Friday 12 April 2024

The Labour Party was wrong to suspend Wilma Brown


I had never heard of Wilma Brown the former Labour candidate who was suspended for liking various posts on Twitter/X. I had likewise never heard of the person who had gathered the various posts which can be found here.

But it is necessary to point out that in most cases the posts liked by Wilma Brown were innocuous, arguable, or true.

The first post liked is

Humza Yousless is going to be raging, as @jk_rowling is being called the new Queen of Scots. She's slain Humza Yousless and the trans movement, by using her speciality weapon, words, well played ma'am #DoffsCap

Does the Labour party think it is a sackable offence to praise J.K. Rowling?

The second post liked is

Judge Rinder was denounced as a proto-TERF yesterday after India Willoughby incited trans activists to harass him. So here's his reply.

Does the Labour Party think that like what Judge Rinder says in defence of himself is a sackable offence or does it think that Judge Rinder is not allowed to defend himself at all?

The third post is

Scotland spent 3 years considering the laws on hate crimes before the Bill was introduced in 2020. 4 more years, after being voted into law and police training to deal with complaints, it came into force. It took @jk_rowlingless than 24 hours to demonstrate why it is ludicrous. Free speech and women’s rights must be protected. Re-post if you agree.

Does the Labour Party think that criticising the hate crime bill is enough for a candidate to be sacked or does it think that defending free speech is wrong?

The fourth post is

We’ll never forget he did this.

There is a link to Humza Yousaf’s speech about white people. Does the Labour Party think that it is wrong to never forget or to suppose that Yousaf’s speech was misjudged?

The fifth post is

Here’s a thought .. @LeeAndersonMP_suspended from conservative for his comments why was @HumzaYousaf not suspended from @theSNP for his racist speech

Many people think that Humza Yousaf’s speech was dubious because if they did the opposite and complained about black people in jobs it would be racist. Does the Labour Party think that it is a sackable offence to think this?

The sixth post is

This is the Humza Yousaf's  "White" speech, with a bit of input from @Mercurius_Scot It's been watched by over 250,000 now on Tik Tok, a comedy masterpiece, the way they've weaved it in seamlessly

This includes a link to a satirical video about the speech. Does the Labour Party think that liking political satire is a sackable offence.

The seventh post is

Wait a minute! Humza Yousaff’s (2nd) wife takes a Palestinian flag to a Scotland-Israel game. He meets with Hamas and gives them £1/2 million of OUR money. These religious zealots shouldn’t be anywhere near our government.

Humza Yousaf has met with Hamas albeit a long time ago. He also met with UNRWA which has been accused of having Hamas members. While the Scottish Government gave money to UNRWA it is also arguable that some of it may like much other international aid have helped fund Hamas operations. I don’t think Humza Yousaf, or his wife are religious zealots, but does the Labour Party think it a sackable offence to think that they are? In that case is it a sackable offence to call Kate Forbes a religious zealot?

The eight post is by me and says

Yousaf giving money to Gaza is a worse scandal than anything involving Nicola Sturgeon. If Scottish money funded Hamas it is much worse than buying campervans

This includes a link to detailed argument looking at the apparent coincidence of money being given to Gaza and his in laws leaving Gaza. The point is not that money was given to Hamas but that it might have been misappropriated by Hamas owing to the fact that Hamas is the government of Gaza and has frequently used international aid for dubious purposes. Does the Labour Party think it a sackable offence to even wonder about the coincidence of money being given to Gaza and two days later Yousaf’s in laws leaving?

The eighth post is

Humza Yousless gives an organisation £250k two days before his in-laws escape from Gaza. An organisation that has links to the October 7th terror attacks. He was warned about the organisation yet ignored that warning and rushed the money out. Now he expects us to believe that’s just a coincidence and there’s nothing to see. We are not all naive cult followers who believe everything they say. Next they will want us to believe Sturgeon is a saint who knew nothing of the alleged corruption during her time in office

This post too is merely wondering about the apparent coincidence. Does the Labour Party think we must believe automatically everything Humza Yousaf says about the money he gave to Gaza?

The ninth post is

You're literally Indian. It is not your flag. You will NEVER be an Englishman.

This links to a picture of Sikh man saying that the cross of Saint George is his flag. This is the first post that I think it was wrong to like. British people of any background should be able to identify as English and call the English flag theirs.

The tenth post is

Has she tried moving elsewhere if Britain’s free accommodation and benefits aren’t how she imagined they’d be? The ingratitude is staggering. Britain has chronic housing shortages.

This links to a migrant woman complaining about her accommodation. There is nothing obviously racist about the comment nor can liking this post be a sensible sacking offence.

