 |
| A mild example from a well-known Indy blogger |
No room for online abuse which only harms the independence movement.
Senior figures within the Scottish National Party (SNP) have
called for a crackdown on online abuse, and for independence supporters to call
out and distance themselves from those who engage in such behaviour. Alyn Smith MEP, Stewart McDonald MP, and
Angus Robertson, former SNP Depute Leader have called out online abuse that may
harm the independence campaign.
In an interview, Alyn Smith told the Herald on Sunday (5 May
2019), “in the same way the Tartan Army had to clean up its act in the 1980s
and then became a massive ambassadorial source for Scotland… …We all need to
step up. This is allowing us to be portrayed in a certain way that's damaging…
…call them out and send them to Coventry. Make them persona non grata forever -
off you pop, you aren't one of us if that's how you behave”.
Angus Robertson stated, "I'm expressly underlining the fact that this is
an issue for both sides of the constitutional argument in Scotland, and more
generally internationally where on social media, often because of anonymity,
some people think that they can insult, attack and offend with impunity… …I
think these people are cowards and wouldn't be prepared to continue posting in
the same way if they were identifiable, quite often because what they're saying
and doing would be considered illegal. We need a cultural change… …There's been
reticence by senior Yes supporters to call out abuse for fear of undermining
the more general debate about Scotland's constitutional future, and rather than
highlight the levels of abuse they received by unionist trolls to let it slide,
or to avoid criticism because one is wanting to protect the reputation of
public discourse more generally. This
can't go on. People can't go on thinking they can sit in front of their
keyboards and do nothing but send abuse to people they don't agree with. You
wouldn't do it in public, you'd be thrown out of a pub for doing it, you'd
never do it at a family event, why on earth would you do it online?"
I have seen angry responses from some in the Indy camp, who somehow
feel betrayed by these comments, but the fact is that the SNP trio are
absolutely correct, and I applaud all three for calling out those who are
potentially damaging the independence cause.
And those angered may have missed the point that the three actually
called out those on the unionist side who partake in the same behaviour.
What does Internet abuse achieve? Does it change the hearts and minds of the people who are being
attacked? Does it make salient
political points that the opponents are likely to take on board and consider
carefully? Or is it just an excuse for
at the least a slanging match, or to rant at someone, which may make the person
doing so feel good at the time, but which ultimately reflects upon all of us in
the independence movement, and has the potential to damage our campaign.
I saw one typical example on Facebook just today. A friend posted screenprints from a private
messaging conversation with a unionist woman, who was not abusive, but really
was just mistaken in many of her comments.
There were comments below this of people saying they were going to go to
her Facebook timeline to “put her in her place”, “give her a piece of my mind”,
etc. One person who had previously been
blocked by the said woman stated that they intended to set up a fake Facebook
profile to troll her. Why? The woman in question is a diehard unionist
who will listen to no reason. What does
attacking her achieve? What would it
help? Just how does it further the
cause of independence to hurl abuse at someone who is so stuck in their views
that you will never change their mind?
It does not. And it was not lost on me that some of the comments called
her “cow”, “old bag”, and various other sexist and ageist insults. Well done, guys. Is there any other way you’d like to damage the Indy movement?
Cyber abuse cannot be ignored. It takes many forms and it can be extremely damaging, and
potentially dangerous. SNP MP Joanna
Cherry recently had call to have police protection at her weekly surgery, due
to what was seen as a threatening message posted on her Twitter account. This comprised of a meme of a masked figure
with a gun, and the words “Just do it”, alongside details of Ms Cherry’s
surgery. This came in the wake of Ms
Cherry campaigning against the SNP administration’s adoption of gender self-ID
for transgender and non-binary people.
As a firm trans ally, I find Joanna Cherry’s stance on transgender
people to be deeply offensive, and I feel she has hardly covered herself in
glory. But all that apart, while Ms
Cherry’s stance may be offensive to some, it does not warrant any response may
incite violence and threatens her or anyone else’s well-being. If I can strongly disagree with Joanna
Cherry without resorting to abuse or threats, so can anyone. Let us not forget that it is less then 3
years since Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by someone who often tweeted hate
messages, and inciting anyone to similar actions, over any issue, is simply
deplorable.
And Joanna Cherry is not alone in this. Nicola Sturgeon, Mhairi Black, and other
women SNP politicians have reported having sexist and threatening comments and
messages online. But it is not reserved
to the SNP. Openly lesbian leader of
the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, has often come in for homophobic,
sexist, and threatening messages online, and on one infamous occasion in the
wake of the 2014 independence referendum, one such perpetrator subjected her to
a tirade of online abuse of a homophobic nature. The comments quite rightly disgusted many of us, his true
identity were made public, and both the SNP and Yes Scotland were quick to
dismiss him, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise. Ruth Davidson later tweeted that she felt
she had been treated by “gallantry” by the independence movement. And for that, she is welcome. As much as I dislike Ruth Davidson’s
politics, and I probably wouldn’t get along with her on a personal level, to
attack anyone for their sexuality is about as low as it gets, and I was never
prouder of the Indy movement for acting so quickly in condemning the homophobe
responsible. On that occasion, we got
it exactly right.
