SNP MP Lisa Cameron has criticised party bosses for not taking threats of abuse against her seriously during the election campaign.
The East Kilbride politician also said she would not have stood to be an MP if she’d known how much abuse she was going to face.
The clinical psychologist, who acts as her party’s Westminster spokesperson on mental health, made the claims to a House of Commons committee’s review into intimidation in public life. She said: “I wouldn’t have given up my job and stood for election if the abuse I would receive had been explained to me.
“I wouldn’t have. I believed I had something to contribute with lengthy experience in the NHS, but I have a young family and I wouldn’t have wanted to put them through it.
“Their wellbeing is the priority.”
Cameron, who worked as a consultant clinical psychologist in the NHS before becoming an MP, told the committee she wished her party had done more to support her.
“There were instances where I had to attend meetings as a candidate and I knew I would face abuse but I didn’t get a response from the party.
“When you think there is a high risk and you highlight it, you should get some support and guidance.”
The SNP declined to comment.
The committee report made for grim reading, with MPs, candidates, journalists, and campaign organisations all agreeing there had been a “sea-change” in the amount of abuse being dished out around elections — largely due to social media. One recommendation from the committee was the creation of a new criminal offence of “intimidating parliamentary candidates and campaigners”.
Another was to put change the law to make Facebook and Twitter more responsible for tackling “persistent” abuse aimed at politicians.
The social media giants don’t “consider themselves as publishers, responsible for reviewing and editing everything that others post on their sites” but they should no longer be regarded as “simply platforms for the content that others post, they play a role in shaping what users see,” the report said. Committee chairman Lord Bew said: “This level of vile and threatening behaviour, albeit by a minority of people, against those standing for public office is unacceptable in a healthy democracy. We cannot get to a point where people are put off standing, retreat from debate, and even fear for their lives as a result of their engagement in politics.
“This is not about protecting elites or stifling debate, it is about ensuring we have a vigorous democracy in which participants engage in a responsible way which recognises others’ rights to participate and to hold different points of view.”
The committee also called for political parties to do more to protect candidates, and to “stand together to oppose behaviour which threatens the integrity of public life.”
It added: “Political parties will need to work together to address intimidation in public life; they should not use this report and its recommendations for partisan purposes or political gain.”
Traditional media outlets too must think about how their coverage “might incite intimidation through delegitimising someone’s engagement in the political process, placing undue influence on their individual characteristics, or using threatening language”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel