20 July 2009

CyberNats turn against David Kerr

Posted by Scottish Unionist at 7:16 PM. There are 24 comments.
For the record: I do not agree with the sentiments expressed below. This post is about CyberNats.

24 comments
  1. Observer July 20, 2009 7:38 PM  

    Oh well, can't deny that I was a tad annoyed when I read the story, as I'd been told earlier that he was a member of Opus Dei, and I thought it was a wind up.

    However, as stated, I still hope the SNP win; the case for independence is a lot bigger than my issue with the candidate.

  2. Scottish Unionist July 20, 2009 7:43 PM  

    Why would it have been a “wind up”? And what exactly is your “issue with the candidate”?

  3. Wardog July 20, 2009 7:52 PM  

    I think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves here, so what he's a practising catholic.

    I'm not religious, indeed I'm thoroughly atheist and I don't expect my MP/MSP to be anything other than what their own convictions tell them to be.

    I'm sorry to say it, but some of the comments posted seem to be bordering on sectarian bigotry, others are just plain stupid with posters stating their own beliefs as though we should all have them.

    That's exactly what David Kerr has spoken out against.

    I live on the boundary of the Glasgow NE Constituency and I do work there.

    Like Glasgow East, it's got a wide range of people, ideals and beliefs, down at heal areas and up and coming areas.

    David Kerr would make a very able MP, able to articulate logic's argument and distinguish between his own beliefs and what's best for his prospective constituents.

    To those that question the selection process, it couldn't have been more clear cut (with all it's mishaps), that David Kerr had the guts to take the candidacy on despite the circumstances is testament to his character, something that with each daily attack I'm coming to really admire....





    PS AM2, I'm surprised that you haven't yet mentioned that the Scottish Unionist Party got a fifth of the SNP showing in 2005 with the BNP not far behind the SUP, not bad and possibly an indicator of why unionist Labour have played the 'zany' religion card.....??

  4. Scottish Unionist July 20, 2009 8:12 PM  

    Re: “unionist Labour have played the 'zany' religion card”

    You're jumping to conclusions there — and anyway, we covered that aspect yesterday. This is a thread about cybernats, not Kerr himself. Why do you think previously loyal nationalist cyberactivists like ‘John Z’ and ‘Electric Hermit’ reacted in such a way?

  5. Wardog July 20, 2009 8:26 PM  

    AM2, You'd need to ask those posters, I don't speak for anyone other than myself and have given my view on the comment that you've highlighted.

    I suspect the Labour are looking for a similar reaction in Glasgow North East.

    I think it's beyond doubt that Labour have raised this issue, just as they did with John Mason on his catholic views on abortion and marriage.

    If you can't tell already I can't abide sectarianism and this type of smear.

  6. Scottish Unionist July 20, 2009 8:47 PM  

    Re: “beyond doubt”, well... what can I say? You must have a lower threshold of proof than me. We’ll just have to leave it there.

    As I said yesterday, I don’t see David Kerr’s membership of Opus Dei as being relevant. I also share your abhorrence of sectarianism. So far we agree. But I suspect that few people who hold sectarian prejudices realise it. And on that score, is there really a “smear” here?

    I think it reflects very poorly on David Kerr that he was recorded doing — in the Sunday Herald’s words — a “camp impersonation” in “a high, mincing voice” of John Knox, describing Knox as wreaking “a lot of havoc” and pandering to antediluvian religion/football equivalences by joking that Knox was angry because “Rangers hadn’t won the league for a while”.

    David Kerr has, I think, left himself open to criticism.

  7. Observer July 20, 2009 9:36 PM  

    I find it quite astonishing that apparently sensible people can't distinguish between being a practising Catholic, which is no one's business, and being a member of an elitist organisation like Opus Dei, who specifically rule out any separation of the spiritual and the secular, including and specifically in a member's professional activities.

    To call people who have concerns about this ''sectarian'' is lazy thinking, as there are many within the RC Church who distrust this organisation too.

    There was a mammoth debate on this issue due to Ruth Kelly's membership of Opus Dei and her position within the Cabinet, during the passage of the Embryology Bill. It drew in such luminaries as Cardinal O'Brien, Archbishop Conti, and Bishop Tartaglia as regular correspondents in the Herald on the subject, and drew many responses from those such as Alistair McBay from the national secular society and Hugh McLachlan, who is an occasional contributor to the Scotsman now. I can only assume this debate in the West slipped the Scotsman by.

    This is not a new debate and neither is it a sectarian one. It is about the influence elitist/religious/ secret organisations have within politics, Opus Dei are but one of several.

    As I said to you yesterday SU I don't think this is a party political debate, and where would be the logic in me changing my mind about this just because it is an SNP candidate rather than a Labour Minister ?

    I would be willing to bet that John Z and Electric Hermit followed this debate when it happened a few years ago, maybe they read the Herald too.

  8. Scottish Unionist July 20, 2009 9:49 PM  

    Observer: As I said yesterday, Opus Dei really isn’t my chosen specialist subject. This stuff about “the influence elitist/ religious/ secret organisations have within politics” all sounds a bit conspiratorial to me. I’m not prepared to cast aspersions on that kind of basis.

  9. Observer July 20, 2009 10:43 PM  

    Well as you've just admitted you don't know a great deal about the subject, it does beg the question why you opened the blog in the first place.

    You are quite prepared to cast aspersions on me without researching the subject. Seems a bit unfair.

    I can bore you to tears if you want, but I reckon you're not relly that interested, otherwise you would have taken a position years ago when it was a major matter of debate. But only on the West coast, apparently.

  10. Scottish Unionist July 20, 2009 11:28 PM  

    Why would I need to know a great deal about Opus Dei? Presumably, as Gerry Hassan has just said on Newsnight, David Kerr has very conservative views on various social policies. And as Richard Baker has pointed out, voters will want to know about those views. That’s to be expected. But any underlying religious basis for those views is irrelevant, is it not?

  11. Observer July 21, 2009 12:23 AM  

    It's not being religious that matters, it's being part of a religious sect. There's a difference between the two, which if you don't see it, I can't explain it, without writing an essay.

  12. Andrew BOD July 21, 2009 1:02 AM  

    SU

    It appears you have started this blog to show "cybernats" in disagreement, as opposed to opening a debate on secret organisations. This is healthy, democratic debate instead of inane or bigoted comments. However, this debate, or even disagreement, will undoubtedly be a major factor in Labour's election strategy, where religion connotations will be again be used for political gain.

    There seems to be so much focus on where candidates were born, where they live, what school they went to, what faith they have, what legal organisations they are members of, etc... And then there's so little time and space for the real issues in Glasgow NE, in Scotland, and in the UK.

  13. Wardog July 21, 2009 8:23 AM  

    Observer

    I'm curious, what will you do if more SNP MSP's are found to be members of Opus?

    I find this line of thought deeply worrying.

    As AM2 Says, he's been open about his beliefs and I'm sure will explain why he believes certain things if asked in interview, John Mason was no different.

    A huge proportion of the public and our representatives share those views.

    It's what gives value to democracy.

    It is not for us to impose these issues on the policies of the party, they are conscious issues.

    God forbid that the SNP become like the Greens or Tories who either hypercritically denounce such views or criticise them as matters of policy.




    'Beyond Doubt' Smear Campaign

    Am2, I don't wish to dwell on this and appreciate we have difference of opinion over the veracity of thi being 'beyond doubt' but I would ask how does a story appear in three different Sunday papers followed for a similar story only days before and follow the same pattern of personal belief innuendo that happened ina previous neighbouring constituency to an SNP Candidate.

    Are you suggesting that the Scottish media are colluding to focus on this issue and on one particular candidate?

    Why didn't the media ask Bain what his views on these social issues are?

    Does Willy Bain believe that abortion is a right? (irrelevant as far as I'm concerned but as you & Richard baker suggest "people might be interested")

    If it's not Labour behind this, it raises serious questions about the paucity and unbiased nature of the Scottish media surely.

  14. sm753 July 21, 2009 8:52 AM  

    This is an odd one, isn't it?

    My two cents' worth.

    Religious beliefs of (almost) any source can never be a "bar" to entering politics.

    But they are a legitimate area of enquiry for the public too.

    And the hard facts are that the more "unusual" a candidate's beliefs are, the more likely they are to be a source of controversy.

    (This of course depends on circumstances of place and time. Atheists or even non-churchgoers would have trouble winning office in most parts of the States, for example!)

    And OD certainly seems to be "unusual" - certainly as much so as Freemasonry, Scientology or Kabbalah.

    So it is legitimate for people to say that this changes their view of the man, and so their vote.

    We can hope that this isn't just because this happens to be a Catholic organisation.

    Personally I would be more concerned if he were a Scientologist - clear evidence of gullibility and lack of judgement.

  15. Indy July 21, 2009 10:06 AM  

    There are very obvious challenges for members of all political parties – not just the SNP – in reconciling traditional religious beliefs with our commitment to equality and the eradication of discrimination. That is what I think underlies peoples’ uneasiness with devout politicians.

    It has to be said that certain religious leaders can be their own worst enemy in that respect. Some of them do give the impression that they want to have it both ways – they want to be legally protected against discrimination but they also want to be allowed to discriminate against others. That is not an acceptable position to take, unless you believe that some animals really are more equal than others.

    Equally however there can be no grounds whatsoever for arguing that a person’s religious views should be held against them, whether they are a candidate for a job or a political position or in any other context. It would be as wrong to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of their religion as it would be to discriminate against them because of their ethnicity, gender, sexuality or disability.

  16. Mr. Mxyzptlk July 21, 2009 10:50 AM  

    Observer said


    "the case for independence is a lot bigger than my issue with the candidate."

    Thats one slippery slope for people do go down where does it end.

    Probably with electing representatives who behave in power not in the manner you or the electorate would wish.

    Not sure if Independence at any price would be worth the cost.

  17. Wardog July 21, 2009 10:54 AM  

    Indy

    Agreed

  18. Scottish Unionist July 21, 2009 11:10 AM  

    Indy

    Agreed, with a caveat. It seems to me that a hyper-PC attitude has taken root in respect of certain sensitive issues — notably religiously motivated attitudes. Criticising someone for displaying religious intolerance has, in itself, come to be seen as “playing the sectarian card”.

  19. Indy July 21, 2009 11:47 AM  

    I don't know what you mean by criticising someone for displaying religious intolerance.

    Do you mean displaying intolerance which is motivated by religious beliefs or do you mean intolerance of other religions - or intolerance of religious belief itself?

  20. Scottish Unionist July 21, 2009 12:15 PM  

    We’re at risk of getting bogged down in overly academic abstractions.

    Reverse the roles. Suppose another candidate was known to be a deeply committed Protestant Christian.

    Suppose that candidate was recorded doing a “camp impersonation” in “a high, mincing voice” of an early Pope.

    Suppose he publicly described that Pope as having wreaked “a lot of havoc”.

    Supposed he then pandered to Old Firm prejudices by joking that the Pope had been angry because “Celtic hadn’t won the league for a while”.

    Don’t you think that would raise questions about his tolerance of Catholicism?

  21. Indy July 21, 2009 12:41 PM  

    It would depend on the circumstances. People can be too po-faced sometimes about a bit of banter. But that's the way politics is. A lesson to all aspiring politicians - never allow yourself to be recorded at a private event especially if drink has been taken because it will end up on You Tube and you will end up with egg on your face.

  22. Scottish Unionist July 21, 2009 12:45 PM  

    I suppose so. I've never been a big fan of so-called “banter” when it touches on religious or race issues, for example.

  23. Wardog July 21, 2009 1:01 PM  

    Are you seriously equating the pope with John Knox?



    As an aside and a useful antidote to the 'davinci hysteria in some quarters', here is what the Pus has to say about itself and how holywood chooses to portray it.

    http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017

    Time to move on I suggest.

  24. Scottish Unionist July 21, 2009 1:09 PM  

    No Wardog, I am not. *sigh*

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)