiming that western society spread freedom of the individual, he correctly stated that in 1901 most people lived on around a dollar a day, which put them way below the poverty threshhold. It wasn't the churches who changed that Rather it was people - in collectives - fighting for workers rights and for benefits. Quite the opposite, the establishments in many western countries, fully backed up by the churches, did their utmost to oppose and even to physically crush these movements. After all, those who fought for those rights were for the most part socialists, who opposed both the establishment and the churches. Peterson claims that one of his You Tube videos has had 10 million views. That's more than probably an exaggeration, but even if he has had a lot of views on You Tube, then I'm sure it's for all the wrong reasons.

This Scot Does Not Want St Andrew's Day as a National Holiday

Who is this Stan Drew anyway?

I am a proud Scot.  I know my country's history, I embrace it's culture, and I campaign for Scottish independence.  I also say a firm NO to making St Andrew's Day a public holiday.  Many may wonder why this should be.

30 November, St Andrew's Day, is the feast day of Scotland's Patron Saint.  In 2017 that is an anachronism, particularly in a Scotland which at the least pays small regard to religion, and at the most may be overwhelmingly atheist.  A Survation Poll carried out by the Humanist Society Scotland in September 2017 produced some staggering results, which surprised even this hardened old atheist.

In the study of 1,016 Scots adults, a whacking 72.4% - almost three quarters - said they were not religious, and 58% said they did not belong to a religion.  These figures were up quite considerably from the previous one in 2011, when 58% said they were not religious.

Scotland, unlike England, is not even an officially Christian country.  England has the Church of England as the state religion, with the monarch as it's head.  It has been this way ever since King Henry VIII of England established the Church of England in 1534, with himself as the head of it.  The Church of Scotland, disestablished in 1929, has always been fiercely Presbyterian and recognises no intercessor between mankind and God.  Even Queen Elizabeth II, although Queen of Scots in her own right, when attending church in Scotland enjoys no special privilege or position within Kirk hierarchy, but does so purely as any other parishioner.

And just as Scotland is not officially a Christian country, neither can it be said to be so culturally any more.  Not only due to the overwhelming number of those who count themselves as not religious, but by the dint of now being a multicultural country, which means we are also a multi-faith country.

The Scotland 2011 Census showed that after Christianity, the next largest named religion is Islam, with 77,000 followers (1.4% of the population), then Hindu with 16,000 (0.3%), Buddhist (not a religion but a belief system with no creator gods) at 13,000 (0.2%), Sikh at 9,000 (0.2%), and Jewish with 6,000 (0.1%). Apart from those named religions, 15,000 stated they were of "Another Religion" (0.3%).

Yet despite this, on St Andrew's Day 2017, the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, gave her St Andrew's Day message, speaking of the charity of Saint Andrew, and using that message to announce plans to eradicate homelessness in Scotland.

Whilst I wish the First Minister the best of luck, and support her wholeheartedly in that endeavour, it would appear that in Scotland the Christian tail is wagging the atheist / multi-faith dog.  Having St Andrew's Day as a national holiday could only ever exacerbate that.

If there is one thing I think every Scot - Nat, Unionist, or indifferent - can be very proud of, it is just how very welcoming we are.  How we are a multicultural society who takes the world in and makes them our own.  If we were to have a national holiday based on a Christian saint's day, how can we ever claim to be multicultural or accepting?  The simple answer is we cannot.

What would people do on St Andrew's Day anyway?  I am writing this on 30 November 2017, and I had to take a day off work because of workmen coming.  What have I done?  Well, it is bloody freezing outside, so apart from running along the shops for some provisions, and darting back to the house damned quick, I spent most of it on social media, and doing some online Christmas shopping.

Trust me, that's what Scotland would do with a national holiday at the end of November; Christmas shopping.

There should be a national holiday to celebrate Scotland, but St Andrew's Day is not it.  I for one propose 6 April.

6 April was the day in 1320 upon which the lords of Scotland signed the Declaration of Arbroath; a letter to Pope John XXII, asserting Scotland's right as a free nation, and asking him to recognise that, and Robert the Bruce as King of Scots.  The declaration contains the well-known paragraph Sir Bernard de Linton penned, which stirs the heart of every Scot worthy of calling themselves such;

"For so long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never shall we, upon any condition, be subject to the dominion of the English.  It is in truth, not for money, nor honour, nor gold we are fighting, but for liberty alone, that which no good man lays down, but with his life itself."

In 1999, New York City celebrated 6 April as "Tartan Day".  Since then, Tartan Day events have spread across the USA, celebrating Scots culture; yet Scotland has nothing similar.

I say that Scotland adopts this date for a national holiday, perhaps calling it "Declaration Day"  Being at the start of April, it is at the beginning of Spring, which may afford us better weather for a national holiday.  People will certainly be in better spirits as the days are getting longer, and it would resurrect the spirit of the Spring Galas of the past.  It would be a day that everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof, culture, background, could get involved in, if they count themselves to be a Scot; born here of long lineage, born of immigrant stock, or who has come here and counts themselves as an "adoptive Scot" (we certainly adopt any and all of you).

And no, before anyone says it, it would not be "anti-English".  The Wars of Independence were of Scots fighting for freedom against tyranny, not against the English through any imagined hatred.  Strange as it may seem, you can celebrate your country's history without hating countries we once fought.

So, let us have our Declaration Day, 6 April, as a national holiday, and keep St Andrew's Day for it's dwindling number of believers, and for Christmas shopping.

The only person Ross Greer needs to remove from the Scottish Independence campaign is himself

Green MSP Ross Greer

On 6 August 2017, The Herald (or The Herod, as I like to call it) ran an article by Ross Greer titled "Time to show the door to the lunatic fringe killing the independence movement with its bile".  In this article Greer, a Scottish Green Party MSP who was also Communities Co-ordinator of Yes Scotland, claimed that there is a fringe movement within the independence movement that is likely to drive people away.

Greer started his article by rounding on those who engaged in vitriolic attacks on prominent Scots trade unionist and founder of Radical Independence, Cat Boyd, for admitting that she voted Labour in the June 2017 General Election.  Point taken.  The hate that Cat Boyd was subjected to really was not on, and those responsible really should be ashamed of themselves.  It's called democracy, guys.  But in all fairness, while I like what Cat Boyd has to say considering independence, there are times she really does not do herself any favours.  I am not for one moment defending those who castigated her, but when a prominent person within the independence movement admits that she voted for a unionist party and abstained in the EU Referendum, then one really has to ask exactly where her interests lie.

My main point of contention with Ross Greer's article however are over unsubstantiated claims he made about some within the independence movement being bigoted, without offering a shred of evidence to back that up.  "The attacks on Cat Boyd," claims Greer, "have sat alongside full-blown denunciations of ‘feminists,’ the ‘LGBT movement’ and ‘social justice warriors’ and calls for ‘their’ exclusion from the movement."

If there are "full-blown denunciations of feminists" within the independence movement, I for one would like to see exactly where Greer is seeing that.  Indeed, I don't know if it has escaped Ross Greer but women have always been very prominent within the independence movement, if not right at the forefront of it.  This has been true ever since Winnie Ewing - "Madame Ecosse" as she became known in the EU - won the Hamilton by-election in 1967, and Margo MacDonald followed that up by taking the Govan by-election in 1973 (could you imagine any man attempting sexism towards Margo?  They wouldn't dare).  But as well as these great ladies the SNP - and the wider independence movement - has had very strong voices in the shape of Wendy Wood, Naomi Mitchison, Margaret Ewing, Rosie Cunningham, Annabelle Ewing, Liz Lochhead, and many, many more too numerous to mention, while in Mhairi Black we have the next up-and-coming stalwart voice of women in independence.

Equally I don't know if Ross has noticed that it was the SNP who have given Scotland her first woman First Minister in the guise of Nicola Sturgeon; a woman so popular that not only are there voters in England saying they wish they could vote for her, but I have online friends in the USA saying they wish they had someone like her in American politics.  I recall listening to Nicola at a Bannockburn Rally in 2006, and I knew one day she would be First Minister - and the best we ever had.  I am more than pleased to say, with the raft of policies that Nicola Sturgeon has introduced and is continuing to introduce, I have been proven correct. And do no forget that Nicola, having taken over the reins from Alex Salmond, stood for re-election in 2016, and was swept back into Holyrood.

So I invite Ross Greer to show me exactly where all this supposed misogyny is coming from, particularly when not only was Nicola re-elected in 2016, but while the SNP vote was substantially down at the recent General Election, their vote and seats gained in Scotland still outnumbered all the unionist parties put together.

Likewise I have not seen homophobia, transphobia, or any other bigotry towards those within the LGBT community to any great extent within the independence movement.  I can only imagine therefore that Ross Greer is attempting to take a sideswipe at Rev Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland fame, concerning his Tweet aimed at Scottish Conservative MP, Oliver Mundell, after his father, Tory MP David "Fluffy" Mundell, came out as gay.

For those who have been living under a rock, Stu posted a Tweet. stating "Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner." Whether that was homophobic or not is hotly debated.  Some of my LGBT friends say yes, others say no.  It was however ill judged, as the unionists were very quick to jump upon it, to accuse Stuart Campbell of homophobia, and thereby attempt to smear the entire independence movement as being the same.  Not least of these of has been Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, who has been so vociferous about this Tweet and other things Stu has said, that he is taking out a defamation lawsuit against her.

I personally do not think Stuart Campbell should take out this lawsuit, and I think if he loses it, that could be hugely damaging towards the independence movement.  However, if Ross Greer chooses to side with the unionists over the alleged homophobia matter, then I invite him to tell me just how much he has done for independence compared to Stu?  The production of The Wee Blue Book by 'Wings' was an invaluable resource during the 2014 referendum campaign, just as The Wee Black Book, listing all the claims of the unionists, and how all the promises they made in 2014 have been subsequently broken, is an equally invaluable resource today.  And besides those, Stu has been working tirelessly before and after 2014 to highlight and expose unionist chicanery and false claims.  Stu is a stalwart of independence, and a true patriot.

When the SNP administration in the Scottish Parliament first mooted making same-sex marriage legal, there were few against it.  Indeed, the most prominent person was Stagecoach bus owner Brian Souter, who bankrolled the odious "Keep the Clause" campaign to retain the homophobic 'Clause 28', and who was an SNP donor but withdrew that funding when Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister.  When the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act went to public consultation, 76% of the public, most of whom were SNP voters, agreed with it, thereby giving green light to same-sex marriage in Scotland.  And while Westminster may have been Holyrood to the winning post over same-sex marriage, the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act is actually far more comprehensive and inclusive than England's Same Sex Marriage Act.

Likewise the Scottish Parliament is now working on legislation that will enable transgender and non-binary Scots to self-diagnose their own gender, and streamline the system for changing their birth certificates and other official documentation.  Listen to all that opposition to this from the Indy camp; absolute silence.  Scotland is leading the field in LGBT rights, and the vast majority of the Independence campaign are cock-a-hoop about that.

I would also ask Ross Greer to consider what happened when openly lesbian Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson was subjected to a barrage of homophobic Tweets from one knuckle-dragger in 2014.  It was the independence camp who immediately turned on the said individual, condemned his words, named and shamed him, and led him to apologise to the Tory leader.  Ruth Davidson herself later Tweeted that she felt she had been treated with gallantry.

Also in 2014 I recall Better Together putting up a pro-LGBT banner on their Facebook page.  They had to take it down less than 24 hours later, because of vile homophobic comments, not from Scots Nats, but rather from within their own ranks.  Nothing similar happened with the LGBT movement within Yes.

Even when it was recently revealed that Kezia Dugdale was in a relationship with Jenny Gilruth, SNP MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes, there was certainly raised voices and concerns over their relationship from within the Indy movement over information being compromised, but nothing that could be construed as homophobic.  I have no doubt that had Kezia been straight and taken up with an SNP man, the same concerns would have been raised.  The only homophobia I saw came not from the Indy camp, but rather some sleazy comments in the media reports, as well as some unsavoury homophobic comments below these reports, from Labour supporters.

I am not saying that bigotry towards women and LGBT people does not exist within the independence movement, all too sadly, it is everywhere and does need to be strongly put down wheresoever it is encountered.  But by trying to make out it is a huge problem, Ross Greer is over-egging the pudding here.  Particularly when, again, he offers absolutely no evidence or examples to back up his claims.  I however could point him to many LGBT people, the vast majority of whom are pro-independence.

I now move on to Ross Greer's claims that there is prejudice within the Indy movement towards "social justice warriors", hereafter referred to in this article as SJWs.

There are many have accused me of being an SJW, because I do indeed stand for social justice for all.  I recognise that some enjoy privilege others do not, which means that they do not always see prejudice and injustice towards others where and when it does happen.  I count myself as a feminist, anti-racist, anti-sectarian, an internationalist, and a staunch supporter of human rights for all.  I am an atheist and a secularist, who nonetheless recognises the right of freedom of thought, religion and conscience of all. I am well-educated in matters of sexuality and gender, and am of the school of thought that we are all born with both already decided, and far from being fixed, all humanity is on sexual spectrum, and a gender one.

So let me tell you what I think of SJWs - they are a pain in the bum who often do more to infringe human rights than they do to champion them.  Many SJWs get so much of a bee in their bonnets about 'inclusion' to the point that they actually trample on the rights of others. They are also the people most likely to attempt to shout down or otherwise attempt to silence others, and/or to attempt to shut down debate by embarking on ad hominem insults and smears against their opponent.  Keep that in mind, because it becomes important later in this article.

It was SJWs responsible for Richard Dawkins recently being ‘disinvited’ from speaking at Berkeley University, California, for once saying (quite correctly in my opinion) that Islam is one of the biggest threats facing mankind today.  It is the SJWs of the Southern Poverty Law Center who placed Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist extremist who now campaigns against Islamist indoctrination but who is still a practising Muslim, on their list of anti-Islamic extremists.  It was an SJW diversity officer at Goldings University event who in 2015 banned white people and heterosexual, cisgender men from a ‘diversity’ event, and followed that up with calling all white people “white trash” and posting the hashtag #killallwhitemen.  It was SJWs last year of the University and College Union who stated that an 'equality' conference would only be open to members who identified as gay, disabled, female, or of an ethnic minority.

These stories are but the tip of the iceberg.  Is it any wonder then that those of us on the left, and I strongly count myself in that bracket, at the least see SJWs as a bad joke and an embarrassment, and at the worst a dangerous hindrance to the furtherance of democracy, human rights, and the radical agenda?  If anyone doubts that, go and have a look at some of the videos put up by atheists on You Tube, many of whom are on the left or at least 'liberal', and see what they have to say about SJWs.

And going back to LGBT rights, Ross Greer would be well to take note that there is an increasing number of SJWs who are siding with Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists - TERFs - who deny the very existence of transgender women, maintaining that they are only men seeking to attack women in public toilets and changing rooms.

But again, Ross Greer makes this claim, and again offers not one shred of evidence to back up his assertion. And this one is actually highly amusing, as if there is one thing we know about Scottish politics, it is that it tends to be far further to the left than the rest of the UK.  Scots have always pretty much believed in fair play, playing the ba' and no' the man, and largely accepting of others. Social justice has always been to the forefront of Scottish politics, and if Ross Greer is tying to pretend it is any different, that is not just disingenuous, it is a lie.

So, whom does Ross Greer blame for all this? Well, this was the point where reading his article, I spluttered over a mouthful of tea and had to read it again to make sure I had read it right.  "I’m sure," Greer states, "these comments come overwhelmingly from older white men."

Do you see what Ross Greer did there?   He just made a sweeping generalisation about one section of Scots society, again without providing one shred of evidence to support his assertion; not one iota of proof to back up his claim.  Instead, Greer is "sure" this is the case, and so we have to take him at his word on that, and based upon that, ban these people from the independence movement.

As an atheist I am often confronted by people who claim that their god exists and they have a personal relationship with him / her / they / it.  That does not convince me and neither should it convince anyone else.  I mention it here, because likewise if Ross Greer is going to make such an assertion, he needs to supply evidence to back up his claims.  Just like theist making their claims carries the burden of proof, likewise does Ross Greer about bigotry towards feminists, the LGBT community, and SJWs coming from "older white males".

And what is more, in making such a sweeping generalisation and castigating an entire section of people within the independence movement, Ross Greer has contradicted his own article.  He has shown his own prejudice, based on absolutely no evidence, towards pro-Indy older white men.  But he is "sure", so we just have to take his word for that. Not only does that make his entire article self-contradictory, it makes Ross Greer an outright and utter hypocrite.

What is more, his assertion does not even hold up to scrutiny.  If there is one thing that the independence referendum, and the 2017 General Election have taught us, it is that older white males are not voting for independence.  In the referendum, the higher the age bracket, the more people voted No. Exactly the same happened in the recent General Election, where it was those more advancing in years who voted Tory (turkeys voting for Christmas) or other unionist parties.

As I write this on the brink of my 54th birthday, I take umbrage at Ross Greer's words, very much so.  And I am sure that there are a number of my "older white male" friends in the Indy movement who feel likewise. And just for the record, neither I nor any one of these friends has ever attacked anyone for being a feminist, LGBT, of a campaigner for social justice for that matter.  If Ross Greer fails to understand where I am coming from on that, I will remind him that all too soon he too will be an older white male.

In his article, Greer wants to remove those he imagines are damaging the independence movement from it. This is exactly the bullying attitude of the social justice warrior; this binary thinking, "If you're not with us, you must be against us" mentality, where they will seek to silence you if you say or write (or even think) the least little thing against their agenda.

