Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Men of power and privilege: don’t be next

Apr 24

Posted by Guest Blog in Equality | 11 Comments

Thanks to Jenny Kemp for today’s substantial guest post. Jenny is the Coordinator of Zero Tolerance, a charity working to prevent men’s violence against women in all its forms but is writing this in a personal capacity. She is interested in feminism, equality and progressive politics, and is also interested in parenting and childcare issues, being a mum of two primary school aged children who frequently inspire her to fight sexism in all its guises. She tweets as @JennyKemp.

Bill Walker MSP has been feeling the media heat this week, as the row over whether he should continue as an MSP, in light of a series of allegations of domestic abuse and rape, rumbles on. Mr Walker feels that he has been the victim of a “media feeding frenzy” and an “orchestrated smear campaign”.

Despite the fact that he has admitted to using violence against one of his ex-wives (although he strongly denies assault), he has stated that he has no intention of resigning as an MSP, and having been expelled from his party he intends to continue as an independent nationalist.

I believe Mr Walker has behaved reprehensibly and should stand down. These allegations have fatally damaged his ability to be a credible representative, not least for women in Dunfermline, one in 5 of whom will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. Parliament’s cross-party consensus against domestic abuse is undermined by elected members who do not embody that approach.

However, if it’s any consolation to Mr Walker, (though I have no wish to give him succour), the next misogynist will probably be along any minute and someone else will be feeling the heat. Men who don’t ‘get’ the seriousness, prevalence or nature of violence against women and yet who have privileged access to means to share their uninformed views are depressingly common in Scottish and British political life.

Think back to some other recent ‘media feeding frenzies’. In May 2011, Ken Clarke, the UK Government Justice Secretary, publicly stated that some rapes are real and serious but others including date rapes (and by implication, the 92% of rapes where the assailant is known to the complainant) are not ‘really’ rape. These remarks were incredibly crass and frustrating, but they were also important for illuminating that the man charged with promoting justice in England and Wales had such a limited understanding of the true nature of sexual violence.

Ken Clarke could have talked about the appallingly low rape conviction rate in England and Wales and the need to improve it, or tackled rape myths, or named the causes of sexual violence, but he chose to use his vast power and influence to harm the cause of justice for abused and violated women.

After calls for his resignation and a plethora of comment on his remarks, Mr Clarke was ‘forced to apologise’ and just as night follows day, the furore died down and the media moved onto the next story.

Just 3 months before, Bill Aitken MSP was forced by a wave of protest to resign his convenorship of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee (although not his seat) for making ill-advised and frankly offensive remarks about a woman raped in Glasgow’s city centre.

Aitken had questioned why the woman, who had been raped in a Glasgow alleyway by two men, had had the temerity to be out in public in a city centre street, and implied that she might be a prostitute and by implication less deserving of public sympathy. He maintains he was misunderstood, and I gather he was angry about the way his private remarks were reported publicly and gathered momentum, staining his final weeks in the parliament before his retiral.

However, it was clear to many in the women’s sector (and beyond) that his remarks betrayed a clear misunderstanding of the prevalence, the severity and the brutality of rape, and of the location of blame for this horrific crime – at the door of the rapist. Aitken may have exited parliament feeling bruised and angry, but his injury is as nothing compared to those suffered by the women who are raped in Scotland every year, whose lives are altered forever. (In 2010-11, 1,131 rapes or attempted rapes were reported to police in Scotland, but rape is a very under-reported crime so the real number must be much higher).

Just days after Bill Aitken’s resignation, another minor scandal erupted as a Glasgow councillor was exposed as having made appalling remarks about a victim of child sexual abuse.  Councillor William O’Rourke had, at a disciplinary panel meeting, launched into what was described by a police officer also at the meeting as “a rant on the age of consent and how it should be lowered, commenting on the promiscuity of children and their modern provocative dress sense”.

