Our Need for the Serpent's Cunning

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 21^st 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.

Where Is The Intelligence?

Take nothing at face value.

In the past few weeks we have seen some horrendous things happen worldwide.

During prayers on Friday, 15 March, there were concerted mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50, and leaving another 50 injured.

On 18 April, rioting in Derry, Northern Ireland, resulted in 29-year-old writer and journalist Lyra McKee being shot dead by operatives of the New IRA.

On 21 April, Easter Sunday, concerted bombings of three churches in Sri Lanka, three bombings of luxury hotels in the capital, Colombo, and smaller explosions at a housing complex in the housing district of Dematagoda, and at a guest house in Dehiwala, killed 253 people, and injured 500.

On Friday, 26 April, Sri Lankan police attempted to raid a terror cell connected to the bombings, and the Islamist terrorists first returned fire, then set off explosives, killing 15, including six children.

On Saturday, 27 April, on the last day of Passover, a 19-year-old white, anti-Semitic man walked into the Chabab of Poway Synagogue in San Diego, USA, and opened fire with “an AR type weapon”, killing one woman, and wounding three others.

Now, at first glance, anyone can see that all of these incidents have one thing in common; religion.  But while religion must indeed be considered a factor in all of the above, to suggest that they were all because of religion is to attempt to present a false equivalence in my opinion.  There is something much deeper going on here.  A look around social media presents a hell of a lot of ignorance, and that is being perpetuated by a hell of a lot of people spreading hate-filled propaganda.  Sadly, there are far too many people willing to buy into that.

In the wake of the shooting of Lyra McKee, I saw posts of people glorifying Irish republican paramilitaries as some sort of heroes.  I even saw some trying to suggest that it was a false flag, some suggesting that the British armed forces actually shot her, and even some suggesting that the young journalist was actually a British or loyalist agent.  And had any of them actually known anything about Lyra McKee, they would have been aware that this young woman was a lesbian, which alone immediately would have seen her being vilified by the ultra-Protestants of the loyalist community, and she was an agnostic secular humanist who took neither side in the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland.  As a secular humanist myself, I had previously read and heard Lyra McKee, who was listed in Forbes “30 Under 30 in Media in Europe”, and I was left absolutely stunned and numbed by her brutal murder.  I first heard of Lyra in a TED talk she gave, “How uncomfortable conversations save lives”, in which she recounted her experience growing up a gay woman in Northern Ireland, he many fights with the Roman Catholic Church (she was brought up a Catholic – so much for the conspiracy theories), and of the prejudice she faced from all religions, including that in the USA.  She told in that talk how religion can actually be a positive voice against prejudice, but emphasised that it is religion, and those who follow religion, who have to change.  As a diehard, cynical atheist myself, that talk had a profound effect upon me, and I still find it hard to reconcile how the life of this wonderful young woman could be so senselessly snuffed out.

This article similarly aims to challenge perceptions.  It is an uncomfortable conversation, which may cause the reader to face some uncomfortable truths about themselves.  But in doing so, I don’t care whom I may offend.  If you are offended by my writings, then it may just be possible that you need to be offended.

Just as the killing of Lyra McKee brought out those with their own agendas, so did the other killings.  The Christchurch mosque shootings initially brought out some whom, without any evidence, automatically assumed and posted that it was possibly sectarian violence between opposing Islamic sects.  Then when the truth came out that it was Christian white supremacists, there were those (sometimes the same people) who played the No True Scotsman fallacy of saying they were “not true Christians”, and others who played “whataboutery” by pointing to atrocities against Christian churches, and trying to claim persecution and play the martyr.  Even among atheists, there were some still went on about Islam being inherently violent.  Anything but show some compassion and respect for the dead.

So it was when the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka took place, many were quick to jump upon it to vilify all Muslims.  Certainly, they Sri Lanka killings were indeed carried out by Islamist extremists, and I even predicted as much before it was confirmed, or before IS tried to claim responsibility.  But some of the same people claimed that this was an attack upon Christians, solely Christians, while ignoring the facts that a) the hotel bombings indiscriminately killed people without regard for their faith, and b) that at least one of the churches targeted was often frequented by Theravada Buddhists.  Recent years have seen a lot of conflict between Theravada Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka, where actually it has been the Buddhists, believe it or not, who have been responsible for the murder of many Muslims.  But of course, those with an axe to grind were never going to admit to that; they merely saw Muslim extremist attacks upon churches, and were more than quick to paint that as exclusively Muslim persecution and slaughter of Christians.

Likewise, in the wake of the San Diego synagogue shooting, within two hours of the news hitting the Internet, I saw one comment, “Everyone’s sad when one Jew is killed but nobody’s saying anything about Israel’s massacre of Palestinians.”  Really.  Within two hours, someone immediately jumps the shark, and ties every single Jew on the face of the planet to the actions of the Likud regime in Israel.  No compassion for the dead woman, who bravely threw herself in front of the Rabbi to protect him, the wounded, or those psychologically scarred by the incident; only immediate condemnation of all Jews for the actions of Israel.  It disgusts me, but it does not at all surprise me.  It is a typical reaction that many seem incapable of differentiating between Jews around the world, and the state of Israel.  And sadly to say, a lot of this comes from the political left, right up to and including the UK Labour Party.  Their members who see ‘Jew’ and immediately think ‘Israel’, is precisely why Labour are riddled with anti-Semitism.  It’s not only unhelpful and uncaring; it actually drives anti-Semitic hatred, and drives incidents such as the attack in San Diego.  This is one area where the political extreme left are so far up the political horseshoe, that they are meeting the extreme right at the other end.

Looking at all the above incidents, it would be very easy to blame and castigate religion, or at the least, extreme interpretations of religions, for all of them.  But while such fundamentalist interpretations must indeed take some of the blame, and religion can indeed poison minds, that cannot be the full extent of what drives the extremist mindset that is all too prevalent today.

We in the developed and developing world are sadly living in time where extreme right politics are on the rise.  We have a low-intellect, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, anti-abortion, climate change denying, warlike President of the USA.  The UK voted to leave the EU, and there has been a disturbing rise in attacks upon immigrants, refugees, and ethnic minorities.  Brazil has a president who can only be described as a neo-Nazi, and I write this in the wake of the Spanish election, in which the Socialists only scraped home, and will have to seek help to form a minority government, while the extreme right Vox Party have gained 24 seats in the Spanish parliament – the first time that the extreme right have had seats in the Cortes since the death of the fascist dictator, Franco, in 1975.  Without a doubt, religion plays a part in all of these things, but to the lesser extent, and where it does it is usually a kneejerk reaction to Islam, and those who spread scare stories of “Islamification”.  This is where we will learn that propaganda is a powerful tool, and never more powerful when people are frightened.

A 2016 study by Columbia University and the French National Institute found that 59% of social media users would share a story without actually clicking on and reading the content.  This does not at all surprise me.  In fact, the only thing that does surprise me is that the figure is not much higher.  Playing into this, the satirical website, Science Post, posted an article on Facebook with the headline, “Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting.”  The article started with one paragraph repeating the headline, and the rest of the text was three paragraphs all in Latin, beginning “Lorem ipsum”; literally “dummy text”.  The article to date has had 120,000 shares on Facebook.  Okay, some may have shared it for the humour value, and it was indeed funny, but it makes the point that people read what they want to read, and they believe what they want to believe.  Very few will actually open and read an article.  Fewer still will actually go to the extent of digging deeper to confirm stories, or seek alternative opinions.  There are even those nowadays who dismiss Snopes and Hoax-Slayer, because they have made one or two mistakes, while at the same time ignoring the overwhelmingly majority of times that these excellent fact-checking sites are accurate and correct.

Media outlets are more than well aware of this phenomenon, and they deliberately word their headlines to influence public opinion.  Here’s a recent example:

”Fife-born SNP MP Natalie McGarry admits embezzling £25,600”

So on 24 April 2019 ranted the Dundee-based newspaper, The Courier, which is published by D.C. Thomson, who also publish the very conservative Sunday Post.  Shocking, eh?  Yes, Natalie McGarry was indeed elected as Scottish National Party Member of Parliament for Glasgow East in 2015.  Yes, she did indeed plead guilty in court to embezzling £21,000 from the group Women for Independence, and £4661 from the Glasgow and Regional SNP Association.  But what the SNP headline failed to mention that when the accusations against her broke in November 2015, she resigned the SNP party whip, was thereby automatically suspended from the party, and for the remainder of her time in office until the 2017 General Election, she fulfilled that role as an independent MP.  The Courier did subsequently change their headline to read “former SNP MP”, but not until several people, myself included, pointed this out.  And given that Natalie McGarry was for most of her time in office an independent, I would suggest that while not wholly inaccurate, the headline is still skewed.

Words are powerful, and you have to be careful what you do with them.  Anyone already biased against the SNP would immediately read the original headline, latch upon that, and share it, no doubt damning the SNP in doing so.  Others would read such posts, and would immediately jump to conclusions that the SNP are not to be trusted.

But the Natalie McGarry case is merely the thin end of the wedge, and a rather vanilla example.  Some can be much, much more disturbing and damaging.  In March 2019, the story broke of British-born Shemima Begum, who had left the UK to help Islamic State terrorists in Syria, wishing to come back to the UK to have her third child, her other two died, to give the baby a chance of survival, and a decent upbringing.  Needless to say, there was already a lot of hostility towards Shemima Begum, fed in no little part by the media posting front page headlines of the “Jihadi Bride”, and stories which stirred up some of the worst racism I have ever read.  But on 11 March 2019, after Shemima had actually given birth to a baby son, who sadly died, The Metro sank to a new low by running the front-page headline, “Too Risky to Rescue Jihadi Baby”.  And what’s wrong with that headline?  It castigates a baby, a dead baby, as being an Islamic extremist terrorist.  The lack of sympathy in that headline was staggering, and the gloating comments it elicited from racists, cheering that a baby had died, was downright disgusting.

When the media and / or those online use the Internet to push a bigoted agenda, it can be hugely damaging to certain sections of society, and this is never more true when it comes to sexual and gender identity.  Gender self-ID is soon to be legal in Scotland, and England (dragging their heels as usual) is currently debating such, has got a lot of people with their knickers in a knot, and using a minority of wrongdoings by transgender people – and some purporting to be transgender, it must be said – to smear every transgender person.  Sorry, I should say transgender women, as they rarely make any mention of transgender men (yet another example of prejudice and misinformation).  Sadly, one of the main proponents of this is a pro-Indy blogger, who on a daily basis fills his Twitter account with transphobic smear stories, and examples of where transgender people have been abusive, in an attempt to discredit an entire section of the community as all the same.

“Transgender Prisoner who Sexually Assaulted Inmates Jailed for Life”, thundered The Guardian, allegedly a left-wing, ‘liberal’ newspaper on 10 October 2018, covering the story of Karen White, a transgender prisoner at New Hall Prison, England, who sexually abused other inmates.  True, she did.  But the facts are that Karen White was already a known paedophile and rapist, whom the prison authorities put in with mainstream prisoners in a women’s prison.  The fault there lies with New Hall Prison, and certainly not the vast majority of law-abiding transgender women.  As Scotland is soon to introduce gender Self-ID, some opposed to the new legislation are very quick to point to the Karen White case, while they are either unaware, or are aware but choose not to mention, the fact that the Scottish Prison Service has been placing transgender inmates in prison spaces based upon self-ID, almost 10 years, with no reports of such sexually assaulting other inmates.

It is in the Scottish independence camp that we of all people should know better.  How often have fellow Nats seen loaded headlines and stories about “separatists”, “anti-English racists” (I wasn’t aware that English was a race, but the media seem to think so) and “cybernats”, accompanying stories surrounding the wrong doings of a tiny minority, to condemn the entire independence movement?  So it is I suggest that the said blogger, and others who use smear tactics against transgender women, are doing absolutely no different from the way the media treats Scots Nats.  Shame on you.

The Internet has given us all the power to fulfil that which Andy Warhol once predicted; we can all have our 15 minutes of fame – and then some.  Those with any particular agenda they wish to push, and they can be among some of the nastiest people in the world.  Many play upon the fears and emotions of others, in the full knowledge that most will not go further than the headline, and even if they do, will not question the validity of a story, and fewer still will bother to research it.

I recently removed a story from a group I run on Facebook, with the headline “Settlers Poison Well in Eastern Yatta”.  I was immediately dubious of this story, and in looking for a source, I could only find it on pro-Palestinian news sites, website that support them, and some blogs.  Not a word of it on the BBC, nothing on Reuters, and nothing on Associated Press.  There were two reasons I doubted this story.  Firstly, why would Israeli settlers in a desert region poison the only source of fresh water, which could only hurt them as well?  Secondly, and more importantly, I am aware of the historical context of such claims.  Such claims of Jews poisoning wells go right back to Medieval times, and are part of the anti-Semitic ‘blood libel’; that every Jewish man had to kill ‘non-believers’.  When the Black Death hit Europe, there were accusations of Jews spreading the disease by poisoning drinking wells, which saw a great many of them persecuted and killed.  The story has continued down the centuries in many forms, leading to further persecution, and even Joseph Stalin used it in 1953, when he alleged the “Doctor’s Plot” of Jewish physicians poisoning prominent Communist leaders (whom Stalin himself had in fact had killed), leading to many of the surgeons thrown in gulags, and some of them executed.

I could in fact give many other examples of photos, memes, and stories purporting to show Israeli brutality against Palestinians.  Look, we all know that the current regime in Israel is disgusting, and they do indeed carry out a great many atrocities.  Just be aware that not all of these stories and pictures are true, some are indeed anti-Israeli, and even anti-Semitic, propaganda.  Do your research and check the facts before sharing them.  Goodness knows, the Israeli regime is brutal enough without having to make up or share downright and utter lies about them.  Trust me, they do more than enough to condemn themselves, but when anyone shares a fake story, it has the potential to create a “boy who cried wolf” scenario, whereby people may not believe the genuine stories of Israeli atrocities.  And should anyone think I am an apologist for Israel, let me assure you that I have been boycotting Israeli goods since the early 1980s, which is longer than many reading this will have been politically aware, and before some were even an itch in their fathers underpants.

It was on 30 April 1993 that CERN made the World Wide Web available to the public.  This has created the single most powerful information tool which mankind has ever known, literally at our fingertips.  As a result, mankind should be becoming increasingly intelligent.  Instead, many of the public appear to have become more poorly informed than our species has ever been, which prompts me not only to ask “Where is the love?” but indeed, “Where is the intelligence?”  I can only put it down to mankind’s predilection towards tribalism, religious dogma, societal and cultural prejudices, but most of all, laziness.  People do not like change, and when someone already has ingrained perceptions of that which is familiar, they feel threatened and frightened by anything that challenges these perceptions.  Elvis Costello said as much, long before the Internet became public, in his song Pills and Soap; “Give us now our daily bread in individual slices.  And something in the daily rag to cancel every crisis.”

The media and others know this, and they feed it.  Firstly with loaded headlines, then with stories full of disinformation, half-truths, right-wing populism, downright lies, and increasingly – and this is something I really object to – articles on their websites which have the story in the form of an attached video attached to the top of the text.  That is encouraging people’s laziness not to read, which in turn will make them all the less likely to question or research a story.  Believe me, I have often seen comments on blogs others or I have written, or Internet posts, which read “TL:DR”  (“Too Long: Didn’t Read”).  So if you’ve made it this far in this article, well done you, because you are one of a dying breed.

Perhaps it’s the punk in me, perhaps it’s the atheist, perhaps it’s the sceptic, perhaps it’s merely my enquiring mind; perhaps it is all of the above.   But my watchword has always been “Question everything.  Because it’s only by asking questions that you get answers.”  Unless something can be proven or disproved, I take absolutely nothing at face value, and I keep asking questions until I get an honest answer, even if that answer is an uncomfortable truth that I do not like.

Your brain is the greatest friend you shall ever have, so please treat it well, and do not feed it garbage.  Whenever you come over a headline that may make your hackles raise, step back a minute, take a deep breath, and then read the article.  If it seems in the least spurious, search online for supporting stories, and facts that support it.  If you cannot find any such, or you find a reliable source refuting such, then disregard it, and above all, do not be afraid to speak out and show up fallacies for being just that, and those who spread malicious lies for the sort of people they are.

Not only will you be more intelligent and better informed for doing so, you will be a much better person, and you shall be having a positive impact that may improve the lives of others.

Gender Self-ID is happening - and it is important to Scotland

This year the Scottish Government shall implement changes to the Gender Recognition Act, 2004, under which transgender and non-binary people in Scotland shall be able to self-identify as transgender, and this right shall be extended to 16-17 year olds, who will be able to self-identify without parental consent.  This has been a long time coming.  The initial moves towards this began in 2016, and it has been progressing through the Scottish Parliament, where it had cross-party support, and has gone through the mandatory consultation period, where 60% agreed to the proposals.

Although the change to legislation has the support of many LGBT, family and youth organisations and charities, and other austere bodies, it has nonetheless come in for severe criticism from some others.  Many of those objecting are either at best misinformed, or at worst openly hostile towards transgender people.

Contrary to what many in society think, our gender is not determined by our biological sex; that is the sexual organs we are born with.  And what is more, as contradictory as this may seem, sexual genitalia in itself does not have a gender.  Most people identify as the gender they are assigned at birth, pertaining to their biological sex according to their sexual organs; these people are ‘cisgender’, from the Latin word cis, meaning “on this side of”.  However some others do not identify with the gender they are assigned at birth, but identify with the opposite side of the traditional gender binary, and are therefore ‘transgender’, from the Latin trans, meaning “on the opposite side of”.  Then there are people who can identify with both sides, and are thus ‘non-binary’, those who do not identify with any fixed gender and are thereby ‘genderfluid’, those who can identify with all genders who are ‘pangender’, and even those who do not identify with any gender, and are thereby ‘agender’.

I have only mentioned a few genders above, but the fact is, as absurd as some think it is, science is just discovering that there are a great plethora of genders.  This supports the science as we understand it, that biological sex does not and never has determined gender.   It is not yet known if we are born identifying with any particular gender, or whether it is environmental, emotional, and other factors which determine such, but there is one thing which is irrefutable; gender is decided by the mind.  As a transgender man friend of mine put it simply, “Sex occurs between the legs.  Gender occurs between the ears.”

Those who do not identify with their biological sex / birth gender are identified as having gender dysphoria; a recognised medial / psychological condition whereby “a person experiences discomfort or distress because there’s a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.” (NHS).  This condition is most notable in transgender people, but is also often prevalent among non-binary and genderfluid people, as well as those of other genders.

Gender diversity is never easy to understand.  Far from it, it can be a minefield, and I may even make mistakes in this article.  But the facts remain that we are not all either male nor female, and certainly not determined by what dangly bits we may or may not have, and to identify with another gender is not an illness, it is not a crime, and it certainly does not invalidate anyone’s identity.

Under the law as it stands, if a transgender person wants to officially change their gender on official documentation, which starts with their birth certificate, then they must apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).  To do so is a lengthy process.  Firstly they must live under the gender they identify as for at least two years, and this is only recognised for those aged 18 or over.  The applicant then must undergo examinations by a (usually cisgender) medical professional to diagnose gender dysphoria, and must then make their application, including their diagnosis, to a (usually cisgender) panel in London for a GRC, along with their payment for a GRC.  This panel usually grants a GRC, but it is worth noting that it is equally within their power to refuse them.

The current system is thereby deemed by transgender people to be unfair and deeply intrusive into private lives, where government has absolutely no business being, and where cisgender people – mostly men – can rule over the gender of others, and charge for that privilege.  No wonder that some transgender people call the GRC a “Trans Tax”.  Where younger transgender people are concerned, we can immediately see how the law is deeply skewed against them, and that they cannot actually outwardly display their identified gender until at least the age of 20.  These faults with the GRC are precisely why self-ID is so badly needed, and why Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has promoted it to bring Scotland into line with “international best practice”.

While the majority of respondents to the consultation period were in favour of self-ID, it has nonetheless had its detractors, some of whom have been very vocal in their opposition.  One of the greatest concerns is that self-ID may lead to sexually predatory men dressing as women to gain access to female “safe spaces”, such as public toilets and changing rooms.  I am not for one moment going to dismiss this, or pretend that it does not happen.  But I would ask those with such concerns to look at those countries that already have self-ID.   Canada, Ireland, Portugal, Malta Belgium, Norway, and Denmark have all had Self-ID for some time, and with no significant increase in sexual assaults.  This is because far from being just ‘men in dresses’, transgender women are to all intents and purposes women, and just like women, merely want to pee.  What is more, given that women’s toilets have stalls with locking doors, the chances are that many detractors probably have already shared a toilet with a transgender woman, and never known it.  Spare a thought for transgender men who have not had gender reassignment surgery, and who using a public toilet, will be faced with one locking stall, which could be occupied, and a row of urinals.

Add to this that the vast majority of sexual assaults in toilets are already carried out by cisgender men, and far from being carefully planned, are mostly on the spur of the moment.  Strange as it may seem, a little silhouetted sign of a figure in a dress (why is she bald?) is no deterrent to predatory men.  The men who carry out these attacks tend to be full of toxic masculinity – many are in fact downright misogynists with a pathological hatred of women – and to imagine that such ‘macho’ men would even consider dressing as women to gain entry to toilets is to stretch credulity to its limits.  So, while the vast majority of those carrying out sexual assaults upon women in toilets are cisgender men, who do you reckon make up the second highest offenders?  Other cisgender women, that’s who.  Are we then to allow only one woman into a public loo at a time?

The issue of changing rooms, particularly in schools and colleges, particularly in schools and colleges, is admittedly more complex, not least because not all have cubicles for changing.  According to the National Education Union (NEU), who advise educational establishments on transgender-inclusive policies, the best policy is to provide alternative or gender-neutral facilities when there are no cubicle facilities available, but that “It is not necessary to make all toilet facilities gender neutral however, because some students will prefer single-sex toilets.” and they add “The young person should not in any case be told that they must use the changing rooms that correspond with the gender they were assigned at birth.”  Should anyone think this unfair, then consider how you would react if you, or your child, were told you could not use a shared changing room because of some aspect of your personality.

Where there are still schools and colleges where changing rooms do not have cubicles, this therefore has to change.  Creating separate facilities for transgender and non-binary individuals is in itself not an answer, because that only further marginalises those use them, and identifies them as targets for attacks.  Likewise, making everything gender-neutral is not an answer either, as far from deterring predators, such facilities would only exacerbate the problem.  There are those who try to argue that refurbishing or rebuilding current changing rooms would be costly.  The simple answer to that is creating separate or gender-neutral facilities would cost even more.  Of course, there are some who will completely disregard the latter argument, because they simply don’t want to acknowledge the existence of transgender people.

Some who object to self-ID are quick to point to the case of Karen White, a transgender woman (and yes, she is transgender) sexually assaulted two women in New Hall Prison in England.  However, Karen White was already a known paedophile and rapist, who had been jailed for grievous bodily harm, multiple rapes, and other sexual assaults against women, and placing her with cisgender women was wholly the fault of the prison authorities.  White was moved to a men’s prison in Leeds, and underwent gender reassignment surgery.  So yes, Karen White is a transgender woman, who is also a sexual predator.  This no more makes all transgender people sexual predators than it makes all cisgender men such, despite the fact that cis men carry out the vast amount of sexual assaults.  But then compare that to Scotland, where the Scottish Prison Service already assign places according to self-ID, have done since 2010 – almost 10 years – and with no reported sexual assaults by men ‘pretending’ to be women.  Hmm.  I don’t hear the detractors being so loud about that little fact.

Therefore, one case in England of a transgender woman who is a known sexual predator that women and children are not safe from does not outweigh the many transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons who have never presented any problems.  The problem here is not with gender but rather with sexual assault, which is no respecter of gender boundaries.  There is not the room here to go into them in detail, but there are more than plenty case studies of homosexual assaults in prison by male cisgender prisoners, and indeed, by cisgender women prisoners on other prisoners.

Despite all these arguments, there are still people, mostly but not always women, who still stand against self-ID.  But then these same people seek to deny the very existence of transgender people in the first place.

The biggest mistake that most of them make is to wrongly equate gender with biological sex, when the two are clearly not one and the same thing.  Many are quick to state, “XX equals female, and XY equals male”, as if their high school biology is the be-all and end-all of gender identity, or even for that matter, of biology.  In fact, this “gender binary” is not always the case.  There are in fact many human beings who do not have the standard number of chromosomes.  Some have more, others have fewer.  “XXXY Syndrome”, otherwise known as “Third Gender” effects one in 50,000 males, whereby they are born with two extra X chromosomes. 

Some will go further and flatly state, “If you have a penis you are male, and you have a vagina, you are female.  It’s simple as that.”  Again, wrong, as the very existence of intersex individuals – those born with sexual organs of both sides of the gender binary – clearly illustrates.  A 2015 study by Eric Vilian of the Center for Gender Based Biology at UCLA found a great number of “Differences of Sexual Development” (DSD), which included a 46-year-old woman having her third child, whose cells were found to carry 50% male chromosomes, and a 70-year-old father of three, undergoing a hernia operation, who was found to have a uterus.  Dr Vilian’s study have estimated that those with DSDs could be as high as 1in every 100 people.

So much for the biology we all learned in school.  But even if the detractors were correct, this still does not get away from the fact that biological sex does not constitute gender.  And how do these transphobes – let’s call them what they are, as much as they deny it (in the same way some people say “I’m not a racist, but…”) – respond to these facts?  Some will state that those with less or more chromosomes are a “minority”.  So therefore they don’t count somehow?  And 1 in 100 is some “minority”.  Some will outright deny the science, some will reply – and I have actually more or less read this – “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”   And some will more or less shove their fingers in their ears and shout “LA, LA, LA, LA , LA!  I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Really?  Is that your reply to reams upon reams of peer-reviewed scientific research, now going back decades?  To deny it, say minorities don’t matter, make out it’s a conspiracy, and/or simply not listen?  If that’s your view, then you may as well go and join the young earth creationists who say their god created the Earth 6000 years ago, the evolution deniers, the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, and the flat earthers, because you are demonstrating precisely the same level of wilful ignorance (aka “stupidity”) as all of the above do.

The main thing that worries me about the whole self-ID debate is the way it has been hijacked by outright transphobes, who not only do not want self-ID, but completely deny the very existence of transgender people.  I have seen Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) use a dictionary definition of “female” in a feeble attempt to back up their argument; “belonging or relating to the sex that gives birth to young, produces eggs, etc”.  Yet the same women using such a narrow definition conveniently ignore an alternative definition under the same heading in the dictionary; “belonging or relating to, or characteristic of, a woman”, and that definition could very easily pertain to transgender women.  But even then, in using the first definition, the TERFs automatically discount women who for medical reasons cannot give birth or produce eggs.  Are they not “real women”?   Or don’t they count because they are a minority?  Even if that were the case, such a definition must also discount every woman who reaches the age where they can no longer procreate.  Are even they, once they stop menstruating, no longer “female”?  See the dangers of attempting to define gender purely on biological sex?

A side note here.  I have been told that I should not use the term “TERF” nowadays, as it is apparently ‘derogatory’ (for… …reasons).  Well, tough titty.  The fact is that the term was started by women who self-identified as TERFs, and given that I am talking of people who show extreme prejudice towards one of the most vulnerable sections of society, do excuse me for not sparing a thought for their hurt feels.

I have made mention throughout this article to those opposed to transgender people, but one may notice that the emphasis has been upon transgender women.  There is a very good reason for this.  Mostly it is transgender women and girls which transphobes target.  Rarely you will find them making any reference to transgender men.  There are some who do so however.  I have read and seen videos of TERFs who claim that transgender men who are not at all transgender, but that they are in fact lesbians who have been conditioned to think as men by “the patriarchy” (because of course, we men – who are supposedly all sexual predators – obviously want a planet completely inhabited by men).  Again we see this instance of denying the very existence of transgender people.

Gay men in a Nazi concentration camp

When any society dismisses one section within that society, because they are ‘merely a minority’, when they persecute that section because they do not fit in with their mindset, and worst of all, when they deny their very existence, that society is going down a very dangerous road indeed.  And we need not look very far to see the end result of what happens in those circumstances; we need only look to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.  Indeed, even in the modern day, we need only look to Chechnya, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and many other countries, where LGBT people are openly persecuted, often to death.

And yes, transphobes and TERFs, I did just liken you to Nazis, and I make absolutely no apologies for doing so.  For when you treat transgender people as any less than human, when you attempt to strip them of their identity, of their dignity, and their basic human rights, then you are behaving in precisely the same way the Nazis did to the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally disabled, and of course, among others, LGBT people.

Not that I am calling everyone worried about self-ID a Nazi.  My vitriol is not for those with genuine concerns, and / or who are willing to learn, but those who despite all the evidence, absolutely refuse to learn, but are only intent on spreading their own hatred.  And it pleases me to say to such that self-ID is a reality, and it is happening this year, and nothing they say or do is going to stop that.   Get used to it.

Nicola Sturgeon

But I feel that there is something bigger at play here.  Self-ID is yet another step in a plethora of positive moves by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Scottish Government which have enhanced the lives of women, the elderly, the young, children, LGBT people, the disabled, the poor, and many more.  I believe that Nicola Sturgeon has a vision of a Scotland yet to come.  An independent Scotland which as fair and equitable for all, where the value of all are recognised, and where none are left behind.   It could be argued, and I believe, that the First Minister is laying the groundwork for that independent Scotland.

I share that vision, as I think the vast majority of the independence movement do.  And it is an achievable vision, but one which neither Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP can deliver alone.  It will take us, all of us, to play our part and help create the fully integrated Scotland which we all seek.  We are not only parts of the jigsaw, we are the jigsaw; all of us are integral parts of the bigger picture, which would not be complete without even one of us.  As Blair Jenkins, the former Chief Executive of Yes Scotland once said that we would get whatever independent Scotland we choose.

If it were ever to happen that we had an independent Scotland where one demographic, or even any individual, were persecuted, maligned, and denied basic human rights purely for being who they are, where even one person is left behind, that in my view would be a free Scotland not worth having.  For as the song goes, "If one of us is chained, none of us are free.”

I Want to Ride my Bicycle

I want to ride it where I like

A story broke recently that Lord Winston shouted at a woman for cycling on a pavement in London.  The woman then shouted abuse back, then stopped, got off her bike, and attacked the 78-year-old peer, kicking her repeatedly while continuing to abuse him verbally.  Lord Winston is now calling for cyclists to carry license numbers, like cars, so that they can be identified.

It was indeed a disgusting and odious attack on an elderly man, but there are some other matters to consider here.

Firstly, when the woman got off her bike, she was no longer a cyclist but a pedestrian.  Had this individual been walking down the street and got into an argument with Lord Winston about anything else, then the likelihood is the outcome would have been exactly the same.  The woman is without a doubt a thuggish moron, and I do hope that police apprehended her soon.

Secondly, another cyclist who saw the incident stopped to ask Lord Winston if he was all right, and then gave a statement to police.  Whilst Lord Winston is busy castigating all cyclists – as many people do – he is playing down the fact that it is a cyclist who came to his aid, and helped the police.

Thirdly, and this may surprise many, contrary to popular belief it is not illegal to cycle on pavements.  It is certainly an antisocial practice, and one that I personally frown upon, but there is and never has been anything in law to stop cyclists from cycling on pavements.

When this story was being debated on LBC Radio, it attracted the usual uninformed motorists mouthing off, thinking they are sure of their facts, when they actually could not be more mistaken.

Chief among these was the old war cry that cyclists should pay Road Tax (actually irrelevant to the story, as the cyclist was on a pavement), with the usual “It’s my road.  I paid for it.”

Let’s put this one to bed once and for all.  You do not pay Road Tax.  You have never paid Road Tax, or if you have, then you are so old then your ability to drive should immediately be called into question.  Why?  Because Road Tax as abolished in 1937.

What motorists call “Road Tax” is actually Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), and it is not even ring fenced for road building and maintenance.  The UK government ran a Road Tax from 1888 to 1937, which was indeed hypothecated (ring fenced) to build up the road network, in the light of the advent of the motor car.  However, in 1937 hypothecation ended, and road building and maintenance was largely passed to local authorities, who maintain that responsibility to this day.  The “Road Tax” thereafter became part of consolidated tax; that is general taxation, which goes directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to spend on whatsoever he sees fit.

In the modern age, VED is based upon vehicle emissions; the more emissions making more environmental damage determining what level of duty the vehicle owner must pay.  Given the amount of emissions which cyclists emit which harm the environment, just exactly what percentage of fuck all would the government like us to pay?

Stirlingshire / Perthshire boundary

As I said above, road building and maintenance is largely the responsibility of local authorities, and is financed out of Council Tax, which we all pay.  This is why when you pass from one local authority area to another, you may notice a change in the road covering, due to differing councils having different road coverings, and times when they are resurfaced.  This also means of course that when a motorist passes out of their own local authority area, they are not on “their roads that they paid for”, but on someone else’s roads that they paid for.  It also means that within my local authority area they are also my roads, and as such I’ll do whatever I want with them – including cycling on them.

I did say that roads are mostly financed from Council Tax, and indeed there are a small number of roads which are funded from central government.  In England these are motorways, some major bypasses, and some road bridges.  And what else do all these have in common?  Cyclists are not allowed on them due to the high speeds and high volumes of road traffic; quite rightly in my opinion.  In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, motorways, major bypasses and some road bridges are funded by the Scottish Government, and the Wales and Northern Ireland assemblies, from the annual block grants which Westminster allots to each.  The City of Edinburgh Bypass and the Queensferry Crossing, for instance, are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, as are all motorways, other major bypasses, and some other road bridges in Scotland.  And again, cyclists cannot use these.

Amidst all the furore we have the complaint of cyclists running red lights.  Yes, some cyclists do.  But not nearly as many as the motorists who do so.   I am not at all making any excuses for cyclists who run through red lights, particularly at pedestrian crossings.  It’s an odious and downright dangerous practice.  However, a 9-10 stone cyclist on a bike of around 30lbs or less is going to do a lot less damage than a car weighing one tonne or more.  In 2016 careless cyclists killed three pedestrians – the only year there have ever been recorded deaths due to collisions with cyclists.  Compare that to the 1,793 people killed on UK roads in 2017, the highest annual total since 2011.  On average, around 1,500 people are killed on UK roads ever year, and nine times out of ten, a motorist is at fault.  Similarly, in over 90% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists, the motorist is at fault.

Allied to this was another complaint I heard that cyclists rarely give signals when they are turning.  Again, they should.  But again, like motorists are innocent in this.  There seems to be an increasing trend among motorists who think that their indicators are either an optional extra, or that they should only use them once they have started turning.  Not to mention the clots who change their mind, signal one way, and then turn the other.  I have lost count of the number of times I have almost come a cropper, both on my bike and on foot, due to these very instances.  And do some motorists actually know what some cyclist hand signals have.  I have on more than one occasion put out my right hand, pointing my finger, and made a circular motion, indicating a motorist behind me to overtake, only for them to stay behind me.  Likewise, at junctions I have held my right hand straight up, indicating I’m going straight ahead, only to be cut up by motorists who thought I was turning.  I know the Highway Code, guys.  I suggest you try reading it.

"Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavements,
they should stick to their own cycle lanes!"

Why don’t we use cycle paths when they are provided?  Well, if they are on-road cycle lanes, we will use them – if we can.  But often we cannot, because there are cars parked at the roadside right over them, which means we have to ride “high side” to get past them.  Similarly, in city centres we have to make allowances on on-road cycleways for delivery vehicles and taxis picking up or setting down parked across them.

As to off-road cycleways, they are not always convenient to get where you need to go, but even when they are, they can present their own problems.  Another story, which broke on the same day as the assault on Lord Winston, was that of three cyclists in Edinburgh being pushed into the Union Canal as they cycled along the towpath.  Some brain-dead thugs seem to think it’s a laugh to do this.  However, it is downright dangerous, and given that the canal is deep enough to allow boats to pass, it could end in someone’s death.  Similarly, there have been instances of cyclists being “bikejacked” on off-road paths; forced off their bikes and having them stolen from them.  This can be a particular problem on some disused railway paths with tunnels.  Some idiots also think it is funny to tie string across off-road paths, and this has caused more than a few injuries in one area of Edinburgh.   Then there is the problem of idiots driving motorbikes, and even cars, on off-road paths.  I have personally witnessed both of the latter.  Littering and fly-tipping can be a huge problem in some areas.  I have on more than one occasion had to repair punctures due to going over broken glass on the same path, and am always wary in that area.  And I’d like to know why fly-tippers think that old railway cuttings are a municipal dump.  Not only do I often have to perform a chicane around rubbish, one time I was almost hit by an old fridge some moron had just launched down a cutting.  And who’s doing the fly-tipping?  People in fucking cars and vans, that’s who.  We’ll start using the paths when you stop illegally dumping your shit on them.

The simple fact is that cyclists are vulnerable on some paths, and not all of them are lit, which makes them even more vulnerable.  But even when there are no such dangers, many paths are not properly maintained by the local authority responsible.  I have seen paths that have fallen away at one side, or which have deep ruts in them due to rill and gully erosion.  You motorists bemoan potholes?  You have no idea how lucky you are.  How do you fancy being on two wheels on a path that is falling away to one side?  Then there are some paths which are prone to flooding, which the local council does nothing to address, or the entire path is simply inadequate for cyclists.  A prime example of this is the stretch between Pencaitland and Saltoun on the Pencait Railway Path in East Lothian; a disused railway line which once went to Gifford.  On the particular stretch I mentioned, all that has been done is the track has been lifted and the railway ballast removed.  However, the path, now dirt and cinder, has never been smoothed to remove the indentations left by the railway sleepers, making for a somewhat bumpy ride.  Here’s the laugh – the Pencait Railway Path is advertised as suitable for wheelchair users.

As for shared pavement cycle lanes, they present their own particular problems.  Often they are too narrow, there is too much ‘street furniture’ on them, people put things out for refuse collection right on top of them, motorists half or even fully park on them, but the biggest problem is actually sharing them with pedestrians.  Even when a shared pavement cycle lane is clearly lined out, with cycle and pedestrian logos in those lanes, and with signs indicating the division, it is inevitable that you will still get pedestrians who meander over the line, into the cycle lane, and often right into the path of cyclists.  And it is not the first time I have encountered this, and got a mouthful of abuse from the pedestrian who is clearly in the wrong, including being told, “You shouldn’t be on the pavement.”

I will admit that there does appear to have been an increase in inconsiderate cyclists.  I put this down to a few factors.  Firstly we do not have cycling proficiency taught in many schools nowadays.  I well remember the police coming to my primary school to teach us how to cycle safely and courteously, as well as testing our bikes for roadworthiness, and teaching us basic cycle maintenance.  That there has been a downturn in such lessons has undoubtedly led to people with no idea of the Highway Code, or how to behave properly on a bike.  Secondly we have people who have maybe never cycled since they were a kid, getting on a bike, and having no idea about considerate cycling.  Thirdly, due to higher volumes of traffic, there are more and more cyclists feel safer on the pavements.  Fourthly, there are too many people nowadays who are just plain mean and rude.  This final point is not exclusive to the roads.  The world nowadays appear to be full of arrogant, ill-manned, abusive shithouses, who think that ‘freedom of speech’ means being as fucking rude to others as possible.  A scroll through Facebook or Twitter any day confirms this.  Oh, and motorists – and pedestrians – are no slouches at being such assholes either.

Therefore, I am in no way attempting to defend inconsiderate cyclists, nor would I ever do so.  Indeed, I am probably angrier than anyone with them, because it is careful, considerate cyclists like myself who bear the brunt for their misdeeds.  Just as it is good drivers who often take the blame for the actions of those you would not entrust behind the wheel of a pedal car.

Many people have to take the blame here, and keep a few things in mind when out and about.

Cyclists:  Be considerate to other road users at all times.  Be aware of traffic and pedestrians at all time, and that includes looking back every few minutes to see what’s coming behind you.  Do not run red – or even amber – lights.  Both mean stop, so you stop.  No ifs, buts, or maybes.  If you don’t have one already, fit a bell on your bike.  It’s a lot more considerate than shouting at people to get out of the way, and sounded a little distance off allows pedestrians time to move.  Oh, and say “Thank you.” as you go past.  Good manners cost nothing.  Likewise, make sure you have lights and a rear reflector on your bike, and keep them well maintained and clean.  There’s no law saying you have to wear a hi-viz vest and a helmet, but I would strongly recommend them, particularly when cycling on roads.

Most of all, unless they have a shared cycle lane, get off the bloody pavements.  It may not be illegal, but it really is inconsiderate, dangerous to pedestrians, and a downright bloody nuisance.  I have been cycling on roads since I was 12 years old, and now in my 50s, I still don’t have a problem doing so.  If you are wary about using the roads, check with local cycle shops, cycling groups, or your local council about cycling courses.  Many cities now offer such.

Motorists;  Give cyclists room.  The Highway Code expressly states that you should give a cyclist the same space as you would afford a saloon car.  Please abide by this, as there may be times cyclists have to swerve round cars, drain covers, potholes, etc.  Do not pen cyclists into the left of the road, and do not overtake them then suddenly perform a sharp left.  Please do not park in cycle lanes; they are not there for you, and while we’re about it, stay off the bloody pavements.  Give cyclists time as well.  You can maybe accelerate away quickly, we cannot.  See those little orange lights back and rear of your car?  Those are indicators.  Please use them well before you intend to turn, to give cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users advance notice of your intentions.  And please, acquaint yourself with the Highway Code, particularly the sections on cyclists, pedestrians – and someone else I have not yet mentioned here – horse riders.  You may be surprised to discover that you do not know it as well as you think you do.

Pedestrians;  Do not suddenly step out into the road.  Stop, look, and listen.  This should go without saying.  Be particularly aware of cyclists, and remember that we are silent, so if you step out without due care and attention, we can be on top of you before you know what is happening.  This is particularly important for people with babies or toddlers in push chairs.  I still recall the day a woman pushed a pushchair out off the kerb without looking, and it was only my quick reactions, swerving around at the last moment, which averted me potentially killing a child.   When there is a shared pavement cycle lane, please stay to your own half – which is usually on the inside (as it should be), and remember that we cyclists are there quite legally.  If you must cross the road, look both ways before crossing the cycle lane.

Cyclists, motorists, public transport drivers and users, pedestrians, we are all really doing the same thing; trying to get from one place to another.  If we all show each other respect and consideration, and exercise care and awareness, then we can all get there without incident, and a lot happier to boot.

OUR Lives - OUR Deaths

Alf Thomson, 20 August 1926 ~ 28 March 2009

We are not the property of church or state.

I am writing this on 28 March 2019, the 10^th anniversary of my father’s death.  An experience which had a profound effect upon me and which is burned into my memory for the rest of my life.

My dad had both cancer of the bladder and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.  The steady deteriation in his health over six years, and his death were anything but dignified, and whilst he never said that he wanted to end it all, he had previously in his life said he would never want to linger, and had he known what lay ahead, I am certain it is not a death he would ever have wanted to face.  Dad was never a very athletic man in his later years, but he was blessed with a hugely inventive intelligence.  To this day I am finding things he built, which show a marked genius and which few, myself included, would ever have thought of.  At the end, he was less helpless than a newborn baby.

My sister and I were called to get to the hospital as quickly as possible on 28 March 2009, as our father was sinking, and was not expected to see the day out.  When I arrived, my sister was already there.  Dad was apparently unconscious, his breathing laboured, as the fluid from his own lungs was slowly drowning him.  I took his hand, and although we were told he didn’t know we were there, his fingers feebly tried to tighten on my hand.  For what seemed like an age, we stood by his bedside.  I shall never get the sound out of my head for long as I live.  A gurgling, bubbling sound, for all the world like a child blowing into a bowl of soapy bubbles.  There was a pained look on his face, and he was obviously struggling for breath.  He was given an injection to ease his breathing, which made things a little easier for him.  His breathing shallowed, and his death rattle was more like a sigh.  He was gone.

Amidst my grief, the overwhelming emotion that filled me was relief.  It was over, and nothing and nobody could ever hurt my dad again.  One of the first things I said to my sister was “Whatever happens to me, I will never die like that.”  To this day I stand by those words.  If I am ever in a situation where there is no hope, and things will only get worse, I shall take matters into my own hands before I lose my dignity and independence, even if I have to do it myself.

What does the law say when it says that we cannot choose to end our lives if we feel that it is the only option?  It is effectively saying that our lives are not our own.  That somehow our bodies, our minds, our very existence – our souls if you choose – are not ours; they are the property of the state.  The state is telling us that they own us, and they are doing based on archaic ideas and laws, many of which are religious-based, which have no relevance in an increasingly secular state, where most count themselves as “not religious” at the least, which do not reflect modern medical science, and which are unfit for purpose in the 21^st century.

UK laws surrounding killing are solidly based in Biblical theology, and the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” in particular.  But what does the Sixth Commandment say?  It is effectively saying “You will not commit murder.” or literally translated, “You shall not kill unlawfully.”  That’s fair enough, but where does the distinction between ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ killing fall?  For the record, as a pacifist, I make no such distinction between murder and war.  As far as I am concerned war, whilst sometimes unavoidable, is never just and is merely murder on a mass scale, which society paints as heroic to justify it.   And contrary to what many think, suicide by one’s own hands is no longer an offence in the UK.  It has not been illegal in England and Wales since 3 August 1961, when the Suicide Act 1961 ruled “The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated.”  And in Scotland?  Well, actually in Scots Law it has never been an offence to commit suicide.

There may be some who will quote the Hippocratic Oath, stating “First do no harm.”  Well, bad news for them.  “First do no harm.” does not appear in the Hippocratic Oath, but rather comes from another work by Hippocrates, Of the Epidemics.  Certainly, the Hippocratic Oath does state “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”  This is the key paragraph that is the oath equivalent of “First do no harm.” and would seem to rule out any support for assisted dying (AD).  However, one has to consider what is and is not “deleterious” and what is indeed “for the benefit” of patients.  Besides all which, the Hippocratic Oath in its purest form is an anachronism that is simply unworkable in modern medicine.  One line states, “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”.  Well, there goes most drugs out of the window immediately.  The Oath forbids abortion, yet it is practiced.  And another clincher is the line “I will not use the knife”, which if the Oath were treated as sacrosanct as some claim it is, there would be no surgeons, and not one operation would ever be carried out.  Indeed, if the Hippocratic Oath were taken to it’s logical conclusion, then your doctor could not as much as lance a boil on your bum.

I am not suggesting that anyone in the medical profession should never seek to do no harm.  People go into medicine because they care about others, none would ever seek to purposely harm another, and for that and the work they do, they have my enormous and undying respect.  However, to do no harm, ever, in medicine is simply not possible.  Some treatments are in fact very harmful in their nature, despite the end result being beneficial to the patient.  Chemotherapy, which destroys healthy cells as well as cancerous ones, is a prime example of such.

Therefore we see that however well intentioned, the Hippocratic Oath is simply unworkable and anachronistic in the modern age.  As every bit as so as the Bronze Age books written by men (and I do mean men – people with penises) who were trying to make sense of the world around them, and who had zero in the way of scientific knowledge.

The entire issue comes down to the question of the quality of life, and that is different for every individual.  There is only one person who is the expert upon the quality of any given life, and that is the individual concerned, nobody else.

When there is no hope left, when the individual only faces further pain and torment, when they are going to lose all dignity, then there is no more quality of life, and it thereby ceases to be “sacred”.  Under such circumstances it should be the right of the individual to make the decision when to end that life, and there should be provision within healthcare to assist in those wishes.

When the question of terminal diseases and assisted dying comes up, many say that we would not allow an animal to suffer in such a way, and ask so why should we allow it in a human being.  This is a fundamental truth, but I do not think many realise the full enormity of that observation.  When an animal is suffering and in pain, it does not understand what is happening or why.  It is confused and knows only the pain of that moment, and wants it to stop.  Human beings however are sapient creatures.  When we are diagnosed with an illness or condition, we are informed of the facts of such, given a prognosis, and as it progresses, we have the foresight to know what is yet to come, and if it is terminal, that it can only get worse, with more pain.  To subject any human being already suffering to that form of terror is cruelty of the highest order, and to refuse them the option to avoid that is the most abject hypocrisy.

And the mind is an important point here.  When people speak of assisted dying, they immediately think of terminal diseases of the body.  Yet there may be an argument that mental torment may be grounds for assisted dying, and indeed, there is a precedent for this.  Nathan Verhelst was a Belgian transgender man who was assigned female at birth, but who identified as male from an early age.  Due to familial and societal pressures, Nathan never came out until he was in his 30s, and after living as a man for a number of years, finally underwent gender reassignment surgery in his 40s.  However, the surgery went terribly wrong.  First his double mastectomy was horribly botched, leaving him with terrible scars, and then his body rejected his newly formed penis, which had to be removed.  The doctors informed him that nothing more could be done, so faced with living the remainder of his life, which could be up to 40 years, as neither biologically male nor female, Nathan instead decided that death held less horrors, and opted for assisted dying.  He passed away by lethal injection on 1 October 2013. aged 44.

The case of Nathan Verhelst is tragic, and unbelievably sad.  Some have said that he should have been given more psychiatric therapy.  He was already in therapy, and just how could any therapist empathise with Nathan’s circumstances?   Are there any therapists, anywhere in the world, similarly “neutered”?  Who are faced with a life of being neither male nor female?  The facts are that the grounds for Nathan Verhelst’s euthanasia were that he was suffering “unbearable psychological suffering” and it was under those grounds that the Belgian courts allowed his assisted dying.  And the important point here is that in the end it was Nathan’s decision.  His body, his life; he chose to retain his dignity and do with that body and life as he saw fit.

The entire question of where the mind comes into assisted dying must therefore be taken into account.  It beggars belief that in this day and age we still seem to consider mental conditions to somehow be considered to be of lesser importance to physical ailments.  I once heard a psychologist being interviewed who summed it up; that the brain is an organ, every bit as important as any other organ in the body.  Therefore, when the mind is injured or impaired, then that effectively is a physical injury.  I would actually go further, and suggests that as our minds are what make us, then any impairment or injury to the mind is more important than a physical injury.  After all, most of us could live with losing a limb, but it is the mind alone that would make us realise that limb was missing.  Likewise, the very question about AD is one of dignity, yet dignity is purely a mental construct, and one which is unique to every individual’s perception of such.  Therefore psychological issues must be given as much credence for grounds for assisted dying as physical ones.

There are many who object to assisted dying on various grounds.  There are those of religious persuasions who will be quick to cry out that “All life is sacred”, and that it is a “gift from God”.  Well, sorry (not sorry) but as I have pointed out above, when quality of life is gone, that life ceases to be ‘sacred’.  And as to their god, an increasing number of people in the UK do not even believe in that god, by seeking to maintain the law, they are imposing their beliefs upon others, which happens to be against both the UN Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as completely against basic human dignity.  To put it bluntly, if you believe in a god, then as happy as you are in that, it is not your place to enforce those beliefs upon others who do not share nor have any interest in them, and what others do with their lives is none of your damned business.

There are some will claim, and the God squad are infamous for this, that dying can be dealt with by increased palliative care.  They could not be more wrong, and anyone who claims this has obviously never witnessed someone at the limits of palliative care.  I know it to be wrong, because I have witnessed it with my own eyes.  While my dad was given something to ease his breathing, which worked, no further medication could be given.  Besides which, prolonging palliative care only means prolonging the suffering of the patient.  So much for “First do no harm.”  And here comes the perverse part; when a patient has reached the limits of palliative care, doctors cannot and may not administer any more medication – in cases it kills the patient.

There are some who claim that assisted dying could lead to a “slippery slope”, whereby more and more people are euthanised for the slightest of reasons, or coerced into choosing AD.  The anti-AD proponents often point to the Netherlands, where it is legal for parents to opt for AD for children.  However, this does not take into account the facts that in those cases the children are in extreme suffering and can only be allowed to die if parents and medical professionals agree that is the best course of action.  The opponents of AD citing the Netherlands may as well campaign for no child to have a “DNR” notice on their file, or for parents to have the right to switch life support machines off.

Then there is the “killing granny” argument that many come up with, that the elderly may be coerced into opting for assisted dying, to prevent them becoming a ‘burden’ upon their family.  Throughout this article, I have continually emphasised that only the individual is the expert upon their life, and has any right what to do with it.  This is the line which most proponents of AD take; that it is a decision that should not be taken lightly, and must be taken only if one is of sound mind.  I would suggest that any elderly person who can be coerced into AD is definitely not “of sound mind”.  And actually, the only instance I have ever seen of anyone suggesting that the elderly and infirm should kill themselves was from Baroness Warnock.  Baroness Warnock is a Peer (member of the House of Lords in the UK parliament) from the Conservative Party; the very party which claims to be “Christian”, and stand steadfastly against AD.  In 2013, Warnock suggested that elderly and infirm people should consider AD, to prevent them becoming a burden upon their families and society – her ‘complaint’ being that they survived on government benefits.  Baroness Warnock was 90 years old at the time, and I sent her a Tweet suggesting that as her income comes from the taxpayer, perhaps she should lead by example.

If properly regulated, with extremely stiff penalties for abuse, there is no reason why a system of assisted dying could not work in the UK.  Would it be abused?  The evidence of such happening in countries that allow AD is flimsy at best, and non-existent in some countries.  But then, anything can be abused.  We allow people to drink alcohol and eat unhealthy foods, that doesn’t mean people are not going to kill themselves by them. 

On 21 March 2019 the Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-term opposition to assisted dying, with the president stating that the college “neither supports nor opposes a change in the law”.  It’s a small step, but it is an important one as it is the first step towards AD in the UK, which the majority of people polled support.

It particularly angers me that the late, great Margo MacDonald, a Member of the Scottish Parliament who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, twice put Bills on assisted dying before the devolved parliament, and both occasions the parliament threw her motions out, without even debating them.  Margo, one of the best-known, and best-loved stateswomen in Scottish politics, died without her proposals ever even being discussed.  Most polls have placed public support for AD in Scotland to be around 65% in favour, while one in particular returned 75% in favour.  That’s three quarters of the electorate.  In Scotland there is a 700-year-old principle that sovereignty rests solely with the people; not parliament, nor the crown.  This is one area where I am both disappointed in and angry at the Scottish National Party administration for failing the people and ignoring their sovereign rights.

Do not get me wrong.  Life is precious, I enjoy it enormously, always have done, and I have absolutely no wish to shuffle off this mortal coil just yet.  However, I have always been of the view that death holds no horrors.  I actually don’t think that most people are afraid of death, but more of the fashion in which they die.  As the years advance, I increasingly frightened of becoming feeble, helpless, of losing my independence – of losing whom I ‘am’.  That prospect absolutely terrifies me.  Therefore, I would make it clear right here and now that should the worst come to the worst, I and I alone should have the right over what becomes of my life and what to do with it, and should I choose to end it, then there should be the resources in place to do that, at the hands of medical professionals, who are best placed to end life peacefully and painlessly.

Am I angry?  You bet I’m angry.  I am angry, even 10 years later, at what the state did to a man I loved dearly.  How it made my dad suffer.  How it robbed him off all dignity.  How it assumed ownership of his very person and continued to harm him long after that suffering should have ended.  For that I cannot, and I shall not, ever forgive them.  Even if I were offered an apology, I still wouldn’t forgive them.  I simply can’t.

Our lives are just that; ours.  They are not the property of the state, far less of the Christian churches, or of any other religious belief for that matter.  As such, it should the right of every single individual ultimately what to do with their life.

To argue any otherwise is to deny our own personal independence - our very existence, who we are - itself.