Sit Doon An' Haud Yir Wheesht, Ruth

Ruth Davidson MSP ~ Proud to be ???

Oan 1 June 1999, the devolved Scottish Parliament wis convened for the first time. Amang the opening ceremony, singer Sheena Wellington sang the Robert Burns sang "Is There for Honest Poverty", alsae kent as "A Man's a Man for A' That". The sang wis performit as written, in the Scots leid whit the bard penned it in.

It is efter a' the Scottish Parliament; the parliament o' Scotland, whaur people commonly spik their ain tongue. So whit wad be mair fitting than tae open it wi' Burns's anthem o international britherhood in the Scots leid?

No' good enouch it seems for the Scottish Conservative Party leader, Ruth Davidson MSP. Oan Monday, 28 March, during the debate oan whether or no' tae ask Westminster tae rin a second referendum oan independence, the Tory leader quoted the words o' SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, and then added "I won't do the accent."

The accent! I ask ye? It's aye lang been kent that the Tories dinnae and wullna recognise the Scots Leid in it's ain richt, and there's yir proof. The leader o' the Scots Tories decided tae deride oor native tongue in the debating chamber o' Scotland's ain parliament.

Joan McAlpine, for her pairt, later Tweeted "I'm a member of the Scottish Parliament who speaks with a Scottish accent - like vast majority of the population. Tories find it funny."

Weel said, Joan, but jist ane thing; ye dinnae spik wi' a "Scottish accent" ~ ye spik the Scots leid.

And it's no' like Ruth spiks perfect RP English either. Aiblings she micht want tae, but ends up wi' a sort o' strangulated 'Edinburgh Fine' / ploom in the mou English, which because o' the inflection she pits oan it, ends up sounding mair Scots.

It seems tae me that becoming the leader o' the opposition in the Scottish Parliament, when the Tories owertook Labour in the 2016 elections, the power has gane tae Ruth's heid. At anither point First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP tried tae intervene oan her speech, and Ruth Davidson snapped at the leader o' Scotland "Sit down."

Cud ye imagine whit wad happen if Theresa May attemptit tae interrupt Jeremy Corbyn in the Palace o' Westminster, an' the Labour leader tellt the Prime Minister o' the UK tae "Sit down"? There wad be mayhem and wee Johnnie Bercow wad hae tae tak steps agin the leader o' the opposition, and wad be weel within his ricths tae dae sae. Why the Prisiding Officer o' the Scottish Parliament didna therefore intervene and ask Ruth Davidson tae withdraw her remarks and apologise is ayont me.

We a' weel ken jist how high-falutin the Tories think themseels tae be. But Ruth Davidson's behaviour went weel ayont the boundaries o' common decency and respect we should expect in the Scottish Parliament. Grantit, the debate wis a heated ane, but sic outbursts shouldna e'er be allowed tae gae unpunished.

But whit's really got ma dander up is Ruth Davidson's denial o' her ain culture, by ridiculing the Scots Tongue. When ony English person derides Scots, then as odious as it may be, it comes o' ignorance, and because o' that, if the person apologises and is contrite aboot it, it kin be forgien, and e'en understood tae an extent.

Ruth Davidson, has nae sic excuse. She is Scots through and through, wis brocht up wi' the mither tongue, an' for her tae therefore deride it canna e'er be forgien. I can stomach an anti-Scots English person tae an extent. The ane thing I canna, and wullna, e'er respect or forgie is an anti-Scots Scot, which is mair than a hunnert times warse, forbye.

Fowk like Ruth Davidson aye claim tae be "Proud to be Scottish. Proud to be British." but by their ain words aye gie awey whaur their true loyalites lie. These are the fowk o' the same ilk o' thae wha systematically erodit the Scots Leid in the schules, in law, and in everyday life. They claim tae be Scots, but in reality they're ashamed o' their ain culture; ashamed o' being Scots.

We see the same frae 'Scottish' Labour, whae claim to be proud Scots, but gae oot o' there wey tae e'en appear remotely Scots. The Labour cooncil in Glesca ance tried tae pressurise the SNP group tae tak doon a 'nationalist' banner frae a windae lookin' oan tae George Square. Whit wis this 'nationalist' symbol whit made Labour sae black affrontit? A Saltire flag. The national flag o' Scotland, the auldest national flag in existence, their ain flag, that's whit. Is it ony wonder I refer tae Labour in Scotland as "Labour (North British Branch)"?

I dinnae mind fowk haein opposin' political views tae ma ain pro-independence anes. Thon's democracy. I ken weel that there are fowk whae are proud Scots but support the Union, e'en in ma ain family. But when someone claims tae be a Scot, I expect them tae staund staunchly by thon statement. When they fail tae dae sae, then I canna consider them tae be Scots at a'.  Ian Hamilton, ane o' the lads whae walked aff wi' the Stone o' Destiny oan Christmas Day 1950, hud it richt aboot sic fowk in a magazine article he ance wrote, 'Bringing it Home' (Daily Record Story of Scotland, 1995), Hamilton said o' fowk like Ruth Davidson, "They're not Scots; they are North Britons."

But e'en then, when ye consider fowk frae the north o' England kin weel understaund we Scots, and that there are thae Scots wha dae spik RP English (but dinna deride the Scots leid) yet are Scots a' the same, and wi' her owerstepping her ain authority, ablings Ruth Davidson disnae e'en see herseel as a 'North Briton', but rather as a Middle Englander wannabe.  Efter a', it wis jist in September 2016, when Ruth wis invitit tae an event attendit by the Prime Minister, she respondit "Usually they put the Scots in a place where nothing can be broken. Or stolen for that matter!"  Sae as heated as the debate wis, she kin hardly claim it wis a momentary lack o' judgement.  Naw, Ruth is an anti-Scots Scot, richt enouch.

Weel, Ruth is nae Miss Jean Brodie (wha in the buik wis actually a very proud Scot), sae she kin tak her schoolmarm strictness, and her derision an' denial o' her ain tongue and culture elsewhere. But as she does, tae return tae Burns she may weel consider that when Burns decidit tae publish his poems in the Scots Leid, ayebody said they wad ne'er sell. Aroond thrie hunnert years later, a pair o' young laddies ca'in' themseels The Proclaimers decidit tae record sangs in the Scots Leid, and ayebody said they wad ne'er sell.

Perhaps Ruth Davidson wad like tae teel us jist whae wis richt, and whae wis wrang, oan baith occasions?

An' whiles she ponders thon, she may herseel want tae consider some o' the words o' "Is There for Honest Poverty":

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a couf for a' that:

For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

Theresa May ~ face of the Union?

On 27 March, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, visited the Scottish offices of the Department for International Development - a Westminster government agency - to deliver a speech on her plans for Scotland under the UK plans to leave the EU.

The speech came on the eve of the Prime Minister triggering Article 50 to begin the exit strategy form the EU - and also in the same week the Scottish Government will table a motion to ask Westminster to hold a second referendum on independence, which the PM is deeply opposed to.

The speech was therefore also going to be about propaganda rather than plans. What followed however was pitiful. Having read through the transcript of the speech, I add some of my own thoughts.

"the work you do here – in conjunction with your colleagues at the Department for International Development in London – says something important about Britain. It says that we are a kind and generous country. It says that we are a big country that will never let down – or turn our back on – those in need."

In February 2017, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson syphoned off £700 million from foreign aid, to set up a "pro-democracy" fund to spread western influence in former Soviet states and the Middle East.

Under the Immigration Act 2016, as part of the 'Dubs Amendment', the UK government agreed to take in child refugees from the "Jungle" migrant camp in Calais. Lord Dubs said this could be as high as 3000 children. In February 2017 the government reneged on this commitment after taking in only 350 children. A move which Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described as inhumane, and urged the Prime Minister to reconsider.

So the Prime Minister does not have to lecture me on not turning our backs on those in need - her government has a shameful track record of doing so.

"Indeed, we are going to take this opportunity to forge a more Global Britain. The closest friend and ally with Europe, but also a country that looks beyond Europe to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike."