I would not only like to see Ross Greer attempt to kick me and other "older white males" out of the independence movement, I'd like him to explain just how he intends to do that.  Certainly, the SNP and Yes could kick them out (look out, there goes Alex Salmond and George Kerevan - older white males), but is he then going to have his "Greer SJW Police" stop people at every meeting, every rally, every march?  Are they going to stand outside polling stations and tell those they are opposed to "You'd better not vote SNP."?

Banning people from the independence movement is impossibility; it simply cannot be done, because it belongs to ALL of us - older white males included.  You can maybe silence voices, at a stretch you could maybe stop them writing - but you would have your work cut out, but you cannot stop people THINKING independence, and VOTING independence.

Neither Ross Greer nor anyone else can 'ban' others from being part of the independence movement, simply because it does not belong solely to them and they do not have the authority to do so; the aim of an independent Scotland belongs to ALL who believe in it.

The only person who can remove someone from the independence movement is the individual himself or herself.  And Ross Greer may want to think long and hard on that, if he truly believes his words in the Herald article, compared to some other things he has recently said.

"it’s time to show the door" stated Greer in the Herald "to those who think misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and vicious attacks are a price worth paying if they come from ‘one of ours’"

Compare that to two Tweets Greer posted the following day, directed at a pro-independence Scottish blogger, who happens to be based in Dublin.  The first said "Check out Michael Collins with a keyboard." and this was followed up by a comment, which said, "The struggle is real and you're no Butterfly unless you join a flying column".

These Tweets were in response the blogger, Jason Michael, had posted in Butterfly Rebellion, which had been derided by Daily Record writer James McEnaney.  The references to Michael Collins and flying columns refer to IRA commander General Michael Collins, who commanded "flying columns" of guerrilla fighters to attack British soldiers.

Jason Michael has called these Tweets from Greer "anti-Irish racism".  This is debatable as Irish is an ethnicity, not a race.  They are however an ad hominem slur - remember what I said about SJWs? - upon a peace-loving pro-Indy writer and they are certainly anti-Irish.  What is worse, given that Scotland is a land where the ugly spectre of sectarianism is sadly still the scourge and shame of our country, Greer's Tweets are deeply sectarian.  Is it not enough that we already have some sectarian unionists claiming that the Indy movement is infested and ran by pro-IRA Irish Roman Catholics, without Ross Greer apparently backing them up?  And if it is coming from "one of ours", should we put up with it?

Going back to his Herald article, Ross Greer made reference to "obnoxious keyboard warriors", and in light of his farcical article, followed by two disgusting, anti-Irish and sectarian Tweets against a peace-loving man, I would like him to tell me just exactly what that makes him?

But then, Greer also said in the Herald "Bigots and bullies aren’t my people and they shouldn’t be yours if you believe in a better Scotland."

I couldn't agree more, Ross. And in light of your comments and Tweets, perhaps you should rethink if the Scottish independence campaign is really the place for you.

Proud to be...?

Whose flag? 

For a great many years now we have heard the tired old mantra from Unionists, “Proud to be Scottish, proud to be British”.  Yet when push comes to shove, this slogan seems to nothing but a soundbite and empty rhetoric, with little or no substance to back it up.

One of the most common instances of the empty rhetoric of such Unionists is their attitude towards the national flag of Scotland, the Saltire.  Some Unionists claim that the independence movement, and specifically the Scottish National Party (SNP), have hijacked the Saltire, while others outright claim that it is a Scottish nationalist symbol.  As far back as 2008, then Labour MP Jim Murphy was boasting that he would “reclaim the Saltire” from the independence movement, and he repeated that claim for years afterwards, right up to 2014 when he was campaigning for a No vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum.  Ten days before that referendum, then Labour leader Ed Miliband tried a “Reclaim the Saltire” PR stunt, in calling for Saltires to be flown on public buildings and other places right across the UK.  The call backed up by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, the Saltire even flew for a short while outside 10 Downing Street on that day – not helped by the flag slipping from it’s moorings at the first attempt to raise it.  Otherwise, this call fell upon mostly deaf ears, with only a few places flying the Saltire.

Even after the referendum Jamie Greene, in 2015 Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Ayrshire launched a Change petition “Reclaim the Saltire” under the banner of “I am Scottish Too”, which grew into a campaign.  Greene claims on his website “Are you afraid to fly your national flag for fear of it being interested as a pro-separatist symbol?”  That is not a simple question.  By the very wording of it, it is a loaded one.  Notice the use of the term “pro-separatist” (as for “interested”, I think he means “interpreted”.

More disturbingly still has been the sheer antipathy towards the Saltire, which has people and organisations ordered to take Saltire flags down on the flimsiest of reasoning.  One man in Kirkcaldy flying the Saltire was ordered by the Labour-controlled Fife Council to take his flagpole down because it apparently contravened health & safety guidelines, despite it being up for several years previously, with no complaint.  Also stating health & safety rules the SNP group Renfrewshire Council were ordered to remove their Saltire flag from their office windows by Council leader David Martin.  That was in December 2013, when the windows of many offices in the building were festooned with Christmas decorations, yet the order from the Labour Party leader made absolutely no mention of them.  

Earlier in 2013, the Labour-Tory coalition on Stirling Council passed a motion to remove the Saltire flag from their headquarters and replace it with a Union flag.  In an obviously biased joint statement, Tory councillor Callum Campbell and Labour councillor Danny Gibson wrote;

“Council notes the tone of some of the debate, especially with regards to symbols have fought and died under for 300 years, Council deplores this debasing of our symbols.

"Council resolves to stand for the symbols of  our country by flying the Union Flag from the main pole above the council building and the council flag from the freestanding flagpost in the ground of Old Viewforth."

The more bizarre part of the Stirling story is that the Saltire which flew from Stirling Municipal Building was not even a national Saltire; it was as stylised one with a lion rampant at it’s centre, to reflect and commemorate the city’s connection with the Battle of Bannockburn, 1314.  Something Stirling has every right to be proud of.

"Salty" in happier times

Sometimes this hatred of the Saltire goes way too far.  In 2006 Edinburgh was host to a Cow Parade event, in which 96 brightly painted fibreglass cows were placed around the city (and one in Prestonpans, East Lothian), which were later auctioned to raise money for cancer and animal charities.  It was an amazing event, which really captured the public imagination and brought many visitors to the city.  The Scottish Parliament sponsored one of the cows, Salty, which was located outside the Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood, and was painted with, you guessed it, a Saltire.  A few cows were vandalised, but none more than Salty, who was smashed to bits, and her head stolen.  Whoever did this – they were never caught – I do hope they are proud.  For apart from degrading their own national flag, Salty was the award-winning design from a little boy who entered a competition in the Edinburgh Evening News.  So if the perpetrators are reading this, hang your heads in shame.

Meanwhile the flag ban on public buildings continues, most recently in North Ayrshire.  Cunninghame House in Irvine, headquarters of North Ayrshire Council, for a long time had a Saltire flying outside it.  At a council meeting on 28 June 2017, Conservative councillor for Irvine West, Scott Gallagher, put forward a motion requesting that the Union Flag be flown alongside the Saltire, claiming he had received emails asking why it was not flown.  “We have had numerous emails asking why the flag is not always flying outside this building,” said Councillor Gallagher, “I’m not trying to have the Union Flag replace the Saltire outside this building.  I’m making an attempt to have both flags flying together.”  SNP Councillor for Irvine East, Marie Burns, made an amendment rejecting the motion and asking that the council retain the status quo, while at the same time lambasting the Tories on the council for making a flag their first priority in the face of swinging Tory austerity cuts.  “This council has struggled to protect the people of North Ayrshire against the impact of Tory austerity,” said Councillor Burns, “a policy that has wreaked havoc on many of our most vulnerable residents, and what do their newly-elected Tory Councillors have to say? 'At least you can see the Union Flag from Cunninghame house.”

In stepped Robert Foster, Labour Councillor for Irvine South, who echoed Councillor Burns about discussing a flag in the face of austerity.  However, rather than move on, Councillor Foster put forward his own motion, that no flag be flown, except on special occasions, when both the Saltire and the Union Flag be flown side-by-side.   The vote between the motions of Councillor Gallagher and Councillor Burns was split 10/10, which meant it went to a draw of cards.  Councillor Gallagher drew the Five of Clubs, while Councillor Burns drew the Three of Diamonds, which should have been the end of the matter; the Tory councillor had effectively won the vote.  However, members then had to vote on the Labour amendment, and with the SNP councillors refusing to take part in the vote (churlish, guys – no-one likes a bad loser), the motion was carried by 11 Labour votes to 10 Tory and Independent votes.  So it is that no Saltire – and no Union Flag – now flies outside of Cunninghame House.  Just how bloody childish can you get?

But amidst all these accusations of the Saltire being ‘hijacked’ by the independence movement as a ‘nationalist symbol’, the most bizarre thing is there is not one iota of truth about that.  To the best of my knowledge nobody in the independence movement has ever tried to suggest that we have some sort of monopoly over the Saltire, nor has anyone ever tried to hold it up as a symbol of Scottish nationalism

SNP "thistle" symbol

Do the SNP hold the Saltire as their emblem?  No, they have their own symbol, which comprises of a circle, which is crossed at the top.  This symbol does indeed incorporate a Saltire, but is also meant to represent a thistle.  And note that the SNP symbol is black on yellow, and not the silver-white on blue Saltire – “A Saltire argent, a field azure” – which makes up our national flag.  Have Yes Scotland ever tried to claim the Saltire as their own or an independence symbol?  No, they simply had the word “Yes”, in a particular style, usually but not always white on blue, or blue on white.

And if anyone is going to claim that using the colours of light blue and white is enough to make the Saltire a nationalist symbol, then I suggest they consider the railway stations of Scotland in the 1950s and 1960s,

when they were painted white with blue woodwork, and station signs were white lettering on a blue background.  Are the Unionists then going to try to claim that British Rail (Scottish Region) were diehard Scots Nats due to this regional colour scheme?  You know, they may well.  I once read an attempted smear story in the Daily Telegraph claiming that Nicola Sturgeon was trying to send a political message by having the Saltire emblazoned on Scottish trains.  Actually, it was Abellio, the company who took over the Scotrail franchise, who decided to paint their trains blue, interspaced with stylised silver Saltires.

A nationalist symbol?

Likewise, I have a Scottish Rugby Union cap which has a little Saltire tag on the back of it.  Would the Unionists then try to claim that the SRU are Scots Nats?  And if they do, are they aware just how many rugby fans vote Tory?  Try well over 50% of them, and even of those who are not Tories, the vast majority are indeed Unionists.

Do we who campaign for Scottish independence wave, carry and even wear Saltires? Yes, we do – because it is our flag, we are proud of it, and we are not afraid to display it.  Do we give little Saltire hand flags out, including to children? Yes, we do.  People often ask for them, particularly people who are so skint due to Westminster austerity that they cannot afford to buy anything from a stall or make a donation.  And yes, that includes parents who particularly ask for flags for their kids.  But here’s also a thing; I don’t like to include children in politics, but I have on occasion from a Yes stall given little Saltire flags to the kids, not as a political gesture, but purely because every bairn loves a flag, no matter what that flag is.  But think on, Unionists, when you shove little Union Flags into the hands on every kid on occasions such as royal visits, just exactly what are you doing?

The Lord Lyon, King of Arms, is the authority on all heraldic matters in Scotland.  This is what the Court of the Lord Lyon has to say on the matter of the Saltire flag;

“The flag of St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. Blue with a white or silver diagonal cross reaching to its edges, this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality.

Its proportions are not fixed, but 5:4 is suitable.

