Sunday, February 28

Realtors of disinformation

Ulster-bred (specifically the ultra-Loyalist stronghold of Antrim ) columnist Neil Mackay, a man who’s been systematically undermining and dividing the Yes movement since at least 2015   while declaring to become part of it, comes with an opinion piece within the Herald today.

In its own method it’s an kopie of the infiltrator’s craft. Let’s take a look.

The ostensible subject matter is an viewpoint poll various SNP politicians were crowing about last week, and which immediately raised eyebrows regarding how far away of line this was with each other poll that’s ever been conducted on the same subject.

“In the real world only 1 in 4 are at odds of GRA reform” is fundamentally the exact OPPOSITE of what every various other poll has discovered. Survey after survey  has reported that gender self-ID is certainly opposed by extremely consistent margins associated with 3: 1 plus 4: 1, even when the polls  have been entrusted by extremely trans-friendly outlets like Pink News.

So that being the situation, what was up with this new vote for it to end up being such an outlier? We immediately thought foul play in the question wording, because that is the only method transactivists are ever able to misrepresent public opinion about them .

Savanta ComRes, who  did the polling, reinforced those suspicions by not uncovering the question text for many days, in contravention of the particular British Polling Authorities rules that stipulate tables should be released within 48 hrs of any push coverage. They finally do so very late final night, and this was easy to see why they’d been reluctant.

Because this particular was the gender query:

“The Scottish Parliament is usually currently considering changes to gender recognition laws in Scotland. Under the proposed changes, the method trans people apply for a gender recognition certificate, the mechanism by which they can change their particular legal gender on their birth certificates, would be efficient to make the particular process more affordable and bureaucratic, and less intrusive to trans people than the present process. However some opposition to the modifications focus largely on the potential effect of allowing individuals to self-identify their sex in single-sex spaces such as modifying rooms, and women-only shortlists. To what extent would you assistance or oppose adjustments to the gender recognition laws in Scotland? ”

That’s an incredibly long-winded question, yet it’s also tremendously loaded and top in both obvious and subtler methods. It’s phrased within the highly biased and misleading method the Scottish Govt is trying in order to frame the query – a simple streamlining of vicious, “intrusive” and “expensive” bureaucracy – as well as the disadvantages are barely hinted at and concentrated on something that does not have any impact on most people’s lives (all-women shortlists).

But even then , it’s a question that this particular site would, on a literal reading through, have to solution in the yes, because we as well support “changes to the particular gender recognition laws and regulations in Scotland” –  in our case the change that we’d like to discover will be having the particular idiotic, anti-scientific nonsense of the present law, whereby the federal government creates  the legal fiction that humans can change intercourse, repealed.

Yet even along with the most uneven and biased formulation possible, the issue still only handles to scrape upward just over a 3rd of voters within support, and half of those are just “somewhat” in favour.

Strongly support: 19%
Considerably support: 18%
Neither support neither oppose: 27%
Somewhat oppose: 10%
Strongly are at odds of: 16%
Don’t know: 10%

The poll’s issue about Joanna Cherry is, remarkably, even MORE bent.

“SNP MP Joanna Cherry was sacked from the SNP’s frontbench team in Westminster on Monday (1st February). Although an official reason has not been given, some believe that Cherry’s opposition to proposed changes to the gender recognition laws in Scotland have resulted in her dismissal, although the others believe that she was sacked due to general disloyalty towards the SNP To what extent do you support or oppose the decision in order to sack Joanna Cherry from the SNP’s frontbench team within Westminster? ”

The only options respondents are offered as reasons for Cherry’s sacking are both pejorative ones plus rather reminiscent associated with a Stalinist display trial – possibly transphobia or “general disloyalty” . But even in such a kangaroo court, the question  tempts not more than an one fourth of  voters in order to support the sacking.

Strongly support:   13%
Somewhat support:   11%
Neither support neither oppose:   25%
Relatively oppose:   9%
Strongly oppose:   10%
Do not know:   22%

In spite of loading the query in a massively bad way, those who have expressed any see split almost down the middle – 24% within favour to 19% against, using a huge 47% acquiring no position in any event.

But that’s good enough for Neil Mackay to proclaim the girl crushing defeat.

His piece, of course, doesn’t inform readers the specific queries asked, but with a quite astonishing level of dishonesty paints all those, such as Cherry, objecting in order to the proposed reconstructs as “anonymous extremists” guilty of “transphobia” .

(In reality, nearly all of the particular prominent gender-critical voices have displayed incredible bravery to strategy under their own brands, despite the most persistent barrage of mistreatment , actual violence and passing away threats,   points which are overwhelmingly present on only one side of the debate, not forgetting the constant risk of “cancellation”. )

Mackay spends the majority of the rest of the write-up loudly singing the praises of Nicola Sturgeon and the girl apparently bulletproof personal popularity.

Readers can speculate for themselves as to why Mackay – a man created and bred within the absolute heartland of militant fundamentalist Unionism – might be so desperate to talk up Sturgeon plus keep her within power.

But what we perform know is that will it was Mackay who infamously composed a major feature literally on the eve of Salmond’s trial in which usually Salmond was pictured alongside  rapists and killers  such as the Yorkshire Ripper, the Moors Murderers, Charles Manson, Dennis Nilsen  plus Adolf Eichmann.

It had been the piece so shockingly prejudicial and certainly intended at influencing the jury that this Herald pulled this within hours, although no apology or even retraction was actually published and the particular hopelessly corrupt and compromised Crown Office took no action.

Mackay is definitely an open transactivist, fond of pushing the endlessly-discredited line that the “trans rights” problem somehow  mirrors the particular earlier persecution of gay people:

But in this particular site’s view there are a lot a lot more to today’s content than that. It’s simply another illustration of Mackay’s  long-standing efforts  to sow division and irritate hatred within the Yes movement, plus to damage anyone he sees since an actual risk to the Partnership.

We all hope that it at least pays properly.


[EDIT: We’ve removed a paragraph from this piece that didn’t add anything to the story and which Neil Mackay was using to whip up a lynch mob. We hadn’t been asked to, but we can’t be bothered with the distraction and we hadn’t intended for any of the focus of this piece to land on anyone but Neil Mackay.]

Source: wingsoverscotland. com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *