A TWEET sent by the Wings Over Scotland blogger was homophobic because it “considers gay people to be lesser”, Kezia Dugdale has told a court.
The former Scottish Labour leader is being sued for £25,000 over a defamation claim made by Stuart Campbell after she described one of his tweets as homophobic.
On the second day of the hearing, Dugdale, 37, said that she was entitled to make the claim because she is a gay woman.
She also pointed out that she labelled the tweet homophobic and not Campbell, who lives in Bath, personally.
Giving evidence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the Scottish Labour MSP said: “As a gay woman, I’m entitled to view that as homophobic because I understand what homophobia is.
“I’m entitled to my own view of what I consider homophobia to be. I’m a gay woman – I have experienced it in a number of forms.”
The complaint relates to a tweet sent by the Wings Over Scotland blogger, who wrote in March 2017, which said that Scottish Secretary David Mundell’s son, the Tory MSP Oliver Mundell, was “the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner".
The Scottish Secretary came out as gay in 2016 and described it as one of the most difficult things he has ever done.
Campbell, 51, told the court yesterday that the joke was aimed at Oliver Mundell’s poor public-speaking performance at the Tory conference in 2017, not his father’s sexuality.
He added that he was “absolutely horrified” to be described as homophobic.
READ MORE: Wings Over Scotland author 'horrified' to be accused of homophobia
Colin Macfarlane, the director of LGBT campaigning organisation Stonewall Scotland, gave evidence on the same day, stating the tweet was homophobic.
The tweet caused Dugdale to use her Daily Record column a few days after it was posted to condemn Campbell.
She said she was “shocked and appalled to see a pro-independence blogger's homophobic tweets”, and accused Campbell of spouting "hatred and homophobia towards others".
Fast forward to today in court and Dugdale was standing by her belief that the tweet was homophobic.
“It considered, in my view, gay people to be lesser because they don’t have or can’t have children. So it was putting gay people in a negative light,” said Dugdale.
“The fact that sexuality was referenced was to ‘other’ it, or to make it different.
She later added: “He used David Mundell’s sexuality to suggest that it would be better if his son had never been born. I consider that to be homophobic.”
Dugdale said that, as a gay politician, it was her responsibility to call out homophobia.
Asked by Craig Sandison QC, who is acting for Mr Campbell, whether she believed his client was homophobic, she said: “No, I believe what he said in his tweet to be homophobic.”
She said she had "never called him a homophobe”.
Sheriff Nigel Ross later asked her whether she felt a joke about a gay person was always homophobic.
She replied “If the butt of a joke is rooted in the sexuality of the person the joke is made about, then there’s a possibility that that joke is homophobic.”
Sandison then suggested that the Lothians MSP had a negative view of Campbell and that her Daily Record column targeted the man, not his tweet.
He also pointed to Dugdale raising the issue in Holyrood where she asked the First Minister to condemn Campbell, not the tweet.
Sandison also said Dugdale’s legal team had previously claimed she did not know Campbell was behind Wings Over Scotland at the time, or that it was pro-independence – something she confirmed was not true.
Dugdale said this was down to a legal misunderstanding.
The case will continue into tomorrow when further submissions will be made.
David Mundell said that he could not attend the case due to the ongoing chaos surrounding Brexit.
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 hereComments are closed on this article