It is correct both to fly it with or instead of the Union flag. If both are flown they must be on separate poles, the Union flag being on the most important pole.”

If anyone reading the above still thinks that the Saltire is a symbol for Scottish Independence, then that is tantamount to suggesting that the Lord Lyon himself is a diehard Scots Nat, which I am sure would raise at least one eyebrow of the Right Honourable Joseph Morrow, the current Lord Lyon, King of Arms. Whatever Lord Morrow’s political affiliations may be, it is worth noting that as the Lord Lyon speaks for the monarch in Scotland, like the Queen, he has to remain officially neutral on political and constitutional matters.

I may not like the fact that when the Union Flag is flown with the Saltire, the Union Flag has to be flown on the most important pole.  But hey, we’re still in the Union, and as long as we are, even I have to abide by the Lord Lyon’s rulings - only independence can change that.  In fact, it angers me that the Scottish Records Office in Edinburgh, which has nothing to do with the Union (and right next door to the Court of the Lord Lyon) has a huge Union Flag flow atop it.  However, amusingly enough, the staff don’t like it either and commonly fly the Union Flag upside-down, which is a sign of distress.  One of the staff has actually said when it has been noted upon “It’s nothing to the distress we feel working in here.”

But by equal measure, as much as I intensely dislike Tory policies, I actually liked the proposals of Councillor Scott Gallagher in North Ayrshire; he wanted the two flags side-by-side, and in all fairness, as he stated, he did not want to remove the Saltire.  True, the council should have been getting on with more important things, but it was a magnanimous gesture, which actually would have broken the ruling of the Lord Lyon, but which would have placated both Unionists and Scots Nats.

Where Stirling Council went wrong was replacing the Stirling Saltire with the Union Flag.  You will notice that the ruling by the Lord Lyon says it is right to fly the Saltire instead of the Union Flag, but says nothing about flying the Union Flag instead of the Saltire.  But then, the Unionists on Stirling Council did refer to the entire UK as “our nation”, thereby ignoring the nationhood status of not just Scotland but also England.

It is interesting to note actually that if there is one thing disturbing about the entire flag debate, it is actually the Tories who are more likely to embrace the Saltire than Labour, who are the ones who all too often want it taken down.  Indeed, the current Scottish Conservatives logo is a stylised Saltire, while the Scottish Labour Party symbol is the same as that of their London-based parent party – a red Rose, which many would argue is actually a symbol of England (or are they Lancastrians and do Labour fare poorly in Yorkshire marginals as a result?).  Now, that is fine for England; honestly, I have no problem with that.  I believe that the Labour Party claim it is a symbol of socialism, and may be linked to the song by James Oppenheim "Bread and Roses" ("Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.").  Well, I very much identify as a socialist, but when I see the Labour Party symbol, I don't think 'socialism', I think 'England'.  And it is not being in any way anti-English to say that is wholly inappropriate for Scotland (or Wales, or Cornwall).  If anyone wants to argue with me or that, would you stand in an English constituency with a thistle as your emblem?

It is also interesting to note that plenty of Labour supporters will more than happily fly the Irish Tricolour, for the Palestinian Flag.  So to some Labour supporters if you seek the six counties which make up Northern Ireland being reunited with the Republic, or freedom for Palestine, you are a champion of freedom, but if you seek Scottish independence, then suddenly you are right-wing, anti-English “separatist”.  That’s the sort of perverse logic we are dealing with here.  Just a note to anyone who thinks like that;  most Scots Nats, myself included, do also support a united Ireland, a free Palestine, freedom for Tibet, for Catalunya, for Quebec, for Wales, for Cornwall (whose nation status we recognise, which is more than Labour, Tories or the Lib-Dems do), and anyone else who wants it.  You cannot support self-determination for one people and not others; to do so is nothing short of hypocrisy.

I can already hear the cries of “closet Tory” from some Labour supporters and members reading this.  Not at all.  I despise the Tories with a vengeance and actually know people in Labour for Independence and other Labour members and supporters.  I am merely making observations and it is not my fault if your party is less likely to embrace Scotland’s national flag – your flag for Scots Labourites – than the Tories are.  You may wish to reflect upon that.  Oh, and for the record, I'm not a member of the SNP either; I am not a member of any political party.

If you are a Unionist and really do think that the independence movement has somehow hijacked the Saltire as a Scots Nat symbol, then there is an easy answer to that; embrace it yourself.  If you are the one claiming that the Satire is your flag, then by all means, take it back – not that it was ever taken from you in the first place. 

The words of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms, are plain enough; “this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality.”   There is the official line.  The Saltire is your flag, and nobody can ever take that away from you.  The only people stopping Unionists from displaying the Saltire are themselves, or other Unionists who have an antipathy towards the flag and seek to take it away from all as a result.

So, here is my challenge, Unionists.  You claim that you are “proud to be Scottish, proud to be British”, put your money where your mouth is and prove it.  If you want to fly the Saltire, by all means, please do.  In fact, this Scots Nat would be the first to champion your right to do so, and could not be happier or prouder to see you take pride in your country’s culture and nationhood.

If you do not, then we can all draw our own conclusions as to your true intentions, and where your allegiance truly lies.

Just WHO Are Atheists Blaspheming?

Offensive to God?  Or just to you?

Comedian Stephen Fry is under investigation by Irish Police for Blasphemy following a member of the public complaining about some comments he made on RTE television show The Meaning of Life in February 2015.

The show host, Gay Byrne, asked Fry what he might say to God at the gates of Heaven, to which he replied "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It's not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

Speaking of the Greek Gods (Stephen Fry is also a classical scholar), Fry added that they did not "present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent... ...the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish".

The Irish Independent reported that a member of the public made a complaint to police in Ennis the same month the programme was broadcast, which he claimed breached the Irish Defamation Act. He has more recently been contacted by the Garda to say they are now investigating his complaint. It is claimed that the complainant says he was not personally offended by the comments, but felt that Stephen Fry's comments qualified as Blasphemy under the 2009 law.