I can almost hear some reading this shouting “What about the
abuse from unionists?” Yes, they the
unionists do indeed involve themselves in cyber abuse of Scots Nats, and
sometimes much worse. I could recount a
number of incidences of actual violence carried out by unionists in the run-up
to the 2014 independence referendum, and even one in which an elderly man in a
Yes hub not far from my home was attacked just recently. I have personally been threatened and even
spat upon by unionists. I keep my
Facebook account set to “Friends” for many reasons, one of which being that I
think out my arguments and check my facts very carefully before posting
anything. I am not about to leave that
open to some knuckledragger who has taken a nanosecond to come up with their
unintelligent response.
It is no use playing “whataboutery”. We
know what the unionists are capable of and that they often go off in tirades of
online abuse towards Scots Nats, and indeed, others. I have personally read and heard unionists come out with racist,
xenophobic, sexist, sectarian, and religious abuse. I am not for one moment saying that all unionists are bigots, I
know for a fact they are not. But I
would say they have more than their fair share of such. That such do indeed make abusive and
threatening comments is absolutely no excuse to sink to their level.
We would do well to remember that not all unionists are abusive or
bigoted, and I once saw a comment that made me want to cry. On a friend’s timeline, someone commented
that she had voted No in 2014, now realised her mistake, and stated that she
would vote Yes in any future independence referendum. This was immediately followed by a comment from a supposed
independence supporter (actually someone I unfriended quite a while) in which
he lambasted the woman for “subjecting Scotland to four years of Tory
rule”. Oh, well done. That’s really going to win hearts and minds,
isn’t it? There are many who voted No
in 2014, for many reasons, and it is precisely those people we need to engage
if we are ever going to gain a free Scotland.
Abusing them is never going to convince them to vote Yes in the future,
it is far more likely to cause them to scurry back to the No camp, and to
remain firmly there.
It is also worth mentioning that the above abuser often
comes out with openly anti-English statements, which was the very reason why I
unfriended him. While anti-English
sentiments are not so prevalent in the Indy movement as they once were, they
are still there nonetheless, they need to stop, and those who resort to such
need to be called out and ostracised by the movement. We can make comments about London rule and Westminster all we
want. We can make the point that all
the unionist opposition parties are London-based. But the moment that we blame the ordinary people of England for
our woes, we are on a hiding to nothing, and worse still, it abuses many of
those who may actually be on our side.
I have a few English friends living in Scotland, and all but one of them
is pro-Independence. One woman in
particular campaigns long and hard for independence, which being disabled, is
not easy for her. She certainly does a
lot more than the trolls who set out to abuse unionists, and throw in
anti-English sentiments to boot.
Likewise, of my online English friends south of the border, most of them
support an independent Scotland. Go
look through Nicola Sturgeon’s Twitter feed any day, and you will find English
people asking for the SNP to field candidates in England, and how much they
wish they had a leader like her in Westminster. I will never tire of saying this; we in the Indy camp have much
more in common with the working class of England than we shall ever have with
our own Scottish landed gentry.
These things are indeed important because of the opponent we
face. We are taking on the British
establishment, a particularly powerful animal, and it is they who have the
media at their back. We all know that
the moment any person purporting to support independence puts a foot wrong, it
will be jumped upon by the media, in an attempt to lambast us all, even if we
do not agree with the person in question.
The attack on the elderly gentleman I mentioned earlier got about two
column inches inside a newspaper.
Compare that to the front-page headline stories and the centre spreads
that newspapers have given to a few abusive comments by what is in reality a
small minority of people. Look at the
many times that the main TV broadcasters have misreported a story about the
Indy camp, or deliberately misrepresented us.
Look indeed at how the media hijacked the term “cybernat”, to claim it
represents all independence supporters who use the internet to abuse
others. In fact, if you stand for
independence and your main medium for making the arguments for such is online,
then you are, like me, a cybernat. And if people have the time and resources to abuse people on line, then they have the time and resources to put forward positive arguments for independence to those who may be wavering, which is where their energies would and should be better spent.
”We need the cunning of the serpent to deal with money and power.” wrote the
socialist Scots poet Naomi Mitchison in her 13-part pro-independence anthology,
The Cleansing of the Knife. And
what Mitchison penned in 1941 was never more relevant in the internet age of
the 21st century. We not
only must be squeaky clean, we must be seen to be squeaky clean, especially in
the face of the money and power which the unionists have at their resource.
I fully realise that online abuse in the Indy movement is
but one symptom of a wider disease.
Politics are becoming increasingly polarised, and there appears to be a
belief nowadays that throwing insults and even threats about is somehow
valid. This is not however the case,
and if you believe at all in reasoned and democratic debate, then you will have
no part in such. Your right to freedom
of speech does not extend to abusing and threatening your opponent. It never did, it never shall, and neither
should it be so. Therefore, we should
call out online abuse because it is the right thing to do. Whenever and wherever we encounter personal
attacks upon and threats or incitement to violence towards those who oppose
independence, it needs to be nipped in the bud, and the perpetrators named,
shamed, and made pariahs within the independence movement. Particularly if the abuse is based upon
sexuality, gender, ethnicity, race, age, religion – or lack thereof, or any
other personal attribute. Where any
online messages contain threats, or incitement to violence, not only do we need
to distance ourselves from such, they should be reported to the police as soon
as possible.
In the final instance, whenever someone purporting to be pro-independence makes
comments online which abuse, threaten, or incite violence, then that can only
be harmful to our cause. If anyone is
going to play the man and not the ball, then they do not speak for me, they do
not speak for Scotland, they do not speak for the independence movement, and
that needs to be made very plain, in loud and clear language.
Our Scotland, and the vision we share for her future, is
far too important to allow anyone or anything which harms that to continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment