New Alex Salmond Party

southfieldhibby

Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
How embarrassing is that.
About as embarrassing as anything ever.

Also see Alba candidates/Wings Over Scotland ( same thing really) claiming SNP are funding campaigns to reduce age of consent to 10. Also fairly embarrassing.

 

Smurf

Auld Enuff Tae Know Better This Radge
About as embarrassing as anything ever.

Also see Alba candidates/Wings Over Scotland ( same thing really) claiming SNP are funding campaigns to reduce age of consent to 10. Also fairly embarrassing.


You'd think the pro independence movement had been infiltrated by MI5. It's unreal how they've been reduced to this....
 

PILTONSTANY

Shameless Radge
Thread starter
The tweets from Alba members now seem to go...
“Vote SNP 1
Vote Alba 2
But heres a series of Tweets and Blogs with reasons not to vote SNP before you do”
 

Purple & Green

Radge McRadge
Admin
About as embarrassing as anything ever.

Also see Alba candidates/Wings Over Scotland ( same thing really) claiming SNP are funding campaigns to reduce age of consent to 10. Also fairly embarrassing.

There are - as far as I can see - legitimate concerns around legal capacity for under 16s being widened for sexual activity.

the rather spectacular pile on by the trans cult and their allies suggests to me that they don’t won’t to address those concerns they want to
shut the debate down.
 

Purple & Green

Radge McRadge
Admin
You'd think the pro independence movement had been infiltrated by MI5. It's unreal how they've been reduced to this....

I don’t really buy into conspiracy theories, I just think the independence movement has got too big for the snp.

the conflict isn’t all one way traffic in Indy land - I think it’s pointless to a large extent - but then I don’t really care for Alba or snp really, I just fundamentally care for Indy.

but if there isn’t going to be Indy, then there’s no hook for me to vote for Indy.
 

moathibby

Legendary Radge
Margret Lynch and her allies in Wings Over Scotland have latched on to a statement made at a woman's meeting suggesting that Stonewall and others support a lowering of the age of consent down to the age of 10.This is a downright lie. If people can't accept that other folk can be what they want to be without fear of attack and ridicule then they are no friends of mine.Alba can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
 

Murky

Not Just a Radge
Stonewall are members of ILGA. ILGA signed up to the 'Feminist declaration' which whilst it covers a number of very valid points also contains the following:

"End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms"

"Eliminate all laws and policies ... including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents"

Whilst it's a quite a stretch to state that as the SNP have made payments to Stonewall and Stonewall are members of an organisation that signed up to the the above declaration therefore equals "SNP support lowering the age of consent to 10" the above paragraphs are scary as fuck.

This is probably a topic for a thread of it's own but I would be interested to know if the above paragraphs have been taken out of context what they were intended to mean.
 

southfieldhibby

Aulder Than The Internet This Radge
WHO categorizes anyone between 10-19 as an adolescent. Could probably have used an age range to be specific. Age of consent varies in each country, Germany, Italy, Portugal it's 14. Fairly confident no political party in Scotland is aiming at the 10 year olds, but it's naive to think kids under 16 don't think/talk/have sex. Don't see an issue with educating them to the good and bad aspects at a younger age.
 

Purple & Green

Radge McRadge
Admin
This is quite good commentary I think:


If Margaret Lynch's comments about the age of consent were overblown, they were no dafter than certain aspects of the SNP's absurdly broad definition of "transphobia", which seek to pathoĺogise the expression of legitimate opinion, or than the embarrassing claims that the moderate, centre-left social democratic Alba Party is some kind of "far-right hate group".

My own view is that there's no prospect of the SNP government reducing the age of consent - although that isn't necessarily because nobody wants it to happen. Reading between the lines of some of the carefully-worded comments that have been made, it looks like there are indeed advocates of a change to the age of consent, albeit perhaps not quite as dramatic a change as Margaret Lynch is concerned about. For example, the suggestion is that sex between fourteen and fifteen year olds should be decriminalised, but that it would still be illegal for adults to have sex with them. But the reality is that the government wouldn't be able to go even that far, because they know they would pay too heavy a price with public opinion.

 

Purple & Green

Radge McRadge
Admin
Margret Lynch and her allies in Wings Over Scotland have latched on to a statement made at a woman's meeting suggesting that Stonewall and others support a lowering of the age of consent down to the age of 10.This is a downright lie. If people can't accept that other folk can be what they want to be without fear of attack and ridicule then they are no friends of mine.Alba can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I think this is good commentary on this:


These are my last tweets re the ILGA situation & how that has played out in Scotland since the weekend, I think the following is important to say.

If we lived in a country with a remotely healthy political landscape & one not steeped in misogyny, here is how things would have >
>gone after a female political candidate raised the text of a declaration as a safeguarding issue.

1) After it was raised in conference & publicised by the media that the declaration literally states that all laws preventing adolescents being able to legally consent to sex >
>should be abolished, there would have been an initial reaction across political parties & relevant orgs (not just LGBT orgs) that this is clearly not okay & must be addressed. No-one would be blamed for raising it or indeed for criticising it, even if some believed the >
>declaration had been written incorrectly - because safeguarding should be a value we can expect all groups to share.

2) Then orgs that signed the declaration would urgently be clear that they did not support any lowering of the age of consent, & would be clear that they were >

>seeking clarity on why this wording was used, from the authors, & ask for it to be redrafted. Govt funded member orgs of any signatories would do the same.

3) At which point, due to pressure, there would have been some form of clarification from the authors a the declaration >
>would then be redrafted, not least to ensure that paedophiles across the globe cannot take this section as validation of their abuse of children - many of whom deny that it is abuse at all because they believe children can consent, & the wording here only helps them validate >
>this to themselves & others like them. This is also why it's not good enough to say that it's okay because a tiny minority of people, due to their work experience, understand what the language is meant to mean.

And that would hopefully be that.

What would not have happened>
>1) Women would not have been called homophobic for highlighting that orgs funded by the Scottish Govt & which have campaigned to remove the sex based protections of women & girls in the Equality Act, are also members of a signatory to a declaration that recommends lowering the >
>age of consent.

2) Prominent men across political parties & publicly funded orgs would not make specific women raising these safeguarding concerns targets for abuse, harassment, threats & doxxing, by claiming they were driven by hate instead of genuine care for the welfare of >
>children. Men would not have ignored the patriarchal history of women's needs, concerns & motives being ignored or misrepresented, so that women can be ignored &/or dehumanised for their benefit. Men would realise they have a responsibility to undo this patriarchal conditioning>
>3) Men, including political candidates, would not be threatening women with violence, or advocating violence against a group including them, and political leaders would not ignore any calls for VAW, because they would not find VAW acceptable in our society.

4) Journos would >
>not have engaged in gaslighting re the meaning of words, including the term 'adolescent', & would also have covered any unfair or abusive treatment towards women, including misrpresenting women & threats of violence, & would also have asked the parties of any political >

>candidates doing this to women, for comment. They would also have sought comment from the authors of the declaration in a bid to clarify the content & any further action being taken.

So that is how the last few days would have gone, if we lived in a remotely healthy, feminist >
>society. And that is how they should have gone.
Women deserve so much better than this patriarchal, misogynist bullshit.

 
SUPPORT THE SITE!
May Goal: £70.00
Donations so far: £65.00
Top