One of the most obvious anomalies of the recent SNP ELECTIONS was the fact that while the Party could not find enough candidates to fill the NEC places there was an overload of candidates anxious to serve on the Conduct Committee and Conduct Appeals Committee!
It seems that working on the THOUGHT POLICE DIVISION within the Party is very attractive to some. Looking at many of the successful candidates it is clearly attractive to the Woke Cult within the Party.
What will they be doing? Well I can answer that with some certainty because while normal People have been getting on with their fellow citizens those involved in the SNP Governance Review were busy setting out an initial menu of offences (there are more to come) to create “business” for the above committees, where these wannabe dictators can pass judgement on others and where political correct extremes will be expected at all times.
It is going to be a very hazardous business staying away from their clutches as the written rules are littered with catch all phrasing that allows the committee to interpret your intention even when it is not immediately apparent. Not sure how that can be achieved or proven but clearly they think they have such mind reading abilities.
I publish below, without any editing or amendment the initial menu of offences the Thought Police will be looking out for. In the best traditions of an oppressive organisation the accuser, or accusers can do so anonymously with their identities kept secret, while the accused name shall be available to all. Remind you of anything?. This formed Appendix C of the report.
Appendix C: Discrimination Definitions
MISOGYNY: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions related to women.
These may include, but are not limited to:
- Excluding women from conversations or meetings, overtly or by continually organising them at times known to be difficult to arrange cover for care responsibilities.
- Assuming that mothers are going to be less committed because of their children in situations where that assumption is not made about fathers.
- Enforcing gender stereotypes such as expecting women to make the tea, or take on administrative duties during meetings.
- Making sexual jokes or comments about a woman, or telling jokes or making derogatory comments invoking sexual or physical violence.
- Using gendered slurs to refer to women. Egregious examples include ‘cunt’ and ‘bitch’, while gendered insults are often used against women in positions of authority, such as ‘harpy’, ‘shrill’, ‘hormonal’, ‘time of the month’.
RACISM: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions related to someone’s race.
Racism is such a challenging concept to define in one sentence. It is often simplified to discrimination against a person or group of people based on their race. Many still think, and certainly the law in many countries still defends this notion, that racism only matters when it is intentional. This is very limiting.
It is often forgotten that racism does not only disadvantage some people based on race, it also privileges people based on race. Some believe that racism cannot be limited to racial prejudice; racism takes place when a group of people with power are able to act on their racial prejudice in a harmful way.
It can be helpful to break it down into three categories (by no means the only possible categories):
- Interpersonal racism – prejudices and discriminatory behaviours where one group makes assumptions about the abilities, motives, and intents of other groups based on race. This set of prejudices leads to cruel intentional or unintentional actions towards other groups.
- Internalised racism – when members of stigmatised groups are bombarded with negative messages about their own abilities and intrinsic worth, they may internalise those negative messages. It holds people back from achieving their fullest potential.
- Institutional racism – when organisations, businesses, or institutions like schools and police departments discriminate, either deliberately or indirectly, against certain groups of people to limit their rights. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry defined it as “The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people” (Macpherson, 1999).
Dismantlingracism.org also provides an interesting breakdown of racism that links it more simply to privilege and social oppression:
- Racism = race prejudice + social and institutional power
- Racism = a system of advantage based on race
- Racism = a system of oppression based on race
- Racism = a white supremacy system
Racism2 is different from racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination. Racism involves one group having the power to carry out systematic discrimination through the institutional policies and practices of the society and by shaping the cultural beliefs and values that support those racist policies and practices.
ABLEISM: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions against disabled people or those who are perceived to have disabilities
Manifestations might include using a person’s disability as a way to insult them. However, not all criticism of a particular disabled person, at the same level and frequency as criticism of abled people, is automatically ableist. Disabled people are frequently represented as either childlike, innocent and in need of control for their own protection, or as sinister and evil and in need of control for others’ protection. These ideas are expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employ stereotypes and reductive character traits.
Contemporary examples of ableism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of disabled people in the name of eugenics or ‘mercy killing’. This is particularly important in cases where caregivers/parents murder their disabled family member and it is cast as sympathetic. Making statements which indicate a death is less tragic because the person was disabled.
- Structural barriers including, but not limited to, inaccessible offices, documentation or events; paying disabled people less or expecting them to volunteer as ‘offering them work is an act of charity’; fewer opportunities to build networks and relationships because of inaccessible social and after-hours practices; failing to take into account the extra costs disabled people face; not making reasonable accommodations for accessibility or medical needs.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about disabled people — such as, especially but not exclusively, disability or illness making a person automatically unfit for public office, not credible as witnesses, malevolent (particularly regarding mental health conditions), dangerous, pitiful, unable to understand an issue.
- Using a disability or illness as an insult, or wishing disability or illness on someone as a ‘punishment’, including using the need for personal care as an insult. Egregious examples include slurs like ‘retard’ and ‘cripple’. Other examples include ‘lunatic’, ‘cretin’, ‘gimp’, ‘moron’, and any insult which is based on intellectual, physical or mental disability.
- Accusing disabled people of lying about or exaggerating their condition or impairment in order to gain perceived benefits or sympathy.
- Stating or implying that disabled people only reach higher-status positions because of box-ticking.
- Using accessibility requirements as a way to exclude disabled people from events or opportunities.
- Denying the history of the persecution of disabled people through widespread support of eugenics, both as victims of the Nazi regime and at the hands of governments around the world who forced sterilisation, forced treatment and forced institutionalisation on disabled people.
BIPHOBIA: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions related to someone’s actual or perceived bisexual orientation.
Examples may include but are not limited to:
- Implying that a person is not bisexual if they are in a mixed-gender relationship, most commonly used where the bi person is a woman married to a man.
- Implying that bisexuality is not real, is a ‘trend’, or is a way to seek attention.
- Implying that bisexual people are inherently unfaithful or hypersexualised.
- Implying that bi people – in particular bi men – are really gay but too cowardly to commit to it.
HOMOPHOBIA: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions related to someone’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.
LESBOPHOBIA: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions related to someone because the are or perceived to be a lesbian.
Examples of homophobia and lesbophobia may include but are not limited to:
- The use of stereotypes about gay and lesbian people to imply moral failings.
- Implying that gay and lesbian people do not or should not have families or children, or are dangerous to children.
- Implying an individual is only a lesbian as they have not found the right man.
- Implying there is a perceived and acceptable image of a lesbian ie: if you are too feminine you are not a ‘real’ lesbian.
- Implying that the general reality of gay and lesbian relationships and families is sexualised.
- Using labels or terms about gay and lesbian people as insults or slurs.
- Making jokes about or implying all women who play sports are lesbians.
- Expecting gay and lesbian people to adhere to stereotypical behaviours or interests, saying they are ‘acting straight’ if they don’t adhere to these expectations.
- Assuming gay men are hypersexual and indiscriminate in their interests.
AGEISM: Discriminatory or prejudiced language towards others related to someone’s actual or perceived age.
Ageism affects everyone and often intersects and exacerbates other forms of discrimination including those related to sex, race and disability.
ISLAMOPHOBIA3: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
- Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
- Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
- Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
- Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
- Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.”
- “…the perception of the other as foreign or originating from outside a community or a nation.
However, manifestations of xenophobia can occur against people of identical physical characteristics, even of shared ancestry, such as when people arrive, return or migrate to States or areas and are considered as outsiders.”
“Another definition of xenophobia proposes the following aspects: “attitudes, prejudices and behaviour that reject, exclude and often vilify persons, based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners to the community, society or national identity.”
“… sectarian prejudice based on the accused’s demonstration of hostility towards the victim’s perceived:
- Roman Catholic or Protestant denominational affiliation,
- British or Irish citizenship, nationality or national origins or
- a combination of (a) and (b).”
International Definition of Antisemitism
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Manifestations might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour).
- Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.”
CLASSISM: Discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions related to someone’s actual or perceived social class. Classism is held in place by a system of beliefs and cultural attitudes that ranks people according to economic status, family lineage, employment status, level of education, type and location of residence or even judgement about a person’s clothing.
“The Scottish Government defines Hate Crime as crime committed against a person or property that is motivated by ‘malice or ill-will towards an identifiable social group. You can be a victim of a hate crime if you believe that someone has targeted you because of their prejudice against certain characteristics.
In Scotland, the law currently recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on:
- Sexual orientation
- Transgender identity
You do not need to be a member of a minority community to be a victim of hate crime. The law is quite clear that the identity of the victim is irrelevant as to whether something is a hate crime or not. The motivation of the perpetrator is the key factor in defining a hate crime.
Hate Crimes can take a number of forms, including, but not limited to:
- Threatening behaviour
- Verbal abuse or insults including name-calling
- Damage to property
- Encouraging others to commit hate crimes
- Online abuse on sites like Facebook or Twitter”
Now of course none of the above is pleasant but the phrasing is exceptionally loose. Who decides what someone’s intention was in a situation where you were not present? What qualifications do those doing the judging hold to enable them to do so? What about their neutrality on each issue? Some of those elected to these committees are already guilty of some of the offences listed. Like abuse of others on Facebook and Twitter. Where and to whom do I report them lol? Also no mention of discrimination against Hindus or Sikhs just Muslims. Seems strange?
If I was an SNP member I would be very wary of all this. It is a method of control. What do I mean by that? Let me give you an example. It is not a guess, it comes from the last selection round before the last Scottish elections. You have a constituency where the leadership would like to place a favoured candidate however local intelligence suggests that if a certain local candidate makes the centrally controlled candidates list then it is likely that candidate, rather than the favoured one, would be selected. The solution? A complaint is lodged against the local candidate from an anonymous source. The complaint is not dealt with speedily but the selection panel are made aware of the complaint. Much of the candidate selection interview is devoted to the complaint even though its veracity had yet to be established. The outcome is not revealed until the last minute, a couple of days before the constituency selection voting is to be held. The local candidate is told her application has been unsuccessful. They appeal and local members create a quick petition indicating they want the local candidate approved. The ”appeal” is chaired by someone who will be a rival candidate for a list seat in the same region. They are rejected once again following an appeal dominated by the complaint. Members vote, minus the local candidate and the leadership favoured candidate wins. The full complaint is never heard. Its objective has already succeeded. The favoured candidate fails to win the seat by a mile, many activists leave the SNP and join Alba.
What is more the new committee set up to ”help out” in the complaint process has the right as part of the new Governance operation to interfere in any constituency to advise on any complaint. All they need is an anonymous complaint, from anyone and before you know it they are in questioning, intimidating local office bearers, imposing compliance with all their recommendations. The alternative, a guest spot at the Conduct or later the Conduct Appeals Committee.
It is now going to be very dangerous to be an SNP member and be subject to the judgement of these Woke dictators, who are being given powers, very loose powers, to control and interpret your thoughts and actions, and convict you of any ”offence” real or imagined, perhaps trashing your reputation on a much wider basis than just Party Membership. Is it worth the risk? My answer would be no but people need to decide for themselves.Have a look at those people on those committees and ask “ Can I trust them to be fair and just in all circumstances?”
It is all very sad in what used to be a wonderfully democratic party, totally controlled by its members and branches. No more. Controlled by the cult!
I am, as always
Yours for Scotland
BEAT THE CENSORS
Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience.Sharing is very important and helps the Independence message to reach a much wider audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.
Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.
A BOOK WORTH BUYING
Grousebeater is a great writer. His new book is called “Essays” containing some of his best essays. Available from Amazon.