The UK is not going to be the closest friend and ally of Europe. Far from it, the decision to leave and the hard line which Theresa May is taking is already alienating many EU states and other countries in Europe. And of course by 'old friends' she means the USA. Oh, and the Commonwealth countries, which the Brexiteers are determined are to become the British Empire Mark II. As to the 'new allies', there's the reference to the UK trying to interfere in former Soviet states and the Middle East.

"For example, your work is leading the world in efforts to end the outrage of violence against women and girls, a cause that is particularly close to my heart."

Cases of Female Genital Mutilation are on the increase in the UK, with WHO reporting in 2015 that it averaged a new case every 109 minutes.

From 2010 to 2015 familial abuse of women stayed largely static, while sexual abuse actually increased slightly from 2014 to 2015.

"the work to tackle the awful Zika virus that is a source of such anguish for people across Latin America is being led by researchers at Glasgow University, supported by teams here."

Scottish academia and education is and always has been devolved. Even under the auspices of the Act of Union of 1707, it was agreed that Scotland and England would maintain control over their own education systems. And Scotland has been a leader in medicine since the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh was founded in 1505 - 202 years before the Union. Therefore, for Theresa May to try and make it look like Glasgow University could not fight Zika without UK input is as disingenuous as it is insulting. This is a typical example of Westminster saying that every success in Scotland is a direct consequence of the Union, but every failure is all of our own doing.

"One of the legacies of years of conflict in that country is the deadly phenomenon of landmines that still lie strewn across hundreds of acres of that land."

Many of which landmines were supplied by the USA and the UK to the Mujaheddin, before they became the Taliban.

"thanks to the work of organisations such as the Halo Trust that has its headquarters right here in Scotland – almost 100 square kilometres of contaminated land has been cleared. And around half a million people have benefitted as a result. We will continue with that work – and continue to support Afghanistan’s security"

"The HALO Trust is a non-political and non-religious registered British charity and American non-profit organization which removes debris left behind by war." (Wikipedia)

So, nice one Theresa, for attempting to politicise and claim credit for the HALO Trust, which are nothing to do with either the UK or the Scottish governments. And no, you won't 'continue with that work', because it is organisations like HALO doing it.

"UK Aid is a badge of hope for so many around the world – and I hope that everyone here feels proud to be able to play their part in bringing light where there is darkness, and hope where there is despair. But that badge – UK Aid – says something else. It appears on the side of buildings, school books, medical supplies and food parcels in some of the toughest environments and most hard-to-reach countries on the planet."

While at the same time, the UK sells arms to countries in return for giving foreign aid, or sells arms to those countries which create humanitarian crises. An example from September 2016 is Theresa May's government sending a drop-in-the-bucket £100 million to Yemen, whilst selling arms to Saudi Arabia worth £3 billion; arms which the Saudis are attacking Yemen with.

"And it says this: that when this great union of nations – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – sets its mind on something and works together with determination, we are an unstoppable force."

If a union of peoples can work as a greater force together than apart, then surely the same must be true of the European Union?  Or is that 'different'?

"That is why the Plan for Britain I have set out – a plan to get the right deal for Britain abroad as well as a better deal for ordinary, working people at home"

By bringing absolutely nothing to the table in Brexit negotiations, and expecting several concessions in return? The fact is that May has absolutely no plan and no idea what she is doing. And as for working people at home, just how are they going to feel when their rights to liveable wages, decent working conditions, the right to leave, all cut from under them, with no EU to turn to?

"has as its heart one over-arching goal: to build a more united nation."

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer?

"A more united nation means working actively to bring people and communities together by promoting policies which support integration and social cohesion."

EU citizens residing in the UK were denied a vote in the EU referendum, and the UK leaving the UK shall see many of these same people stripped of their right to remain. I therefore fail to see how that is supporting integration and social cohesion.

And there are many other policies of the Westminster government which are dividing communities and eroding integration and social cohesion. Theresa May only look at the gentrified areas of London such as Notting Hill and Streatham, where the working class - and largely black - communities have been priced out of these areas, and many out of London altogether.

"In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that means fully respecting, and indeed strengthening, the devolution settlements."

If Theresa May is at all serious about respecting the devolution settlements, then she should respect the wishes of the devolved Scottish Government to seek a second referendum on independence by early 2019 at the latest.

"But never allowing our Union to become looser and weaker, or our people to drift apart. So in those policy areas where the UK Government holds responsibility, I am determined that we will put the interests of the Union – both the parts and the whole – at the heart of our decision-making."

Are therein lies the contradiction; she won't recognise the call for a second referendum by early 2019. For all Theresa May's fine words, this is nothing more a repeat of the 'Vow' Scotland was promised in 2014 of sweeping new powers both in Holyrood and as part of the UK parliament at Westminster, only to see the Scottish budget slashed, powers never delivered, and 'English Votes for English Laws' (EVEL) introduced, whereby Scots MPs may not vote on English issues, even if they make have a knock-on effect upon Scotland.

"It is about the values we share in our family of nations. Values of freedom of speech, democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law. This proud shared heritage provides the bedrock of our lives together in the UK."

Freedom of speech, where SNP MPs have been silenced in the House of Commons. Freedom of speech and expression where the government already has our computers and other internet devices under surveillance and have jumped on the attack on Westminster to call for that to be extended. Democracy where the Prime Minister will not honour the wishes of 62% of the Scots electorate to stay in the UK. Both the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Amnesty International have condemned the Westminster government for human rights abuses, at home and abroad, and particularly in the case of those most vulnerable. May's 'clean Brexit' will see the UK removed from human rights protection we enjoy within the EU AND the European Court of Justice.

"And on that foundation we have built a country where we share the challenges that we face, and bring all the expertise, ingenuity and goodwill we share across this Union to bear to tackle them. That allows us to do amazing things,"

And on that foundation the European Union grew out of the EEC, which allows us to do many, many more amazing things - across Europe and around the world.

"So as Britain leaves the European Union, and we forge a new role for ourselves in the world"

An isolationist one of raising the drawbridge, pulling up the ladder, and cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world, save a select few. And given how Donald Trump is blowing hot and cold on the "Special Relationship", don't count on that either.

"But also for the good we can do together in the world, as a Global Britain. A force for good, helping to build a better future for everyone."

Yes, I can just hear the Little Englanders agreeing to a "Global Britain", especially when these are the same people who continually call for foreign aid to be cut - or even scrapped, for cuts in immigration and refugees, and for deportations. And these are the same people who voted the Tories in, and to leave the EU remember.

All in all it was a poor speech. It was largely an appeal to emotion; a tug at the collective heart strings of Scotland, in an effort desperate effort to keep us in the Union. In that, it was little different from the pathetic pleas of David Cameron in 2014.

Theresa May's logic escapes me. On one hand she speaks of forming new alliances across Europe and the world, then on the other hand is insisting that Scotland can only be an effective force in the world if we are in union with England, but at the same time as speaking in glowing terms of unions being strong, is determined to take out of the EU on the hardest terms possible. Does May somehow imagine that an independent Scotland could not enter into some sort of joint aid agency with the remainder of the UK? Or is she threatening that if Scotland becomes independent, that she will childishly go home and take her ball with her? And if the latter, then just how outward-looking, how embracing of the world would that be? And just how does such an attitude at all help those most in need across the world?

I would never for one moment denigrate the work of the consummate professionals of the Department for International Development, but the fact is we do not need to be in an all-encompassing political union to deliver aid across the world.

The UK already works in conjunction within the EU, and with several other countries to deliver aid where it is needed. Asides from which, aid is often delivered by non-governmental organisations, as May herself illustrated by the amazing work of the HALO Trust - which she disgustingly tried to take the credit for. Yes, groups like HALO often rely upon governmental monetary donations and physical help on the ground. There is absolutely no reason Scotland and England as independent countries could not continue supplying both. Or is May also threatening to huffily pull governmental help for HALO and other such organisations?

The rest of the speech, full of rhetoric and hyperbole, truly was nothing more than "Vow Mk II"; it had the same condescending, crawling tones of David Cameron when he pleaded with Scotland in 2014 to stay in the Union, promising us the earth - and delivered nothing.

