A SURVEY published today showed that 46% of women MSPs have received death threats since being elected. 29% have also received threats of sexual violence.
More than two-thirds of all MSPs have feared for their personal safety – with almost nine out of 10 women saying this. Two-thirds of MSPs (and three-quarters of female MSPs) have contacted the police following a threat to themselves, their staff or their family.
Shocking figures - but they will not come as a surprise to anyone in politics.
It doesn’t just affect parliamentarians. Councillors are also very much at the front line. It’s an issue that affects all parties, but undoubtedly women politicians from all parties are disproportionately targeted for threats and abuse.
It’s impossible to consider this issue without considering the role of social media, which has come to dominate political life in recent years, and which is the source of much of the abuse experienced by politicians.
READ MORE: A third of MSPs have been sent death threats, new poll suggests
I suspect that - without liberal use of the mute and block functions – no elected member would be able to use social media. I believe this is certainly true of women. The more high-profile a politician is, the worse the abuse gets. But everyone gets it.
Voters, of course, have a perfect right to challenge politicians and to call politicians out when they are unhappy with them. When you are elected, you make yourself accountable for what you say and do. And let’s also be clear that people are fully entitled to take the piss out of politicians when they feel like it. I do not seek to reduce the nation’s merriment.
But, for some, disagreement and mockery all too quickly escalate into abuse, intimidation and threats. This is always wrong.
Social media can be used very deliberately to orchestrate abuse. But how we react and behave as individuals on social media is also important. I think we all recognise the way twitter encourages us to double down on our opinions and to see every question as a challenge.
This encourages hostile behaviour. It’s also politically dysfunctional. Today’s political opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. But, all too often, this perspective is lost.
Let’s face it, social media is terrible at disagreement. It makes it far too easy for those we disagree with to become our enemies, rather than simply people we disagree with. And this leads to far more personal animosity than is ever necessary. It’s a fertile breeding ground for abuse.
What can we do about it? As individuals, we can work harder at being able to disagree with each other without making it personal, and we can ostracise those who abuse others. We need to do this whether or not they are on “our side”. The only sides here are between those who engage in abuse, threats and intimidation and those who don’t.
But, while improving our own behaviour online is important, I also believe a significant share of the responsibility for this sorry state of affairs sits with social media companies themselves.
Individuals are responsible for their own behaviour. But the algorithms social media platforms use amplify views and stories that trigger outrage, fear and hate in order to keep users engaged. This kind of environment fosters abusive behaviour.
Social – and indeed mainstream - media companies could deploy algorithms to reduce this type of content, but they don’t. What stops them?
Perhaps it is because their business model relies on generating engagement and they haven’t yet figured out how to do that differently. But it’s time they did. There is nothing inevitable about a social media landscape fuelled by testosterone and aggression. A different online world is possible.
READ MORE: SNP MP Joanna Cherry reports new 'incident of concern' to police
These arguments will, for some, raise concerns about free speech. These are legitimate concerns. But I am firmly in the camp that believes freedom of speech does not equal freedom of reach.
Social media companies are not obliged to provide misogynistic and hateful voices with a free platform to reach a third of the world’s population, and they should stop doing it. We have seen them take a few small steps in this direction recently. We need to see them take many more steps. That would make social media and political engagement safer for all of us.
Having said all of this - and fully recognising the scale of the problem – I would also want to emphasise that the vast majority of our fellow citizens remain kind, decent, tolerant people who are very willing to help others. I am quite sure this would be the view of all elected members. It’s what makes being involved in politics so worthwhile, in spite of everything.
As a final point, it’s also vital to recognise that these issues don’t just affect women politicians. They affect all women who raise their voices. I was really pleased when Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf appointed Helena Kennedy to lead a working group to consider the criminalisation of misogynistic harassment. This may become controversial, but in my view, the necessity for stronger laws and deterrents is undeniable and underlined by today’s survey.
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