The Defamation Act entered Irish statute books in 2009. It was introduced to extend existing blasphemy laws in Ireland to all faiths, as the Irish Constitution of 1937 only gave Christians and the Christian faith protection under law. Breach of the Defamation Act carries a 25,000 Euro (UK £22,000) fine.

Stephen Fry in 2015 pointed out that he had not singled out any one religion in his comments.

Scotland also has a Blasphemy Law still on the statute books of Scots Law, although it was last enforced in 1843, when Edinburgh bookseller Thomas Paterson was jailed for 15 months for selling "blasphemous literature".

So, under risk of prosecution, if the Bible were to be believed, let me tell readers exactly what I think of the God of Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition.

By the very admission of the Bible, this is a petty-minded, childish, cruel god, with all the loving kindness of a sadistic psychopath.

From the very beginning, our "loving father" placed the first humans in the Garden of Eden, and forbade them eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But hold on, if they did not know what good and evil were, then it therefore logically follows they had never been taught right from wrong. Therefore, when they did eat from the tree, they were wholly innocent in their actions, not knowing any better.

That's the same actions of the arsehole who puts paint thinner in a milk bottle and leaves it within reach of a toddler. Our 'loving father' is one helluva shitty parent it seems

It was inevitable that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, for it is human nature to be curious. That's why in 2010: Odyssey Two, Arthur C Clarke had the aliens tell humanity "All these worlds are yours to explore except Europa. Attempt no landings there."; because they knew the temptation would be too great for mankind to resist.  It is also why you get kids climbing over walls and fences into 'forbidden' areas, and even why if you put up a "Wet Paint" sign, some daft bugger will inevitably always touch the paint to check.

So, with Adam and Eve innocently breaching God's rules, which he never explained fully why, what was God's reaction? Not only did he punish the first humans but he condemned all mankind to come for all time to be punished for all eternity, for a minor infraction by the first two who could not have known any better.

This is a god who in a fit of pique, wiped out every species of flora and fauna on the face of the planet, save for a few on a ruddy great boat, because mankind had become "wicked".

A god who commanded his "chosen people" to kill every man, woman and boy child, right down to babies, but that they could keep all the young unmarried virgin girls for themselves. Thereby sanctioning not only mass murder but also rape and sexual slavery.

A god who loved his chosen people so much that he deliberately hardened the heart of Pharaoh, ensuring he would not accede to the pleas of Moses to let his people go. A god who then proceeded to rain down hail, affecting everyone, poison the water, affecting everyone, spread disease and lice, affecting everyone, destroy the crops, affecting everyone, and kill the cattle, affecting everyone. A god who rounded off this particularly nasty set of parlour tricks by killing every first born son of every Egyptian, right down to the babies.

A god who laid down his book of rules, in which he freely admits to being jealous, and goes on to tell his people to kill adulterers, gay men and women - whom he allegedly created yet calls them an "abomination", and even unruly and cheeky children.

A god who was so angered by the sexual licentiousness of two cities that he destroyed them, leaving only one man and his two daughters surviving. Yet when the daughters got their father drunk and had sex with him (because obviously there was loads of wine lying around in a cave, and Lot somehow magically did not suffer from 'brewer's droop'), the same god who frowned so much on the sexual practises of Sodom and Gomorrah apparently had no problem with their incest.

A god who laid down rules for slaves, telling them to be loyal and faithful to their masters.

A god who punished some children who were cheeky to a bald man by having a bear tear them to shreds.

A god who is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, yet somehow had to impregnate a woman with himself, then have himself sacrificed and brought back to life, to 'save' mankind from the eternal punishment which only the same god alone could have created.

A god who told his followers to leave their families and follow him only.

If any human being told you that they watched your every move, they knew everything you do, everywhere you go, everyone you met and what you did with them, and that same person told you that you had better love them and them alone above all others, or they would punish you in the cruellest ways without mercy, you would be more than a little alarmed. You may seek an exclusion order against that person. You would more than likely contact the police, and if their investigation proved that the said person had indeed said all of the above, they would be charged, convicted, and imprisoned for your safety and that of the public in general.

Yet that is exactly what the Christian faith is based upon; that an all-seeing God is following you all the time, and if you don't accept him, love him above all others, and do his bidding, then you will be thrown into Hell and punished mercilessly for all eternity.

The 'love' of God is no love at all; it has all the love of the dangerously obsessed psychopathic stalker who needs locked up for their own good as well as that of society.

If the God of the Bible was proven to exist, then I would have no reason but to accept that, but there is no way I could ever bring myself to follow the evil fuck. And what would I say? I would tell him to his face all of the above and condemn him that if anyone truly deserved to be burning in Hell, it would be him.

If anyone is offended by all I have written above, as I said, Scotland has blasphemy laws, so go ahead, make my day – bring a complaint against me. I would relish my day in court, I would plead Not Guilty, and for my testimony I would use no other documents than the King James Bible. Referring to it, I would prove that not one word I say in any way blasphemes the Christian faith. Indeed, much of it actually is central to the faith and thereby upholds it.

I would call God as a witness, but I think he may unavailable to comment.

Moreover I would make the point as I do not believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, or any other gods for that matter, then I cannot possibly be guilty of blaspheming the Christian faith, or any other faith.

When Sir William Wallace was dragged before King Edward I of England for his show-trial in 1305, he admitted many charges. But when the charge of Treason was read out he defiantly cried out that he could not be guilty of Treason, as he had never sworn allegiance to King Edward. It did him no good, but it was a sound legal point. Similarly, neither the God of Abraham nor Jesus are my kings; I don't believe in the former and the jury is still out on the very existence of the latter. Therefore, I am no more guilty of blasphemy against the Judeo/Christian God than I am of blasphemy against the Elfin Queen, unicorns, Father Christmas, the Green Man, or the Loch Ness Monster.

And exactly the same can be said of Stephen Fry. Indeed, more so for Fry, as unlike me, he did not single out any particular religion.