I do not for the life of me know what the point of all that was. Nicola Sturgeon will table Article 30 to the Scottish Parliament, calling for a second referendum on independence, and it will pass through the house. We will have a second referendum, by early 2019 at the latest, whatever what Theresa May thinks or wishes, whether it be an official one or not.

If Theresa May however was trying to lay down the law, trying to be another Thatcher rather than Cameron, she would do well to consider just how much Margaret Thatcher was despised in Scotland. Not least because she too tried to tell Scotland to "dae as yir tellt", and imposed her will upon us against our wishes when she imposed the hated 'Poll Tax' on Scotland a year before the rest of the UK.

Theresa May can of course utterly refuse to grant Scotland a second referendum on independence. If she is at all serious about keeping the UK together and making it more cohesive, then she would be strongly advised not to. If there is one thing we Scots hate is being told what to do. It just makes us all the more determined to do it. Refusing a second referendum could very well see Theresa May go down in history as the Prime Minister who broke up the UK, which of course would be fine with me.

And of course, you can forget all the rhetoric about a second referendum 'not now, but later'. Because by her very words of 'strengthening' the UK, Theresa May has made it perfectly clear she has absolutely no intention of ever granting a second referendum. That is why it has to be now; that is why it has to be we who are active now of delivering it.

So, all in all, it was a pretty pathetic and pointless speech. That's no disparagement to the workers of the DfID. They like all public sector workers, know better than Theresa May or any other politician just how hard their jobs are, and how professional they are. They neither need nor want their egos massaged nor smoke blown up their asses.

I have some personal thoughts upon this. In my time I have worked in the public sector at UK government, Scottish government, and local authority levels. If there was one thing which was strongly emphasised in all three sectors it is that you remain completely objective and non-partisan at all times. It is never a good idea to bring your politics into the workplace, but in the public sector it is absolutely sacrosanct that you do not. And like the absolute professionals they are, the overwhelming majority of public sector workers leave their politics at home; I have even rarely heard them discuss politics in the pub after work.

Yet, here we had the UK Prime Minister visiting the offices of a major government department, and giving a speech overladen with her political asperations, pleading to them to follow her political vision, to reject any ideas of a second referendum or of Scottish independence. Theresa May used what should have been a speech about aid and development to preach propaganda to a non-partisan government department, and that should concern each and every one of us.

One can only hope that there were few within the East Kilbride office of the DfID who actually paid any attention to one word of what she said. After all, they know from bitter experience what happened to their public sector colleagues. Before the 2014 referendum Westminster government said that 1200 Scottish tax workers would not lose their jobs if we stayed in the Union. True to their word, after Scotland voted No to independence, the government didn't sack 1200 - they transferred the jobs of no fewer than 2000 tax workers from East Kilbride to Croydon.

Fool me once, Theresa, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Doing The Right Thing

London is not cowed ~ neither should we be

On Wednesday, 23 March 2017, the Scottish Parliament was debating whether to seek a second referendum on independence, with the vote due to take place at 5.30pm that day.  At approximately 2:40pm the same day, the driver of a car in London deliberately mounted the pavement on Westminster Bridge, mowing down pedestrians, before crashing through railings guarding the Houses of Parliament.  He then jumped out of the car, stabbed an unarmed police officer, and ran towards a Parliament cafe before being shot by undercover armed police officers.

Two pedestrians and the police officer, Police Constable Keith Palmer, died of their injuries.  The attacker later died of gunshot wounds.  40 others were injured.

As news of the attack reached Edinburgh, the decision was taken to suspend business in the Scottish Parliament for the day.  It had been decided earlier that the debate would continue, however Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh took the decision to suspend the sitting, stating "The fact that our sister parliament has had a serious incident is affecting this particular debate."

SNP Brexit Minister Mike Russell MSP stated "Any attacks on a parliament are an attack on all democracies.  It looks very serious indeed, so it's the right thing to do and I think people would have expected it to happen."

Whilst this was the prevailing view in Holyrood, there were a few MSPs thought that the debate should have continued and that suspending parliament was giving in to terrorism.  There have also been some individuals saying as much on social media, and even some callously suggesting that what happens in Westminster was of no consequence.

Mike Russell hit the nail on the head; it was the right thing to do.

Whilst we Scots Nats wish to sever our ties with Westminster, no-one can deny that it is a democratic parliament.  As such any attack upon Westminster is an attack upon democracy and an attack upon decent-minded people across the UK, and around the world.

Okay, I don't see Westminster as the mother of parliaments - and if it is, it's just a bloody shame they never found out who the father was.  But it is a semblance of democracy, and in a world where the vast majority of countries do not have democracy, that makes it all the more important.  Let us also not forget that when we talk of Westminster, we talk of those who serve there.  That includes 59 Scottish constituency MPs, 56 of whom represent the SNP - Alex Salmond was the first MP to speak to LBC Radio about the attack shortly after it happened.  There are also MPs of Scottish birth or background who represent English constituencies, Scots lords, Scots civil servants and other workers in the Palace of Westminster, Scots police officers who have taken up careers in the Metropolitan Police, and of course the enormous number of Scots who live in London.

Even the most ardent Scots Nat who wanted business to continue in Holyrood cannot deny that what happens in Westminster, London, or England as a whole, affects us all.  Many of us have friends in England, many indeed have family.

Not that the fact that there were Scots caught up in the attack should be the only driving factor.  There were many nationalities and ethnicities caught up in the attack.  A group of French schoolchildren were on Westminster Bridge, three of whom were injured.  Of the two dead pedestrians, one was a Spanish school teacher and mother of two, Aysha Frade.  The other was 53-year-old American Kurt Cochran, in London to celebrate his 25th wedding anniversary.  His wife is in hospital in a critical condition.  London truly is a metropolitan city where many cultures meet, visit, and live, and that is why an attack upon London is indeed an attack upon the world.

Putting it all together then, it was only fitting that the Scottish Parliament should be suspended.  It was indeed "the right thing to do", to show solidarity with and respect to the peoples of London and of the world caught up in this atrocious act.

The First Minister later stated "My thoughts, as I'm sure the thoughts of everybody in Scotland tonight, are with people caught up in this dreadful event.  My condolences in particular go to those who've lost loved ones.  My thoughts are with those who've sustained injuries and we all feel a sense of solidarity with the people of London tonight."

As ever, Nicola Sturgeon speaks with the values which so many of us in Scotland, and across the world, share.

But doing the right thing goes further than showing respect and compassion for victims of terror attacks.  It is about respecting others.  Even as the story was breaking, social media was ablaze with accusations of Islamist attacks, fingers being pointed at the Islamic faith, and even some seeing it as an opportunity to blame immigration and refugees.  Notice there how it very quickly went from blaming one particular interpretation of a religion, to blaming that religion, to blaming individuals.  I saw one comment on Facebook stating "This will soon come to every street in Europe."  Yeah.  I'm really scared that a Muslim is going to crash a car through my garden fence and try to stab me.

Yes, we now know was Muslim who had previously been investigated by MI5, but was currently not under investigation.  We also know that eight people have been arrested.  It is also now reported that Islamic State are claiming responsibility for the attack.  And of course, the bigots are jumping on this immediately.  Only  a few points here; we also know that the assailant was British-born, arrest does not equal complicity in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, and IS now have their backs so firmly against the wall, and are on the brink of being wiped out, that they are obviously going to claim responsibility for any and all attacks.

If we take every news report of IS claiming responsibility for every 'terror' attack, then we play right into the hands of the terrorists.  But exactly the same happens when we pay any attention to the extreme right screaming about Muslim "immigrants" and "refugees" (even if they happen to be British-born - the bigots never make any distinction between the three).  They too are trying to stir up fear and hatred of Muslims, and when they do so, they are the very ones who are abetting terrorism.  Are they not attempting to strike terror into people and is that not the very definition of terrorism?  Saying things like it will be on every street in Europe merely abets the terrorists.  Refusing to be bullied by extremists, whether they be Islamists, the far-right, or of any stripe is the right thing to do.