In discussing a nine year old girl whose care assistant was alleged to have raped her but who appealed, hence the panel meeting, O’Rourke suggested that she was not a typical innocent nine year old, that she seemed older than her years, and that it was not as bad to commit crimes of this nature on such a child. Let’s remind ourselves of the bare facts of this: he was a politician charged with playing a key role in a vulnerable child’s welfare. She was a nine year old child. A nine year old girl, who had complained of being raped by her care assistant, and who was accused by this politician of wanting it to happen.

Cllr O’Rourke was sacked from Strathclyde Police Authority, the personnel appeals committee and two other boards, but he remained a councillor. He remained part of the establishment, part of the power structure in Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, his standing affected maybe, but in no proportion to the callousness of his remarks.

Politicians are by no means the only men of influence who fail to challenge violence against women and children. In June 2011, the Hearts football player Craig Thomson was convicted of indecent behaviour towards two girls of 12 and 14 and put on the sex offenders register. Did his football club, a hugely important part of the lives of many men and boys (and women and girls) in Edinburgh and beyond, instantly sack him? No, they issued a statement in his defence, citing “mitigating circumstances” and the player’s “naivety and possible wrong outside influence”. A second statement talked about mafia influences (“mafia are dragging kids into the crime” (sic)) on players.

It took the club until the 28 June, 11 days after the story of Thomson’s conviction broke, to finally suspend the player, and it wasn’t until 10 July that it confirmed he would be sacked. Cynics might believe the club acted in response to commercial sponsors’ withdrawal of support rather than an awakening that continuing to employ a convicted sex offender in a high profile job, where he was a role model for boys, was the wrong decision and sent out a message that minimised the seriousness of child sexual abuse.

So, having reminded ourselves of various men who have failed to challenge violence and abuse, I can’t help wondering, who will be next? Which MP, MSP, Councillor or celebrity will be the next to make a careless, unwitting, ill-thought remark which betrays their deep-rooted misogyny, their total lack of understanding of the issue, their lack of care for women who experience violence and abuse? Who will be next to defend their pal, their colleague or their employee who has perpetrated abuse as a ‘great guy’ whose behaviour was excused by circumstances or out of character?

Because, sadly, it goes without saying that there will be another Walker, Aitken, O’Rourke, Clarke or Romanov; another rich, powerful, white, middle-aged, stereotypically privileged man who just doesn’t get it.

What I hope is much less certain is that he (or very occasionally she – let’s not forget the deep sexism of Nadine Dorries MP, who has blamed girls for their own sexual abuse) will get away with it. Bill, William and Ken might be safe – although in the case of Mr Walker that’s by no means certain – but I hope that whoever next reveals he doesn’t know or care about men’s violence and abuse will not be left standing, so essentially undamaged by the ordeal. What kind of message would that send out to women seeking justice or recovery from domestic abuse or sexual violence? That the establishment is a safe place to hide if you are a bigot and a misogynist? That the male protection racket is alive and well? That, frankly, we don’t care? That’s not a message I find tolerable or acceptable.

Men of power and privilege have a vital role to play in the work against gender based violence. The vast majority of men never perpetrate any abuse, and many also refuse to ever condone or accept it; some men are actively engaging in challenging violence and abuse, for example the men involved in the White Ribbon Campaign. If we only ever involve women in tackling this problem, which is caused by men, we’ll never solve it. So it really couldn’t be more important for powerful and influential men who act as leaders and role models and who still have privileged power and access to decision making structures and to media outlets to say and do the right thing – to be allies in this work and not its underminers or opponents.

So – time to watch, and wait, and work to prevent another such incident. And in the meantime, if you are a man of power and privilege, please make sure it isn’t you.

Brian Paddick needs to be tough on both crime AND drugs

Apr 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Governance, Health, Holyrood | 17 Comments

A guest post from Ewan Hoyle the founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform and author of their new drug policy (debated here: bit.ly/LibDrugs) who is also their council candidate for Glasgow’s Anderston/City ward. There’s a Glasgow Skeptics meeting on this topic on the 14th of May

The people of London would undoubtedly be better served by their police force if cannabis users were not being arrested and charged. And for the vast majority of cannabis users a criminal record would be far more damaging to their prospects than using cannabis will ever be.There is nothing factually wrong with Brian Paddick’s “Police are wasted on cannabis” campaign.