Many would find a great deal of what I have said above offensive, but it is by no means blasphemous. If it is offending, then it is not my belief that it is offending God, because I don't believe he/she/it/they exist. So just who then is being offended? Only the believers, and herein lies the problem.

The brilliant You Tube atheist cartoonist who goes under the name DarkMatter2525 once posted an absolutely brilliant video, "The Real God; An Epiphany", in which he argued that when theists are offended by atheists, it is not because the atheist is rejecting God, but rather it is the believer who feels rejected. Likening belief to an attraction to another person, he pointed out that when someone approaches another, only to find their attraction is not reciprocated, that person has their feelings hurt, they feel rejected, and may lash out in anger as a result. DarkMatter2525 went on to claim that this is because that the 'relationship' that believers feel with their god is in fact a deep relationship with their own ego. The god they 'worship' will often share their own views on social, moral, and even political issues, and that is because the 'relationship with god' is in fact a deeply-set relationship with the subconscious self. In reality, the believer IS the very god they claim to worship.

And of course, among all this, there actually has been no rejection at all. If any one of us is approached by another who is attracted to us, but are not interested, we may let them down lightly, we may agree to be friends but not more than friends, but are we rejecting them? No, we are not. We may already be married or in a relationship, we may be of a different sexual persuasion, the time may not be right for us, or we may simply not be interested. There are hundreds of reasons why we do not enter into relationships with others, none of which can be defined as rejection. So it is if we do not believe in the existence of god(s), and/or we consider the writings of 'holy' books to be nothing more than mythology, we are not rejecting those beliefs. If you think that we are, then consider whether you likewise have rejected Maebh, Queen of Faerie.

Yet the believer will react angrily, often even violently, to the non-believer for this 'rejection'. History is replete with instances of atrocities carried out in the name of religion, where countless millions, possibly billions, have been killed for "blasphemy", "heresy" and "apostasy". Here in Edinburgh alone, we have the Witches Well; a memorial on the site where hundreds of innocents, mostly women and girls, were once burned at the stake for Witchcraft (over 500 alone during the reign of King James VI, who was paranoid about witches, and whose youngest victim was a little girl of 4 years old). The Holy Inquisitions killed thousands, all based on idle superstition and dogma which has since been proven to be wholly mistaken.

We have all seen or heard about the atrocities committed by Daesh, and there are Islamic countries where questioning or denying the Qur'an can earn sentences ranging from fines, to imprisonment, to lashes, or even to hanging or beheading. Saudi Arabia has recently passed laws which define atheism as terrorist activity.

But do not be too quick to point the finger at the dark ages ideas of fundamentalist Islamic states, Christians, because although you may claim that Christian atrocities are part of a sad and mistaken history, your faith does not have clean hands to this day. In Kenya it is not uncommon for fanatical Christian mobs to hunt down, attack, and even massacre people they suspect of witchcraft. In Uganda faith-based laws see gay men arrested, beaten up in cells, and even 'disappeared' in some cases. Nor can you put this down to the idle superstition of some uneducated African peoples. Chechnya is quite openly rounding up gay men and placing them in concentration camps, with full sanction of the Islamic authorities, and the Orthodox Church. And of course the homophobic views of Russian President Vladimir Putin are more than well known, and gay men in Russia are often arrested and/or beaten up, which the authorities either turn a blind eye to, or are actually involved in. This again again has the sanction of the Orthodox church.

Believers reacting to what they perceive as blasphemy, be it through law, by violence, or both, actually suggests a distinct shallowness of faith. For surely if you believe your god is omnipotent, that is all-powerful, then it is down to that god and that god alone to deal with the blasphemer. Or do you believe your god to be so weak and powerless that he needs his earthly minions to do his fighting for him?

This is actually a very important message for the Christian faith, which indeed tells believers not to be judge, unless they too should be judged. In Deuteronomy 32:35, God allegedly states "To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." This is repeated in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." In other words, by the very rules laid out in the Bible, it is not the place of Christians to seek revenge for imagined slights, but they are actually meant to leave it to God to deal with the 'sinner'.

Gandhi, although not a Christian, was a very devout man who believed there was truth in all faiths and who greatly admired the story of Jesus. He once stated "Violence implies atheism", again working on this idea that if you turn to violence, then you are denying the power of your god.

If any believers are offended by my writings, they therefore have to ask themselves just who have I offended? Have I really offended their god? No, because I don't believe their god exists, and if they did, then it is that god's place to deal with me, not the believers.

Have I offended the believer? No, I have severely questioned the Judeo/Christian faith, which I consider to be utter nonsense, and the Bible - already proven to be unreliable and inaccurate - to be little more than a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders campfire tales. Believers, whichever faith they follow, really need to get over the idea that their 'holy books' are somehow not open to scrutiny. If they do not, then they are little different from the Taliban. As Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist fundamentalist who now campaigns against Islamist indoctrination says "No idea is beyond questioning. No human being is beyond dignity."

Have I as much as suggested suppressing the right to freedom of religion? Not by the slightest iota. I am in fact extremely passionate about human rights, including the right of freedom of religion, thought and conscience. I may consider religion to be absolutely barmy, but if anyone chooses to believe, then not only is it their right to do so, but I would be the first to defend that right. I may not be a parent, but I believe every child has the right to a good education. You do not have to be part of something to defend it. I only wish that more theists would likewise defend my right NOT to believe in god(s); freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

So, believer, if you are indeed offended by my writings, and think they are blasphemous, here is my open invitation; go ahead, bring a complaint against me. I do believe that the statute in Scots Law against Blasphemous Libel would cover it. I think I have already clearly illustrated however that I am innocent of any such charges, and I will more than happily stand up and repeat those arguments in a court of law.

Then before you bring any such action, consider that if you do so, not only would you be trying to do your God's work for him, but in doing so you would also be bearing false witness against me.

Would both of these actions not in fact be, ermm, blasphemy?