Whenever someone starts a sentence with “I’m not a racist/homophobe but…” there is typically a torrent of racist or homophobic abuse that follows that opening, despite the limp protest. Nonetheless, I shall open this blogging journal with the following….
I’m not in favour of witchhunts but….
…. Bill Aitken really does need to resign as Convener of the Justice Committee in light of his comments regarding a recent spate of rapes in Glasgow city centre. If there wasn’t a transcript available the quotes would defy belief.
When it comes to the calling of a politician’s head I am usually more on the lenient, forgiving and/or understandable side. I didn’t believe that Peter Mandelson had to resign in either of the pickles he found himself in, I didn’t believe that Nicola Sturgeon or John Swinney had any reason to resign over the past year and I never even believed that Wendy Alexander had good reason to step down as leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I wouldn’t even have minded if that couple who faked the husband’s death in the canoeing insurance scam had been let off by a chuckling judge whose only reprimand was to call them a pair of cheeky scamps. Life’s complicated after all and almost anything goes as far as I tend to stand.
This situation with Bill Aitken is different. In suggesting there is a difference between the rape of a woman who is not a prostitue and and one that is, he has compromised beyond reparation his standing as the Convener of the Justice Committee and, if he was to be standing in the 2011 election, his standing as an MSP would be similarly impossible. A journalist was recently killed in Egypt while covering the riots in protest against Hosni Mubarak. I wonder how many people would accept the sentiment that he/she ‘had it coming’ given their line of work? Not many I reckon but, for me, there is little difference between that opinion and the opinion so freely offered by the Conservative MSP.
So, Bill has to go. However, it is not clear what job(s) the numerous calls for ‘resignation’ are specifically in relation to. There is surely little to be gained from the Glasgow regional MSP standing down from the Scottish Parliament altogether as a result of his comments, just over two months shy of an election. Leaving the Justice Committee is punishment enough and a sufficient example being made of the prehistoric mindset that any nation’s Parliament shouldn’t tolerate.
I have recently been of the view that politicians need to say what they think deep down more often, to not live in fear or favour of the media and to not tread a converging path to middle-of-the-road insipid vapidity, but that was with a mind to Conservatives or Lib Dems speaking out against coalition policy or any politician bravely starting an unpopular but ultimately worthy campaign. With these comments, delivered quite unbelievably direct to a journalist, Bill Aitken has shone a light into his innermost thoughts, not just on women but also on race, and has badly let himself and his party down. This is not a whoopsy, this is not a foot in mouth moment or a misspeaking. Indeed, it is not even clear what Bill is ‘unreservedly apologising’ for as the words are so plainly his views on the matter. With regards to the rhetoric, he even offered to “toughen it up”. Heaven knows what that would have involved. And how Annabel Goldie hasn’t already forced his hand is anyone’s guess.
There are too many bloggers who have already written on this to mention and the Facebook page calling for a resignation is approaching 1,000 members. Furthermore, Patrick Harvie will be raising a motion in the Scottish Parliament tomorrow calling for a resignation, a motion that Bill surely cannot survive beyond if it goes against him.
It is important that these efforts are successful and, for once, it is important that the resignation-callers get their man.
#1 by Caron on February 20, 2011 - 11:51 pm
Glad you are coming round to agreeing with the argument I made a week ago. This needs to be discussed on floor of Parliament not just via a motion, if Aitken doesn’t go. Glad Patrick has done this & all of Parliament should support.
#2 by Jeff on February 21, 2011 - 7:23 am
Well, to be fair, I am “coming round” to blogging about it, not to agreeing with you about the issue which I’ve been of the same mind with since last week.
#3 by Malc on February 21, 2011 - 8:12 am
This is the second time in one week that people think we’re of a particular mind because we haven’t blogged about something, when the reality is none of the three of us have the time to blog about everything we might like to. For the record, I agree with Jeff, Caron and everyone else.