The moment we fear and hate Muslims, or any other group within society, the terrorists have won.  Certainly, we can question and criticise Islam.  It is worthy of criticism - are as all religious faiths and cultures.  But when we listen to the hyperbole of hateful minds, then we do both the extreme right and the terrorists a favour.  I happen to extremely dislike a young man who works in his parent's shop near me.  I don't dislike him because he is a Muslim, but rather because he's a cheeky, arrogant git who needs a bloody good slap.  His mum and dad by comparison are lovely people whom I have tons of respect for.  I often wonder how their son turned out to be such a prick.  Probably because he's so westernised.

It is a symbol of any civilised society that we respect all races, cultures, ethnicities, and faiths - even if we disagree strongly with them.  And trust me, as an atheist, I have severe reservations about Islam, just as I have of all faiths.  Tolerance and respect are what make us decent human beings.  When the paramedics arrived on the scene at Westminster, one crew tried to save the life of PC Palmer ~ and the other crew tried to revive the attacker.  Why?  Because they are civilised; because it is the right thing to do.

As I write this, just over 24 hours after the attack, there are also some people trying to make political capital out of this attack, and some frankly disgusting internet trolls making sick comments about the attack, about Muslims, and even some wishing it had been an attack upon Nicola Sturgeon.  Rise above it.  This is not a time for anyone to play politics, nor is it a joke, nor a time to react to brain-dead knuckledraggers.  Let the Daily Express try to claim on SNP MSP groaned when parliament was suspended. Let the trolls make their sick comments. Leave the loopy conspiracists to claim it was a "False Flag" attack. But if we react to any of that, then we are giving them exactly what they want.

Walk away from it, in the knowledge that you are better than that, and you will not sully your respect for those maimed and killed in an atrocious act by rising to their bait.

But most of all walk away from it ~ because it is the right thing to do.

Sorry Brian - You ARE a Unionist

Brian Wilson

Celtic Football Club director, and a former Labour MP and minister in Tony Blair's government Brian Wilson has claimed that Scots nationalists are attempting to "sectarianise" the independence debate in Scottish politics.

Recorded at a fringe event at the 2017 Scottish Labour Party conference, Mr Wilson said the following;

"By putting that tag on, and in the full knowledge of that connotation in an Irish context, they know exactly what they’re doing. It’s a very dangerous road they’re going down.”

“obviously mirror images Ireland, where the political divide is also about the constitution”.

“The word Unionist in Scottish politics is not a Scottish word. It is not Scottish Unionism.

“When Tory candidates stood [in the past] as Conservative and Unionist candidates in Scotland they were not talking about Scotland, they were talking about Ireland, and they were playing for the Orange vote in Scottish politics.

“That is the Unionist, that is Unionism, in Scottish politics.

“So when the Nationalists, when the whole thrust is to lump us together as Unionists... by putting that tag on, and in the full knowledge of that connotation in an Irish context, they know exactly what they are doing. And it’s a very dangerous road they’re going down.

“It’s a difficult thing to analyse, a difficult thing perhaps to see it happening. But it’s been happening over a long period and I think it’s really sinister.”

Brian Wilson denied that the term "nationalist" was the different side of the same coin. But of course you did, Brian.

By harking back to history of over 50 years ago, Brian Wilson is attempting a deliberate smear tactic upon the independence movement.  He is quite correct that the unionists of the past sought to woo the 'orange vote'. Where he is incorrect in that is that it was not the Conservative and Unionist Party who did that, but rather the Unionist Party of Scotland, who did not merge with the Conservative Party until 1965.

But if he knew his political history a little better, Brian Wilson would know that the driving force of the Unionist Party of Scotland, which grew out of Scottish liberalism, not conservatism, came not from opposition to Irish autonomy, but rather from the fear that it could have a domino effect leading to the break up of the British Empire.  Scottish unionists of that time had no problem with countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Newfoundland gaining independence, but retaining Dominion status within the Commonwealth.  Because of this, some members of the Unionist Party of Scotland actually supported Scottish independence.  Author of The 39 Steps and Greenmantle, John Buchan, himself a Scottish Unionist MP, once said "I believe every Scotsman should be a Scottish nationalist."

Mr Wilson should also be aware that the Unionist Party of Scotland enjoyed mass support because they had a Scottish identity, and the Scots electorate distrusted the centralist approach of the British Labour Party.

The Unionist Party of Scotland did eventually swing more to the right-wing and become more sectarian, but that in itself saw non-sectarian members leave, some of whom joined the National Party of Scotland, which in 1934 merged with the Scottish Party to form the Scottish National Party.

So, Brian Wilson is partially correct from a historical perspective, but if he is attempting some sectarian interpretation of the term "unionist" in modern Scottish politics, it is entirely of his own making.

Let us see what Chambers Dictionary has to say about the word "unionist";

unionist noun 1 an advocate or supporter of unionism, especially as a system of social or political organization... ...3 (sometimes Unionist) a before 1920: a supporter of the Union of all Ireland and Great Britain; b since 1920: a supporter of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 4 a supporter of the continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales.

There it is; "an advocate or supporter of unionism, especially as a system of social or political organization... ...a supporter of the continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales."  Dictionary definition, undeniable and undebatable.  Whether Brian Wilson likes it or not, he is himself by definition a unionist.  As all opponents of Scottish nationalism are.

Brian Wilson's comments do not even make sense from a political perspective.  If we Scots nats were to even attempt to inject the sectarian element into the independence debate, just how well would that serve us?  Although the 2015 Scottish Social Attitudes survey showed that 52% of Scots now count themselves as "not religious", Scotland remains a majority Protestant country, with most people being brought up in a culturally Protestant background.  And do not forget two factors here; a) Scotland's brand of Protestant Christianity is the strictest form of such in the world, and b) it is culture which drives sectarianism, not faith.  Roman Catholics by comparison remain very much a minority in Scotland, with the same report recording those describing themselves as practising Catholics at 15%, unchanged since the study started in 1999.

So, to imagine that Scots Nats were to ever play the sectarian card, pigeonholing all opponents as being 'orange' or even just Protestant could only ever be to the detriment of the independence movement.  Such a move would have the potential to see supporters turn away in droves, potentially straight into the arms of the unionist camp.

Brian Wilson never mentioned the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, or the SNP as a whole, but obviously they cannot be ignored in this odious accusation.  If Mr Wilson would care to do his homework, he would know that while the First Minister keeps her faith a closely-guarded matter, she does in fact come from a culturally Protestant background.  Likewise, there are few SNP MSPs and MPs who are Roman Catholic.  Some are in fact openly members of the Church of Scotland, and there are even some members of the Free Church of Scotland (the "Wee Frees" of "Free Kirk") among SNP ranks.  Indeed, as a diehard secularist I have often voiced my concern about the number of "Holy Wullies" among SNP ministers.

Has Brian Wilson actually had a look at the views of some more conservative Roman Catholics towards Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP?  He will soon find they are deeply opposed to them.  Many Roman Catholic journals and organisations have lambasted the SNP administration in the Scottish Government for introducing same-sex marriage and the Named Person's Scheme.  A comment in Catholic Truth Blog describes Nicola Sturgeon as "A Protestant First Minister in a Protestant Scotland".  A farcical statement if ever there were one.  I don't know if Nicola Sturgeon is a practising Christian, atheist, agnostic, or whatever - nobody does.  But even the most objective observer would agree that if there is one thing the First Minister does not do it is let her personal religious beliefs cloud or affect her political judgement.  Oh but if only more politicians exercised that degree of secularism - Theresa May (and Tony Blair) take note.

The independence movement as a whole has also come under attack from the same opposition.  There have been many accusations that under independence there would be an end to state-owned Roman Catholic schooling, and that child benefit would be limited to two children.  But who has been mostly responsible for spreading such utter drivel?  Agents of the Labour Party, that's who.  But then, these were the same people who on the other hand at one time were putting fears into Protestants by telling them "home rule means Rome rule".

We in the independence movement, whether they be members of the SNP or not (I'm not), have not nor would we ever court sectarianism in any way, shape, or form.  Not only would it not be in our interests to do so, it is an odious evil we wish no part of.  If we were, the facts certainly do not bear that out.  In the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, 57% of Roman Catholics made up the highest proportion of religious Yes voters. Equally, both the General Election of 2015 and the Scottish Parliamentary Election of 2016 saw the Labour bloc vote, once the strongest in the whole of the UK, utterly collapse, and Roman Catholics turning from Labour to SNP was a large contributory factor to that.

Meanwhile, in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, the largest pro-No vote event was organised by the Orange Order (which could not entice even half of similar pro-Yes events).

These things were not done by design of the independence movement, or the SNP, or by Yes Scotland.  Those who voted Yes and voted SNP did so completely of their own choice, without being swayed by any sectarian arguments.  Indeed, I doubt it would ever happen, but if any members of the Orange Order or other hardline Protestants (some of whom must have voted Yes in 2014 when you think about it) chose to join the independence movement, then I for one would welcome them.  All I would ask is that they leave their religious bigotry at the door; it's neither wanted nor welcome.  Our movement is a non-sectarian one, and that's the way we all like it.  And should Brian Wilson or anyone else doubt that, then I suggest they go talk to those active in the wholly ecumenical Christians for Independence.  I'm pretty sure their convenor, Dennis Canavan MP, would not take kindly to it being implied that he is sectarian.

But is there anything in the independence movement we need to be aware of careful about?  Well, there's always room for caution.  I saw a meme on Facebook of a spoof referendum ballot paper, with the question "Do you believe Scotland should be an independent country?" and two boxes, marked "Yes", and "Rangers".  Now, I saw the joke of that and found it funny.  My late Dad was a diehard bluenose - and a staunch Scots Nat, and he would have seen through it and had a laugh.  Most pro-Yes Rangers fans would see the joke, and even most anti-Independence Rangers fans would laugh it off and disregard it.  It is dangerous nonetheless; because there are indeed a few special snowflakes among Rangers fans who will take umbrage at it, and of course, there are always be people like Brian Wilson all too ready to jump on that, and blow it up completely out of proportion.  Tread carefully, fellow Nats.  Before you post anything, think on whether it may give the unionists any ammunition against us.

It seems to me therefore that with his spurious interpretation of Scottish political history, and his own personal understanding of the word "unionist", if anyone is attempting to inject sectarianism into the independence debate, it is none other than Brian Wilson, who is a unionist, and who I will continue to call a unionist; with absolutely no connotations to Irish history or politics, but purely due to his support for the continuation of the Union of Scotland with England.

But if he does not like the term "unionist", perhaps he would prefer "BritNat"?

Finally, in case anyone is wondering, and before I get the true sectarians calling me "Papist", "taig", "left-footer", etc, let me be so kind as to inform you all that I actually come from a Protestant background, and was actually at one time a Baptist (you don't get much more Protestant than that).  I am now however a diehard atheist and strong secularist, and with regards to Scottish sectarianism, I consider it a poison upon my country, and if anyone supports bigotry on either side, I say a pox on BOTH your houses.

No, You DON'T Get to Punch a Nazi First

Or anyone else for that matter.

On 20 January 2017, near to where Donald Trump was being inaugurated as 45^th president of the United States of America, Richard Spencer was being interviewed by an Australian television channel, when he was punched by an unknown assailant. Spencer was denying to the interviewer that he was a neo-Nazi, when members of the public asked him to explain his pin badge of 'Pepe the Frog' – a symbol often used by racists and antisemites – when a masked and hooded man ran up, punched Spencer, then ran off again.

Richard Spencer is the founder of the Alternative Right movement, often abbreviated to 'Alt-Right'. He has often espoused white supremacist, antisemetic, and homophobic views. According to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, Spencer advocates a homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and call for "peaceful ethnic cleansing". The Anti-Defamation League have quoted Spencer as rejecting conservatism because its adherents "can't or won't represent explicitly white interests." Although he purports to be an atheist, he rejects same-sex marriage, which he has described as "unnatural", stating "very few gay men will find the idea of monogamy to their liking" Spencer openly supported Trump for president and at the end of a speech after the Republican victory, Spencer shouted "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!", which was met by a large proportion of the audience giving Nazi-style salutes in return.

Richard Spencer is certainly therefore an odious individual, with extreme right wing, and yes, neo-Nazi views; he has repeatedly failed to condemn Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Since the punching incident, not only have there been hard left apologists applauding and attempting to justify the assault, there is now a whole “Punch a Nazi” movement which is claiming that it is perfectly justified to use violence first against the extreme right, to silence them, and shut them down. I would argue that it is never right to be the first to use violence, no matter the provocation, and those who do have already lost the argument. I would also state that many of those who are shouting loudest about punching 'Nazis' are guilty of the deepest hypocrisy and double standards.

First of all we have to identify just who these 'Nazis' are. Are they people holding views which can be construed to be not dissimilar to those of Hitler and the actual Nazis, or neo-Fascist ideas?

There are some on the hard left who maintain that all movements for national identity are by their very nature extreme right wing and racist. I seek an independent Scotland, because I firmly believe that self-determination (a right recognised by the United Nations) is the only way Scotland can ever progress. Despite the fact that many of we Scots Nats, including the Scottish National Party (SNP), have continually made the distinction of outward-looking “civic nationalism”, we have continually been lambasted as 'separatists', 'anti-English racists' and even portrayed as 'Nazis', by some on the left, up to and including some Labour Party members. Opponents openly refer to the SNP as the “Scottish Nazi Party” and I recently saw a Tweet from a member of the hard left stating “Forget this civic nationalism rubbish; nationalism is nationalism.”

So, should I and other Scots Nats, who embrace all, be attacked with violence, despite never using or supporting violence ourselves? Some would definitely think so. In the run-up to the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, there were many shops and cafés ran by the official Yes campaign were often daubed with swastikas and “Nazis”. As well as being subjected to a great deal of verbal abuse, Yes campaigners, myself included, were often spat upon by members of the hard left. At the more extreme end, a 5-year-old little boy was narrowly missed by a chair pushed out of a window, aimed at former SNP leader Jim Sillars by a left wing opponent, and an 80-year-old man campaigning for Yes, suffered a broken arm after being pushed to the ground by a woman who was a member of both the official Better Together campaign and the Labour Party.

And of course, one of the greatest hypocrisies is that many of those who decry and use violence against Scots Nats, quite happily support self-determination for the Palestine, and a united Ireland, but will tell you “It's not the same thing.” Yes, it seriously is.

I happen to take a centrist ground on immigration and refugees; I neither believe in pulling up the drawbridge, nor throwing open the doors to anyone. I do think that there are dangers of Islamist terrorists infiltrating immigrants and refugees, and every western country needs to be aware and cautious of that; as much as they should be more aware of the dangers of people-trafficking, which only harms those they claim to be helping. For being so cautious, as I honestly believe any sane, well-informed, politically-aware person should be, guess what I get called for that? A Nazi, that's what (while the right call me a bleeding heart – I can't win).

Where does it stop? Examine your own political views and then have a look at those espoused by the Nazi regime, or even Nazis of today – or things the hard left define as “Nazi - and you may very well find things similar to your own views. Should you then be punched?

I have had it suggested to me that the use of violence and shutting down should only be used on those who openly promote violence against minorities, or those who openly promote genocide. Oh really? Well, that is very interesting. I have in the past been on Irish Republican rallies in which I have heard sectarian Roman Catholics espousing hatred towards Protestants, even calling for the death of all of them. I even recently saw a post on Facebook saying “Scotland was Catholic – and will be once again”. Are those coming out with such comments not “Nazis”? Don't they deserve to be punched as such? Oh no, wait, they can't be; because obviously Irish (and Scottish) Roman Catholicism is a 'socialist' cause. Aye! Right! If anyone believes that, go have a look at just how very right wing a great degree of the Roman Catholic church is. Indeed, I invite any who think such to educate themselves upon the very close links the Vatican and Pope Pius XII had with the real Nazis.