So de facto, turning-a-blind-eye, decriminalisation is a step in the right direction. But as a policy end-point it is starkly illogical. If a drug is illegal, but no one is ever prosecuted for using it, then there can be no justification for its continued illegality. A trade that could be regulated and taxed and contribute greatly to the national economy should not be allowed to be dominated by organised crime. We might be able to save money in not prosecuting users, but we would still be spending money and time pursuing and prosecuting the producers and dealers. This endeavour has not had any success in restricting cannabis supply to any meaningful extent in the past, and is highly unlikely to do so in the future. If the act of using is no longer immoral to the extent that society deems it should be illegal, then the act of supplying can not be deemed immoral if the responsibility lies in the hands of a supplier who has only the best interests of the customer in heart. A policy of strictly controlled legal supply can create such a supplier and is the one that government should be investigating with great urgency.

The motion passed by Liberal Democrat conference last September was determinedly “tough on drugs” in its intent. Past policies that implied tolerance of drug use were swept aside in favour of policies targeted at the restriction of the ability of drugs to do harm. Paddick’s proposals sadly take us back to our old ways, and may even increase the potential for harm caused by the drug itself. If we exclude the obvious harms of a criminal record, arrest at least focuses the mind of the user and their family on their drug use and might cause them to re-evaluate their behaviour. By removing the chances of that happening, any problems users experience are more likely to develop further and have serious implications for their health and happiness.

So, on the scale of “tough” to “soft” on the ability of cannabis to do harm, de facto decriminalisation as proposed by Paddick is probably a step towards softness. If we want to get tough on the ability of cannabis to cause harm, then we have to deploy policies which are more likely to prevent problems emerging and which are more likely to facilitate early intervention in order to halt the progression of any problems which do occur.

The model of decriminalisation adopted in Portugal – where possession is still illegal but an administrative and not a criminal offence – takes us back in the direction of toughness. Rather than turning a blind eye to cannabis use, the police refer users to panels tasked with determining whether treatment is appropriate and delivering education on harms and available services. In a situation where contact with the police can only be positive for a drug user’s prospects, concerned family and friends need have no qualms about seeking help for a loved one. In Portugal, prospects for cannabis users are better, but again their de jure decriminalisation policy is starkly illogical for the same reasons as the de facto decriminalisation proposed by Paddick.

It is only with strict government control and regulation of a legal market that we can optimise our restriction of the ability of cannabis to cause harm. Rather than have information on the harms of cannabis delivered only after an unpredictable encounter with the police, this information can instead be provided in the environment of a pharmacy, by someone trained for the purpose, prior to the first time a customer uses the legally supplied drug. The ability to advise customers on the potency of strains and encourage safer modes of administration, means the customer is far less likely to come to harm. The undermining of the illegal market combined with age restrictions should hopefully reduce availability of cannabis for children, while reducing further the necessity to expend police resources against the black market suppliers. If it is decided to educate first-time users on the early warning signs of psychosis, then the increased number of people in society equipped to identify these signs means those developing psychosis are more likely to be helped regardless of their drug use history.

So Brian. It is time to move beyond liberalising our drug laws. De facto decriminalisation is not the best answer for the people of London or anywhere in Britain. The policy that is the toughest on drugs and crime is a plea to government for the strict government control and regulation of a legal cannabis market.

I have strong suspicions that if it is communicated properly, it will garner you far more support that your soft-on-drugs, baby-step, 4/20 announcement.

Walker: was there a cover-up?

Apr 22

Posted by James in Crime, Holyrood | 38 Comments

The normal rule of thumb is that headlines ending in a question mark should be answered with a “no” – for example, “Does Sudoku Cause Cancer?” However, if Paul Hutcheon‘s story is true, as it surely is, the constituency office of the Deputy First Minister herself was told about Walker’s violent past more than three years before the unfortunate people of Dunfermline got saddled with him as their MSP.

