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.