Let us move on to the matter of Palestine, and those on the hard-left who show a strong support for an independent Palestinian state. Without a doubt, the behaviour of the state of Israel and their treatment of the Palestinian people has for much of their short history been utterly shameful. But there are too many who think this is all one way and that the Palestinians and many who support them, and lead them, in the Middle-East are somehow innocent little souls. HA! Palestinians are currently led by the Hamas and the Hamas Covenant completely refuses to recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist. While they have agreed to a two-state solution, based on 1967 ceasefire agreements, several Hamas leaders have stated that this can only be an interim measure, that all the land belongs to them as “Muslim land” - “from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean”. (Hamas leader Khaled Meshall). More disturbingly, the Hamas Covenant not only calls for the eradication of Israel, but for the killing of each and every Jew on the face of the planet. Quoting the prophet Muhammed, the Covenant states; “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Hark tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”

So, there is the call for genocide of the Jews, and do we see the 'Punch a Nazi' brigade calling for violence to be used on pro-Palestinians, to silence them and shut them down? Not a bit of it. Quite the opposite in fact. In my experience there are those on the hard left who are all too ready to become apologists for Islamist violence against Jews. But then, there are many on the hard left who are very quick to bandy about the term “Nazi”, but who are themselves in fact deeply antisemitic. I have seen and heard it myself; people who call themselves 'socialists' and yet appear totally incapable of differentiating between Israeli and Jews, and who attack all Jews as a result. One need only look to the shameful levels of antisemitism in the Labour Party to see the truth of that one. And strangely enough, I don't see anyone in Labour, least of all Jeremy Corbyn, punching out any antisemites within the party.

There has actually been a disturbing increase in antisemitic attacks including acts of violence against synagogues and individual Jews in the UK in recent years, and some is coming from the left, who hold all Jews responsible for atrocities carried out by the state of Israel. Does this surprise me? Not in the least. I once put a meme up on Facebook commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day, with the words “Never Again”, and the first comment on it was “It is happening again – in Gaza”. But then, when I put a meme up for Holocaust Memorial Day 2017, I asked others on Facebook to share it. Not one person did. Interesting then that Trump's inauguration fell on the same day (a coincidence I'm sure, but one which showed utterly crass judgement), and that of course was the very same day that Richard Spencer was punched, and the “Punch a Nazi” posts started appearing - from people who would not recognise Holocaust Memorial Day. Hang your heads in shame, you utter hypocrites.

It is equally true of the Hamas Covenant that it makes mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which it claims to be factual. The “Protocols” was in fact a fabricated Russian document, first published in 1901, which outlaid a secret Jewish plan for world domination by means of subverting morals, controlling the media, and taking over the economies of the world. It was responsible for much of the antisemitism which swept across the world in the early 20^th century, and was taught in German schools as factual after the Nazis came to power in 1933. One would have thought that the Protocols would have disappeared after 1945, but not a bit of it. It is very much available to this day, and this is never more true than in Islamic countries, where it is made available and distributed in Arabic, and taught as factual. Hamas claim on one hand to have moved away from their Covenant, but on the other hand say it cannot be changed “for historical reasons”. Given their insistence that a two-nation state can only ever be temporary solution, and the continued distribution of the Protocols, please do excuse my cynicism, but I do not and will not believe them for one moment.

Should the latter part of the above claims of the Protocols sound familiar, those of Jews subverting and controlling the media and economies, then it should do. Because the document is also available online and has been purported as genuine by some in the west, and this has filtered down to mainstream belief, where we now have people quite commonly bandying about ignorant views of the press and world economies being run by Jews; and the left have swallowed this bait hook, line and sinker. But they even go further and claim that Israel, and by expansion, Jews, are available for all the world's ills. Doubt that? How many times have you read or heard that Jewish workers were pulled from the World Trade Center before the attacks of 9/11, or indeed the bizarre claims that Islamist terrorist organisations, including Al Qedea and Islamic State were set up by or are even fronts for the Israeli secret service, Mossad? And again, all Jews get the blame for that. Yet if there is one group in society which is not calling for a campaign of violence against neo-Nazis, and never has done, it is Jewish communities. Seems to me that some on the hard left could learn quite a lot from them.

So where are the voices calling for Palestinians and other Muslims who believe the Protocols to be true, or their western supporters and apologists, to be punched? Where are those denying them a platform? Where are those shutting them down? Suddenly it has all gone silent.

But let me go back for a moment to this claim that it is only those who call for the genocide of others. Well, the major religions of the world – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – all contain commandments in them to kill non-believers, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, and many, many others; such was much of the basis of the real Nazis, just as it remains the basis of Islamist and fundamentalist Christians, and indeed some orthodox Jews, to this day. Whither then the calls to violence against Muslims? Who's forcibly silencing Baptists? Should we be punching Jews? WOAH! Did you see where that just went?

In discussing this with others there have been those who have stated that when faced with a bunch of neo-Nazis, they have the right to fight. I agree. I have never, not for one moment, ever said that no-one should not defend themselves. Indeed, I shall go even further.

It may come as no surprise to many reading this to learn I am a pacifist. I have read widely on many pacifist authors, not the least of which is Mohandas Gandhi. Now, Gandhi can be criticised on some things he wrote, and I personally think that he was naive at times, but in fairness he was a product of his time and culture. His faults however do not for one moment negate some of the extremely wise things he came out with. Gandhi believed that honour was more important than life itself, a view I happen to agree with, because a dishonourable life is a life not worth living. Under Gandhi's philosophy defending yourself by violent means is not only valid, it is necessary. “Nonviolence is superior to violence, but violence is superior to cowardice.” Gandhi stated, explaining that when one is left with only the choice of using violence in defence or cowardice, then violence is the only honourable stance that you can take, even if that means your death, but at least you will go down fighting, thereby retaining your honour.

So it is that when faced with violence, any one of us not only has the right to defend ourselves it is the only reasonable – and honourable – stance we can take. But note that this is in the face of violence. It does not for one moment give anyone the right to throw the first punch, no matter the provocation. Contrary to what many would have you believe today, words are not violence, and do not give you the right to be the first to use violence. For goodness sake, were I to punch everyone who offended me with their words, no matter how vile, I would have never been done fighting all my adult life.

And if you do use violence first, what will it achieve? Will it change your opponent's mind? Will it silence them? Will it stop others holding similar views and following them? Not for one moment. All it will do is make a martyr of them, put yourself in a poor light, and have the finger of condemnation pointed at you, while making the 'Nazis' appear squeaky clean. Sure, you can attempt to silence your opponent by the use or threat of violence. But if you do so, if you seek to use violence to frighten people into silence to achieve your own political ends, by do you know what that makes you, by definition? A terrorist, that's what.

Even should you manage in shutting certain people down or refuse them a platform because they hold odious views – or merely views you happen to disagree with (as Unionists v Scots Nats for example) - do you think that will silence them? Do you honestly believe that in the internet age they will not find a way of getting their message across or finding an audience? Of course they shall, even if they have to go underground to gain it. And in doing so, they will be able to spread their bile unchallenged to impressionable audiences, out of the public eye, instead of being where we all can keep an eye on them, and where their views can be challenged and showed up to be facile. I well recall the neo-Nazi British National Party (BNP) once fielded a candidate in a local election here in Edinburgh, and other candidates said they would not share a platform with him at hustings meetings. What did that achieve? It handed that candidate his very own 'Nuremberg Rally' on a plate where he was allowed to spread his venom without any counter-argument being put forward. And while he did not win the seat, it pushed his vote up considerably. Attempts to shut down and silence neo-Nazis can therefore be counter-productive.

Speaking on LBC Radio on 11 February 2017, Maajid Nawaz said “If freedom of speech is to mean anything, then it is the rights of others to say things you do not want to hear. If you only allow those you agree with to speak, that is not freedom of speech, it is mere sycophancy.” I can already hear people saying “Huh! Maajid Nawaz, a radio host, who is he?” Well, let me educate you in just who he is. Maajid Nawaz is a British-born Muslim who was once a member of the Sunni Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks a global Islamic caliphate. For membership of this group he was jailed in Egypt in 2001, and spent the next five years in prison, during which he read widely on human rights, and was released with the help of Amnesty International. After release, he left Hizb ut-Tahrir and founded the Quillam Foundation, to help combat young people from becoming radicalised by Islamic extremists. So, there is a man who once took what could be described as a “Nazi” view, who has turned his life around. He has seen what silencing people leads to first hand, and that is why he takes a strong stance against it. If you think you are wiser than Maajid Nawaz, I strongly suggest you rethink your attitude.

Trust me, I am no different from any other human being. When I hear or read people coming out with bigoted bullshit, my first reaction is indeed to bitchslap the stupid out of them. But if we seek to truly silence those on the extreme right, then that can only ever be done through education, and the most important part of that is showing up their own ideas for just how very dangerous, and very facile, they are. Using their own words against them is the most effective, most powerful tool which we have. Turning to violence only makes it look like we do not have a counter-argument, and actually gives neo-Nazis a victory. Extreme right views are largely ill thought out appeals to peoples fears and imagined grievances. By using well-informed, educated counter-arguments, we can not only show up neo-Nazi and other right-wing rhetoric to be baseless, but also clearly show those espousing such views to be as foolish and as dangerous as they truly are. This is one battle where the pen truly is mightier than the sword.

But if we embark on a campaign of violence, then we merely hand the extreme right a victory on a plate. They will be first to exploit it, to claim they are 'persecuted' (some fundamentalist Christians already play this game), and make themselves out to martyrs. Using such tactics are also unhealthy for democracy, for as I have already said, just who is a 'Nazi' is very much open to interpretation, and one has to ask, just where does that stop? Violence will only lead to counter-violence, which will exacerbate into more violence, and before you know where you are, we will all be silenced. To paraphrase Gandhi, an eye for an eye does indeed leave the world blind.

And really, just what was Richard Spencer punched for? For wearing a Pepe Frog lapel pin? A character which started life as an internet meme? Is that what it comes down to? Punching people for wearing a fucking badge based on a meme? Really? Do please grow the fuck up. Or even if it was for his words, well if there are those who seek to silence and deny a platform to those whose words they disagree with through the threat of or the actual use of violence, just which regime does that sound like? Ermm, the Nazis, that's whom.

Using violence against the extreme right is merely playing their game and sinking to their level. And those who call for violence but who are nowhere to be seen when the fighting starts are the worst kind of coward.

Do not fall for either; you are better than that ~ and if you only look for it, you have infinitely more honour in you than both put together.

Ban the Bum

Land of the. . . ???

Trumpeters answers questioned.

On Friday, 27 January 2017, US President (I baulk to call him that) Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel visas from seven mostly-Islamic countries, which came into effect at 4:42pm Eastern Time the same day. I am sure it was purely coincidental but in a supreme irony 27 January was also Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Executive Order indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from the USA, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, and blocks entry for 90 days to travellers from the seven named countries.

The seven affected countries are;

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Yemen

The immediate effect of the ban caused chaos with flights and arrivals at airports in the USA. There were reports of hundreds of travellers arriving in the USA being detained in airports, while many about to travel to the USA from abroad were refused to fly, or even taken off planes before take-off. To add to the confusion, this included students, visitors and green-card-holding legal permanent United States residents from the seven countries. Some who had entered the USA were indeed refused entry and sent back to where they came from. Two Iraqis who had worked as interpreters for the US military were held in JFK airport, and as they were not legally on US soil, were refused access to legal representation.

On Saturday a Federal Judge in Brooklyn blocked part of the order, ruling that refugees and others being held at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. Three other Federal Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington soon followed suit, and the Massachusetts judge ruled that authorities could not detain travellers. The Department of Homeland Security agreed to comply with these rulings. On Sunday Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said that Green Card holders would not be prevented from returning to the USA “going forward”, but also added that border agents had “discretionary authority” to stop and detain any travellers – including US citizens - to additional questioning and scrutiny, should they have been to any of the seven countries mentioned in the executive order.

The ban led to huge protests in the USA and around the world. Here in the UK a petition to cancel the announced state visit of Donald Trump attracted in excess of 1 million signatures. Largely seen as an anti-Islamic move, the Trump administration has claimed it is not. It is not, but more of that later.

So, what is the rationale behind the ban, and just why has Trump implemented it?

The ban is to prevent international terrorism and keep US citizens safe.

The logic from this is that the countries affected present a terrorist threat to the USA. In fact, there has never been one terrorist attack in the USA from any citizen of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.

Compare this to the nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists who perpetuated the worst terrorist attack in history on 9 September 2001, in the USA, with the immediate loss of 2996 lives, and the subsequent deaths of over 1000 due to effects from the attacks. Of the nineteen attackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt are not at all affected by the ban and anyone on passports from these countries may travel freely to – and even claim asylum in – the USA.

Likewise nobody would deny that the greatest terrorist threat today comes from the brutal Islamic State (IS) group. The current hotbed of IS recruitment is Tunisia, which likewise is excluded from the executive order. As are other countries which recruit Islamist terrorism, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Algeria.

But intelligence and experience show these countries are most likely to produce terrorists.

And where else have there been terrorist attacks in recent years? Ooh, let's try the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, and almost a daily occurrence in Israel. In the majority of cases, the terrorist attacks have come not from immigrants or asylum seekers, but rather from nationals of those countries. So based on that argument, all these countries should be included as a danger to US security – including Blighty.

Ah, but those attackers were the children of immigrants or asylum seekers.

In some cases they were, in some they were registered citizens of the countries they attacked. And indeed, with regard to the USA, there is one particular case which defeats this argument. Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, is a white, culturally Christian, English man, who converted to Islam, became radicalised, and attempted to ignite explosives packed into his shoes on a flight to Paris to Miami. Yet I still don't see either the UK – or France – on that list.

Omar Mateen was a home-grown US Islamist terrorist who shot dead 49 people in the Pulse nightclub in Florida, before being shot dead. His parents emigrated from Afghanistan, which is not on the list. It is also worth pointing out that Omar Mateen was a very disturbed young man, who was a regular customer of the Pulse nightclub, and his killing of 49 mostly Latinx people had much more to do with his own deeply closeted homosexuality than any religious convictions.

Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Centre in San Bernardino, California, on 2 December 2015, killing 22 and injuring 14. They fled in an SUV and were later both shot dead in a police shootout. Farook was a Chicago-born US citizen and the son of immigrants from Pakistan. Malik was born near Islamabad, Pakistan, had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia, but was a lawful permanent resident of the USA. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are among the banned countries.

Brothers Tamer and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, killing three and injuring 16 others, were naturalised US citizens, born in the Kalmyk Republic (part of the Russian Federation) and Kyrgyzstan respectively, both are half-Chechen but identify as Chechen. Kyrgyzstan is not on the list of banned countries - and neither is Russia, for reasons best known to Donald Trump.

The Executive Order was instituted on powers already there, instituted when President Obama banned Iraqis from entering the USA in 2011.

Except that President Barack Obama never instituted any such ban against entire nationalities in 2011. In fact, there never was any outright ban – merely a bureaucratic mess.

Here is exactly what happened. Two Iraqi refugees in the Bowling Green, Kentucky were arrested in May 2011 on charges of Federal Terrorism charges. Informants had told the FBI that one of the men, Waad Ramadan Alwan, had previous to fleeing to the USA, constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. Alwan was fingerprinted, and his prints matched those on part of a cellphone which had been used to detonate one such bomb in 2005. The other refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, was convicted of providing material to Al Qaeda, possession and export of Stinger missiles, and making a false statement on an asylum application.

The arrests led to demands in Congress to re-examine the records of Iraqis settled in the USA, and the Obama administration pledged to do so. This entailed going through the records of some 58,000 Iraqis already settled in the USA, while more stringent background checks were imposed on new applicants. The USA was still involved in the Iraq War at the time, and with them looking to pull out at the earliest opportunity, there was a rush of such applications from a great number of Iraqis.

The result of re-examining visa applications, some Iraqis already settled having to re-apply, some still in Iraq having to re-apply, while all the time new applications were pouring in - under new, more thorough rules - led to a logjam which the State Department's National Visa Center struggled to cope with. In September 2011, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if a hold had been placed on Iraqi visa applications. Napolitano replied;

"with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC (National Counter Terrorism Center) databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases and so that work has now been done and focused... ...Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”

So, there never was a hold on visa applications for six months, only a bureaucratic jam caused by exceptional circumstances. And it was one Republican senator who asked if there was a hold, but the reply given was ambiguous, and does not confirm a hold.

