On #HolocaustMemorialDay we reflect on the darkest time of European history, remembering the murdered six million Jews and all those persecuted by the Nazis, including Roma and Sinti people, disabled people, lesbians and gay men, trans people and political opponents to the Nazis.
We remember that when Adolf Hitler was named chancellor in 1933 he enacted policies to rid Germany of "Lebensunwertes Leben", "lives unworthy of living". What began as a sterilisation programme ultimately led to the extermination of millions, and the persecution of millions more.
We remember that it started with book burnings. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft had provided LGBT people with education & healthcare, researched sexuality & gender, and promoted feminism & equality since 1919. Its library was burned in the street by the Hitler Youth in 1933.
Most of all we remember that fascism did not arrive in jackboots ready to kick down the doors of the Jews, Roma, Sinti, disabled and queers. German society was first socialised to believe that there truly were "lives unworthy of living". Then the death squads were welcomed.
Well, I hope we remember.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the features of a moral panic is that it amplifies incidents that feed it, and leaves the public with a false impression of the prevalence of behaviours among certain populations. It behoves all of us to try to avoid drawing simplistic conclusions from such reporting.
The tragedy is that the very nature of a moral panic means it almost always serves to obscure a bigger, much more difficult to solve problem. While we're focused on the tiny group deemed a threat to society, the much bigger threats continue to play out but are shielded from view.
65,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded in Scotland last year, overwhelmingly involving violence against cis women by cis men. Nearly 2,200 rapes were reported to the police, of which only 150 were prosecuted.
This will be giggled at by some - it's Rod Stewart for pity's sake - but I think there are a lot of traditional, decent Conservatives who, like him, look at this reactionary, economically illiterate and morally bereft government and see something they just can't support any more.
I mean, if you're a One Nation Tory you're looking at a party which has systematically undermined the NHS and the welfare state, has failed to deal with a housing crisis, and shows no sign whatsoever of even worrying about these issues, never mind having a plan to fix them.
If you're a fiscal conservative you're looking at a party which has lurched from macroeconomic catastrophe to macroeconomic catastrophe, has repeatedly placed very evidently unfit people in positions of power and influence over our economic welfare, and is now just firefighting.
Media and public outrage about child sexual abuse focuses hugely on cases of stranger danger, and has very little to say about the vast majority of offences that are committed by those responsible for caring for children, often members of their family.
Media and public outrage about rape and sexual assault of women focuses hugely on cases of stranger danger, and has very little to say about the vast majority of offences that are committed by partners, ex-partners, family members and friends.
What mechanisms are at play here, and why do we all participate in what is in effect a long-term misinformation campaign which harms women and children? Is it as simple as what sells newspapers and generates retweets, or is there something else going on?
The more I read responses to yesterday's #indyref2 ruling the clearer it seems that the problem for pro-independence Scots isn't the Scotland Act, or the Supreme Court, or whatever version of "democracy denied" they are currently peddling. It's that they haven't won the argument.
And much as many will blame stubborn opinion on a biased media or the dead hand of the UK Government, if they actually listened to their fellow Scots who remain unconvinced they might appreciate that we simply think it's a bad idea. We're not anti democracy. We're anti bad ideas.
Brexit has shown us what happens when a referendum is used to push through a marginal opinion in a divided country: it just creates an even more divided country. Instead of being seen as a lesson in what not to do, Brexit is being viewed as a reason to repeat its own mistake.
Two arguments the Supreme Court has killed stone dead today:
1. That Scotland is a colony with the right to self-determination.
2. That a Scottish election can deliver a mandate for an independence referendum.
Both of these commonly deployed lines are now dead.
This prompts the very reasonable question: what is the democratic route for Scots to hold a second referendum on independence? It's a question that needs an answer, but a workable one will only come through a process of consensus-building, not ultimatum-waving. My thoughts:
The justification for holding a second referendum must include clear evidence that a substantial majority of Scottish voters now consistently support independence. I'm inclined to go with Sturgeon's 2015 suggestion of a consistent >60% in the polls for at least a year.
As we await the #SupremeCourt ruling on @ScotParl powers today, it's worth remembering that a #mandate is a function of both votes and powers. The powers of the Scottish Parliament are defined in statute and the clear intent of the law is to reserve powers over the #constitution.
@ScotParl Basic logic tells us that nobody who intentionally used their vote in 2021 to call for #indyref2 could have been under the impression that @ScotParl was a sovereign body, because the whole point of holding a second referendum is to have another chance of voting to make it one.
@ScotParl In many ways the decision of the court won't change anything, but it could serve as a new grievance to fire up the pro-independence base ahead of the next UK election. But spoiler: the SNP will *not* fight that election as a single issue referendum. No party can make that choice.