When his past started to come out, I argued that the SNP didn’t do proper vetting on him, and SNP activists argued (reasonably, I concede) that if he’d kept it quiet there’s no obvious way for the party to have found out. That’s true: we don’t want parties to have to hire private investigators to look into candidates. But if a former brother-in-law of Walker had told Nicola Sturgeon’s own office about his unsavoury past, which the SNP’s quote admits, that’s that question answered. They knew because they were told, and they admit that the information went to head office.

If they’d been told in April 2011 I could almost understand not making a scene about it. Who wants to have to deselect a constituency candidate during an election? (Although obviously it would have still been wrong not to act) But February 2008? As with so many scandals, this one has become that which sensible politicians fear most: who knew what and when, and who covered up for the original offence? Incidentally, it’s extremely dangerous and ill-advised for the party to give an account of the meeting which can be disputed by the man who called it, Rob Armstrong.

Note: comments which make allegations against Walker which are not already in the media or which downplay domestic violence will not be approved.

Pickiness over Purdah

Apr 20

Posted by Kirsty in Economy, Holyrood, Local government | 25 Comments

The Scottish Government, together with Cosla, has announced plans to offset proposed cuts in council tax benefit at a cost of £40m in a new one year deal.

At present, councils administer council tax benefit, with rates and eligibility set nationally. Westminster will abolish the existing benefit in April 2013 as part of their welfare reforms, devolving a successor scheme to UK regions and nations, as well as cutting the budget of this replacement by 10%.

The Scottish Government and Cosla will plug this shortfall in 2013-14, providing £23m and £17m respectively.

Over half a million vulnerable people in Scotland are in receipt of council tax benefit, including the unemployed, pensioners, carers and people unable to work through disability. Cutting this vital support is yet another attack by Westminster on people who can least afford it, and the Scottish Government’s intervention is welcome, and necessary.

The UK Government’s welfare changes are going to have a devastating effect on low-income households across Scotland and the rest of the UK. From the ‘Granny tax’ to slashing welfare for disabled people to ending child tax credits for 73,300 Scottish families, Cameron’s government are simply cutting where they know they can get away with it.

So it isn’t news that the Scottish Government are going to announce spending where they can to mitigate the effects of Westminster cuts. I don’t think any voter in Scotland would be surprised to find out that the SNP wants to be a bulwark against slash and burn Tory policies that are going to ravage our society.

I don’t say this to negate the SNP’s announcement, in any way; my point is yet another note of disappointment with Scottish Labour instead, in refusing to see and act on the issues where their permanent stance of oppositionism achieves nothing.

Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie took a position of “try harder” with “Everybody knows the Tories are cutting too hard and too fast, but we can’t pretend this announcement plugs the gap.”

But then she frustratingly adds: “This timing of this is deeply peculiar. If the SNP were serious about supporting local councils, they would not have waited until two weeks before the council elections – flagrantly breaching purdah – to make this announcement”.

I think purdah, the convention of not announcing policy or spending during an election period, is as outdated as the colonial and sexist overtones of the word itself. Between rolling news, Twitter and a cynical electorate I don’t think government announcements have a tremendous sway over voting intentions, with an electorate that surely knows they’re trying to be bought or bribed instead of seduced.

The impact of this announcement by the Scottish Government will be tremendous on the lives and livelihoods of people who need council tax benefit to get by, and will be exactly zero on the local election results on May 3rd.

For Scottish Labour’s main comment to be that this vital measure breaches an almost-obsolete civil service standard is ridiculous.

This week the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee took evidence that the UK Government’s plans could result in 100,000 extra children living in poverty in Scotland. There needs to be no other statistic which shows why Scottish Government needs to act fast against Westminster cuts. This week, Johann Lamont criticised Salmond in FMQs for not announcing the withdrawal of investment by Doosan: “If he will suppress serious issues like this iconic project before the local elections, what is he capable of hiding before the referendum?”

So which announcements do Labour want in the pre-election period? Just the bad ones and not the good ones? They do know how political communication and spin… oh wait.

I want a Scottish Labour Party that opposes every ConDem cut, and cajoles the SNP through criticism and through constructive opposition to ensure Scotland becomes a country and a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, and not the few. And yes, I quote Clause 4 quite deliberately. Too many Labour Party politicians have forgotten it.

When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable, sod the party politics. Sod the timing. Labour should welcome the spending, and fight the local elections on pledges and promises, not on being picky about purdah.

What next for the SNP when they win the referendum?

Apr 19

Posted by James in Constitution, Parties | 60 Comments

I’m feeling sunny and optimistic. Let’s assume the question doesn’t get bogged down by the courts or by politics, that the Yes campaign is genuinely cross-party and no-party, that the public will get a chance to write the first constitution for an independent Scotland at some point, and that the referendum succeeds by a clear margin.

The SNP will, on this happy day, have achieved their objective. Admittedly it’s in some ways a simpler objective than any other party – Scotland is either independent or not – but it’d be an extraordinary achievement for a party which in 2003 looked a long way from government, and as recently as the 1980s looked a whole lot further away still.

So what happens next, both for the SNP and for individual SNP members and politicians? Here are some options.

Retire happy. At least one of the SNP’s younger MSPs I know will take this route. Job done. It baffles me that anyone wouldn’t have other political priorities, but it’s consistent. And it certainly makes sense for the older generation. Salmond’s not old by political standards – he’ll turn sixty just after the vote – but it would be a strong point to choose to stand down, and one way to disprove the adage that all political careers end in failure.

Attempt to become Scotland’s answer to the ANC. Sure, the ANC’s struggle was harder to say the least – the Maximum Eck never spent a day in Saughton for political crimes – but parties that fulfil their purpose and deliver radical constitutional change do sometimes try to stay together and stay in power thereafter. The game here is to become the new establishment, but, typically, this way corruption lies.

Join other parties. It’s not hard to see how this might work. The SNP span more or less the whole political spectrum at Holyrood, and they’re held together by a love of winning (no bad thing in a party) plus their primary purpose. Once independence has proved itself to be the settled will of the Scottish people, those who want to stay in politics would surely want to find more consistent ideological bedfellows. This could only happen once the three pro-union parties accept the result and move on. So at that point why wouldn’t Fergus Ewing, John Mason or even John Swinney join a Murdo-esque post-Tory Tories? Might Marco Biagi or Linda Fabiani go Green? Would the soft left of the SNP really not want to work with the Labour types they tend to agree with on non-constitutional matters? If a Lib Dem party still exists at that point, perhaps Michael Russell could lead it? (no offence Michael)  edit: I can see now I was wrong about this one 😉

Split into new parties. Obviously this can be combined with the option above. Across Europe party mergers, divorces, and realignments are ten-a-penny. It may not be clear what the empty space looks like, ideologically, but why might we not see something new here?

The membership is another matter. We certainly get plenty of comments here on Better Nation that start “I’m an SNP member now, but post independence I’ll be a.. ” and which typically end “Green” or “Socialist”. Many SNP activists see the party and the government as a means to this single end: they may campaign to elect a local MSP who they rate, but the purpose of that MSP is to vote for the referendum legislation, so that an independent Scotland can be more (insert other objectives here). Do they stay, or if not, where do they go?

The other most interesting question about the SNP’s post-referendum future is where do the brightest and best of the younger generation go, notably future FM candidates like Nicola and Humza? My guess is that both will want to hold the party together and hold onto office, but the membership and leadership have divergent ideologies which could well make that hard. Still, it’s not a bad dilemma to have. And I look forward to a politics where the debates are primarily about an independent Scotland’s economy, social policy, civil liberties and environment, not the constitution. That will be progress.