Former Obama administration official Jon Finer stated in Foreign Policy;

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Eric P Scwartz, who was Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration in 2011, told the Washington Post;

“President Obama never imposed a six-month ban on Iraqi processing. For several months in 2011, there was a lower level of Iraqi resettlement, as the government implemented certain security enhancements. Indeed, as we identified new and valuable opportunities to enhance screening, we did so. Nobody should object to a continual effort to identify legitimate enhancements, but it is disreputable to use that as a pretext to effectively shut down a program that is overwhelmingly safe and has enabled the United States to exercise world leadership. In any event, there was never a point during that period in which Iraqi resettlement was stopped, or banned.”

Notice that both men, in separate journals, have stated the resettlement of Iraqis did indeed continue during the six month delay in processing visas. Now, either both of them are lying – or Trump's administration are lying. I know which I am going with.

But even had there been a ban, notice that the Obama administration targeted individual visa applicants. They never, not for one moment, ever placed entire nationalities, or all citizens of chosen countries, regardless of background, under suspicion of terrorism.

And even had there been call to do so, it would be because the USA was still involved in war in Iraq, which would indeed be grounds to trigger a suspension of travel into the USA from hostile countries. The USA is not at war with any of the countries on the list, and the Trump administration therefore has no legitimate nor justifiable trigger.

The ban is temporary – only for 90 days.

Try reading the Executive Order. Syrian refugees have been banned indefinitely, that ban being lifted is cognisant on the President himself. The US refugee program in it's entirety – not just among the targeted countries but affecting anyone from all around the world – has been suspended for 120 days. The 90 days applies only to the seven named countries.

There is no guarantee however that the 90 day limit may not be extended, or the 120 day ban on all entries, or that more countries may not be included in the ban.

Trump has also reduced the number of refugees to be allowed into the USA in 2017 by more than half; down from 110,000 to 50,000.

This is not a Muslim ban.

Screenprint from Trump's campaign website

No, it's not, I agree. It does not ban all Muslim-majority countries, and there are some Islamic countries which Donald Trump actually has business dealings with. Not least of which is Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists came from, and where there are 'charities' within the Wahhabi Muslim sect, which are nothing more than fronts for funding Islamic State terrorism.

So, does this mean that The Donald is this kind wee soul, with no religious prejudices, who embraces peoples of all the world's religions? Hmm. Let's see what he actually said in his presidential campaign.

This is a statement taken from Trump's presidential campaign website, donaldjtrump.com, which is actually titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration”:

“(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

On exactly the same page, Trump himself is quoted as saying;

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Notice he even said “Without looking at the various polling data” - so he was willing to actually ignore the facts. Well nothing new there. But there we see that Trump's own website specifically called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

That specifically targeted an entire religion. Therefore, while the ban is not a Muslim ban per se, it was and remains based upon and deeply-steeped in the populist anti-Islamic rhetoric which US citizens have been fed by right-wing politicians and their media mouthpieces ever since 9/11.

So did he have a change of heart and open his arms to Muslims? Nope, Trump simply could not have issued an Executive Order to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, because to do so would have contravened the First Amendment of the US Constitution;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Had Trump instituted his Executive Order banning travel visas based solely on the Muslim religion, he would have effectively have established a law prohibiting the right of Muslim refugees to enter and to continue to follow their faith. To do so would have been unconstitutional, and he would have been out of the White House so fast that his feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

So instead he went for countries with Muslim-majority populations, and this has created it's own problems. Due to the ban, Christians seeking asylum from the named countries have been refused entry to the USA, in some cases sent back to their country of origin, or stopped from getting on flights in the first place.

The persecution of Christians in Islamic countries is an all too often ignored 'hidden' shame in many Islamic countries, where they are subjected to many atrocities, including being lashed, having limbs cut off, eyes gouged out, beheaded, hanged, or burnt alive. Among some of the worst countries guilty of carrying out atrocities against Christians include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the seven countries upon which Trump has placed a blanket ban on entry on all citizens. Oh, the irony that many 'good Christians' voted Trump in, and he has now just condemned many Middle-Eastern Christians to the tender mercies of the fundamentalist Islamist authorities in their countries of origin.

And of course, it is not just Christians this affects. Followers of other faiths are equally persecuted in these countries, as are atheists, and even those Muslims brave enough to speak out or write about the wrongs those in charge are doing in the name of Islam. By issuing a blanket ban on visas, Trump has condemned them all, and now that some may have tried to leave, the authorities in their home countries will know just who they are, and the outlook for all these 'dissenters' and 'infidels' looks very bleak indeed.

Nor will this ban stop anything to stop Islamist terrorism. We have seen in living memory just how much ill-treatment by the west has actually driven terrorism in the Middle-East, which has spread to Muslims in the west. By instituting a ban, Donald Trump, far from defeating IS, has just handed them one of the best recruiting tools they could ever have wished for. It will not be lost on those who indoctrinate young minds with fear and hatred of the west, particularly the USA – the 'Great Satan' as the Islamists call it – just how it has 'shunned' the Muslim people, and by extension, has insulted the Islamic faith and it's prophet. And once those minds are groomed and indoctrinated, there sadly can only be one inevitable outcome of that; more Islamist terrorist attacks, not less.

And as we have seen from Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino, that need not come from outwith the USA, certainly not from the banned countries, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, is much more likely from a country which is a close US ally, and one which Donald Trump happens to have a lot of business dealings with.

Neither does this ban do anything to stop the incidents of domestic terrorism which take place within the USA, often carried out far-right extremists who profess to be Christian. Trump's election victory saw a sudden surge in racist and religiously-bigoted hate crimes. The FBI reported that in 2015 hate crimes against Muslims surged to 67% - the highest since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Jews remained the highest proportion for hate crimes at 53%, and there were 1,053 hate crimes regarding sexual orientation, 19 percent of which were committed against gay men. Where hate crime attacks result in fatalities, they are rarely reported as terrorism in the USA, but generally referred to as “lone wolf” attacks carried out by some sad loner – only when the “lone wolf” nutter happens to be Muslim does it suddenly become a 'terrorist attack'. Meanwhile, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations continue to exist, enjoying the liberty the USA affords them, as “Christian” organisations.

Whenever a move against any racial religious group occurs, it can reverberate outwith the country it comes from. The Sunday after the Executive Order was instituted, a gunman open fired during evening prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre, just across the border in Quebec City, Canada. The shooting suspect, now in custody, is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian, whom it appears holds extreme-right, pro-Christian, anti-Islamic views, and who admires Donald Trump and French National Front leader, Marine LePen. Bissonnette was identified by the leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, as a far-right internet troll, known to make anti-immigrant and hostile comments on the group's online page.

Pants - on - FIRE!

With absolutely no proof, the media immediately tried to make out it was an Islamist attack, Fox News - darling press outlet of the darling American right - claimed that witnesses had heard the gunman shout "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), and without a shred of evidence, went on to claim in a Tweet that the shooter was of Moroccan origin. As I write this, that Tweet has not yet been taken down.  And of course, while it was thought the attack was of Muslim origin, it was called a terrorist attack. Now the suspect has been identified as a "Christian", anti-Islamic, white supremacist, the media are portraying him as a "lone wolf" and sad nutter. Kudos therefore to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told it like it is; "We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge."

While the media was busy pouring out their anti-Islamic bile, the Trump administration was very quick to attempt to make political capital out of the atrocity. Without being cognisant of the full facts, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the Quebec attack;

"It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,"

What? Mr Spicer - and Mr Trump? Will you now impose a ban on extreme-right Christians crossing the border from Canada into the USA?

Or will you just continue to deliberately target Muslims? To abandon Muslims and others to the very regimes you claim to be against? To continue to give Islamic State a propaganda tool for further radicalisation? And to continue to stir up hatred against all Muslims, the vast majority of whom are in fact far more likely to be the victims of intolerance and violence, rather than the perpetrators of it?  

Will you in fact continue to openly flout international human rights legislation, as well as common decency?

You already have blood on your hands, Mister Trump, and your shameful actions shall cause much more to be shed.  The only person who needs to be banned is you.