#4 by Jeff on February 21, 2011 - 8:55 am
Thanks Malc. There does seem to be an attempt to ‘own the outrage’ over this. At an MSP level that is more understandable as they are in a position to do something about it but I noted the effervescent Bella Caledonia was an exclamation mark away from hectoring Rape Crisis Scotland to sign its petition.
Bizarre, but we’ll see what today brings.
#5 by Caron on February 21, 2011 - 10:13 am
I don’t want to own the outrage – I’m just glad there is some. I thought I was on my own for a while.
#6 by Indy on February 21, 2011 - 11:12 am
He can’t resign as an MSP because parliament is being dissolved in about a month’s time so it would just be silly and probably not allowed.
He can and should, of course, resign as convener of the justice committee. It is difficult to understand why he has not resigned – or been told to resign.
Or so I thought until I received a spanking new election newsletter from the Tories over the weekend which heavily features Bill Aitken passing the baton over to Malcolm McAskill – the Tories number one in Glasgow.
Looks to me as though the Tories are running a single campaign in Glasgow highlighting Malcolm McAskill rather than the constituency candidates (which is questionable in itself as we will be voting for constituency candidates as well as for the list) but the point is that I suspect they have produced this newsletter in sufficient quantities for the whole city,rather than each constituency producing their own literature. The cost of binning it would therefore be prohibitive so they are just going to try and tough it out.
#7 by Neil Craig on February 21, 2011 - 12:47 pm
” have recently been of the view that politicians need to say what they think deep down more often, to not live in fear or favour of the media and to not tread a converging path to middle-of-the-road insipid vapidity, but that was with a mind to Conservatives or Lib Dems speaking out against coalition policy or any politician bravely starting an unpopular but ultimately worthy campaign. ”
So basically you are all in favour of politicians speaking out when you agree with them.
When you don’t they are doing something much worse than stealing.
The reasons why Aitken is somewhat correct though politically incorrect must be obvious but if stated would presumably not be published.
#8 by Jeff on February 21, 2011 - 3:00 pm
I’m in favour of politicians speaking out on anything if they are willing to stick by their assertions. Either Bill thought these comments were his own or he thought they were politically expedient but either way he can’t plead forgiveness for such a calmly, deliberately delivered viewpoint and realistically expect to stay on as Justice Convener.
#9 by Indy on February 21, 2011 - 4:11 pm
The only basis for believing that what Bill Aitken said was somewhat correct is if you believe that a woman walking up Renfield Street alone at night is asking to get dragged up a lane and gang raped.
Anybody who thinks that way is unfit to hold any kind of public office, far less be convener of the justice committee.
A number of years ago there was a proposal for Glasgow City Council to install barriers to prevent access to the lanes at night. I believe this was at the request of the police because there had been repeat incidents of people being dragged off the street and up the lanes late at night. Perhaps those plans will now be brought to the fore again, we can but hope.
#10 by Observer on February 21, 2011 - 6:42 pm
Bill Aitken was quite simply wrong. Renfrew Lane is to the north of Sauchiehall Street, the red light district is to the south.
People do go up the lanes for various reasons, just needing a pee might be one of them, it’s dangerous & they should be closed off.
But he simply had no justification for speculating tbat she was a prostitute.
& even if she was a prostitute then so what? There have been numerous killings of prostitutes in Glasgow, the last high profile one was Emma Caldwell. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that in some way he thinks Emma asked for it when he poses questions of the nature he did.
He has resigned but in a graceless way. Clearly he thinks he has done no wrong.
There has been so much work done in this area, & it seems to have passed him all by. I believe there needs to be a repudiation of his views on the Parliament floor.
#11 by Indy on February 22, 2011 - 10:17 am
It may be a minor point but the victim wasn’t in the lane – she was dragged up the lane from the street. If you read the transcript of the interview the journalist makes that quite clear.
They need to get those lanes blocked off.