The eleventh post is

Imagine being this ungrateful. Migrant woman complains about her free, taxpayer funded accommodations in the UK.

Many people after World War II who were fleeing persecution were put up in camps. They were grateful just to be safe. It is quite reasonable to expect someone fleeing persecution to count their blessings. At least they are safe now. Again, there is no reason to suppose that liking this post is racist.

The twelfth post is by me

I might suggest that the SNP is riddled with Israelophobia & that it comes right from the top

It is certainly arguable that the SNP suffers from Israelophobia given its continual attempts to impose a ceasefire on Israel, while it is indifferent to other wars which have involved the deaths of more people. I can’t see why the Labour Party would consider it a sackable offence to share this view. Does the Labour Party consider that agreeing with Jake Wallis Simons who wrote a book called Israelophobia: The Newest Version of the Oldest Hatred should be a sackable offence? Really?

The thirteenth post has a picture of Humza Yousaf with pink hair and the slogan I support the current thing. This is obviously satire. Moreover, Humza Yousaf does support the current thing. You can’t win here. If you think Yousaf is a religious zealot, you are wrong if you think he is a liberal who supports LGBT you are wrong too. But does the Labour party think that pictures of politicians with pink hair should get you sacked?

The fourteenth post is

What the hell? Close Holyrood Down. It is making Scotland a laughing stock.

This includes a link to a video of Emma Harper trying to speak Scots.

Again, does the Labour Party think that it is a sackable offence to want to close Holyrood. Around 25% of Scots think it should be shut down. Does the Labour party think that finding Emma Harper’s attempts to speak Scots ludicrous is a sackable offence?

The fifteenth post is a repeat of an earlier one.

The sixteenth post is by me

She gets to call for Jews to wiped out in Israel & those who agree with her threaten our MPs safety, but if we are scared by this we are Islamophobic & if we express concern we are racist. Do you see how they use these words to shut down debate & avoid criticism?

This includes a picture of someone with a “from the river to the sea” sign and a link to detailed argument about the problems of MPs being threatened. Does the Labour Party think that we should not be allowed to express these concerns and the apparent double standard applied to different types of demonstrators?

The seventeenth post is

I think this guy should be removed from the Scottish parliament immediately for his antisemitism and extremism. Thoughts?

This includes a link to Ross Greer speaking with a megaphone. I don’t know if Ross Greer has said anything antisemitic. But does the Labour Party think that it is a sackable offence to suggest that a politician might be antisemitic? If that is the case Keir Starmer ought to be sacked for suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn is antisemitic.

The eighteenth post is

There is a vacancy in Glasgow City Council for the role of Chief Executive and the salary is up to £210k! That’s more than the First Minister of Gaza. No wonder the council is cutting services.

The objection to this post is using “First Minister of Gaza”, but this too is obviously satire because Humza Yousaf appeared to be spending more time and money on Gaza than on Scotland. I don’t think I would use this phrase myself, but it fits in with phrases like the MP for Moscow Central during Soviet times. Again, does the Labour Party want to ban satire?

The nineteenth post also involves the phrase “First Minister of Gaza.”

The twentieth post is

Humanitarian aid being sold on the streets in Gaza, you won't see this in the MSM, doesn't fit their narrative

This includes a link to a video apparently of aid being sold. I have no idea if it is true that aid is being sold but does the Labour Party think that it is forbidden to suggest that it might be?

So, the thread that got a Labour Party candidate sacked and which numerous media outlets have described as racist, Islamophobic and hateful has only one post that is dubious, the one concerning the Sikh man. I think a simple apology for liking this post and an admission of the mistake ought to have been enough.

It is not a conspiracy theory to suppose that Humza Yousaf’s donation of Scottish aid money to UNRWA was linked to the release of his relatives from Gaza. That is to misunderstand the words “conspiracy theory”. The OED definition of conspiracy theory is

The theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event.

But to suppose that Scottish money got Humza Yousaf’s relatives out of Gaza is not unreasonable, because it is not unreasonable to suppose that UNRWA required a bribe to help and that its help was necessary. Likewise, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Nadia El Nakla’s relatives were allowed to travel to Turkey, because of her meeting with President Erdoğan’s wife.

I stress that I am in no position to know. It might be pure coincidence that Scottish money was paid, and Yousaf’s relatives were released. It might be pure coincidence that El Nakla’s relatives went to Turkey. But we must be allowed to question these events. Does the Labour Party think that we cannot doubt the word of Humza Yousaf and his wife?

Many of the most prominent Pro UK accounts have been smeared by this incident quite unjustly not merely by the Labour Party but by many media outlets. We deserve an apology.

If you liked this article, then cross my PayPal with silver and soon there will be a new one. See below.