The BBC reports,
Mr Mason said he was “disappointed” by his suspension, which came after he wrote on X that the country’s actions in Gaza did not amount to “genocide”.
In response, a spokesperson for the SNP Chief Whip said: “To flippantly dismiss the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians is completely unacceptable.
“There can be no room in the SNP for this kind of intolerance.”
The spokesperson added the SNP Group would now meet to discuss the matter, with a recommendation of a fixed period suspension, for what they described as a “utterly abhorrent comment”.
The withdrawal of the whip means Mr Mason is effectively expelled from the SNP with immediate effect and must sit as an independent MSP until it is restored.
His “utterly abhorrent comment” was this tweet:
John Mason
@JohnMasonMSPThere is no genocide. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they would have killed many many more.
If the Scottish National Party wants to eject Mason for having a different definition of the word “genocide” to the one the party favours, that is its prerogative. I am not clear on how it helps anyone in Gaza, or indeed Scotland, but the decision is not mine to make.
What interests me is the way that this type of political thinking shrinks the parties and political tribes that practise it. The three steps are: (1) Take an existing word. (2) Change its definition. (3) Throw anyone who does not accept the change out of your in-group.
Redefinition – the first two steps – is a standard political technique, common on all points of the political compass. Many American campaigners for gay marriage dropped the “gay” and spoke of themselves as campaigning for “marriage”. It worked. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit often prefaces links to stories about gun rights with the general term “Civil Rights Update”. The good version of the idea is that the reader will do a double-take at seeing something they had never previously thought of as being an example of [marriage / civil rights / whatever] so described, but will then think, “Is there really any reason it shouldn’t be?” The manoeuvre can veer off into being annoying or even deceptive, and I think that some politically involved users of the technique such as the American LGBT advocacy group called the “Human Rights Campaign” do not appreciate how confusing the use of a general term for a much more specific purpose can be to those who are less politically aware, but as a rhetorical technique, it’s fine.
I can also think of things to praise about Step (3). A party – or a doctrine – that does not define itself is pointless. “Vote for us! We’ll do everything!” If the definition concerned is a clear distillation of what that party believes and the other parties do not, it is right and necessary to eject dissenters. No party is obliged to host its opponents. This remains true if the party changes and the opponents being ejected are those who were orthodox yesterday, although I do feel sorry for the Old Believers in this situation.
Step (3) leads into a quagmire when the definition in question is as distant from the party’s main purpose as, well, Gaza is from Scotland. Or, worse yet, when a new Step (3) pops up every week.
As with the Gaza “genocide”, a pattern of making acceptance of a newly-altered definition a condition of continued membership was followed – indeed pioneered – by the SNP with regard to the meaning of the word “woman”. That went very badly for the party, and also for the Scottish trans women it was meant to help. It did not have to be this way. Cast your mind back seven or eight years. Theresa May was Prime Minister. The Equalities Minister was Justine Greening. When Greening announced a bill to enable transgender people to choose their sex more easily, the standard view was mild satisfaction that this reform was being proposed by a Conservative government.
It started to go wrong for the SNP when they reduced their position to four words: “Trans women are women”. Just as John Mason balked this week at accepting that Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide, while still expressing sympathy for the people of Gaza, so quite a few SNP politicians balked at that definition of “woman” while still stressing that they remained “committed to human rights, equality and dignity for all people”. Several of the MPs and MSPs who signed that letter in 2019 have since left or been thrown out of the party. Things came to a head in 2023 when a double rapist now called Isla Bryson was remanded to a women’s jail. Faced with a wave of popular anger, the then First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, backed down and effectively introduced a third legal gender to Scottish law, that of “rapist”. Once punctured, the four word rule “Trans women are women” soon deflated entirely in Scotland, and I think the same is happening across the English-speaking world. The new dominant four word rule is “Transwomen are men”. It would have been better to let people agree to differ.
Having seen how well insisting on a novel definition of “woman” worked out for Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney appears to have decided to see if insisting on a novel definition of “genocide” is going to work any better for him.
Why do parties nowadays so often try to force an immediate yes-or-no answer on an issue, proudly insisting that there should be “no debate”, when it is obvious that in that case many of their own supporters are going to answer “no”? Why do they compound the error by doing it on issues that most of their supporters did not previously care about?
John Mason’s comment seems both accurate and reasonable: it is not a genocide in the accepted sense of the word. The SNP also seems to be accepting the Hamas death toll as being accurate.
Jews are well used to selective invective and Israel has been a UN (and now apparently ICJ) punchbag for over half a century. Also the SNP are an irrelevance.
IMHO far more serious is today’s decision by Labour to expand the definition of terrorism to include misogyny. Unlike the SNP they are highly relevant and worryingly anxious to exercise their newly obtained power.
Notice how the Scottish National Party (which is NOT nationalist – as it supports the rule of Scotland by the European Union) defines “intolerance”.
“Intolerance”, to the SNP, is to expose the lie that the Jews are committing “genocide” against the Muslims – the Muslim population is increasing (not decreasing), rising (not falling) and has been for at least 75 years (indeed there are more Muslims, not just in Gaza, but in all the area “between the river and the sea” than there have ever been in human history) – but one must pretend that the Jews are exterminating the Muslims (committing genocide against the Muslims) or one is expelled from the SNP.
What next? Are Scottish and English and Welsh and Northern Irish, people to be punished for refusing to pretend that “genocide” is being committed against Muslims in Britain? Again the Islamic population of the United Kingdom is increasing (not decreasing), rising (not falling). And the Islamic population is expanding into new areas (and so non Islamic populations tend to leave these areas) – no “genocide” is being committed against the Muslim population of the United Kingdom.
Under the Ottoman Empire the area “between the river and the sea” was largely desert or malaria filled marsh – there were few Muslims living there, indeed there were few people of any sort there,
The largest place, Jerusalem, was a fairly small town even in the 19th century – and, according to the Muslim Ottoman authorities, the largest population group there are listed as “Jews”.
Jews had tried to return to the land many times over the centuries – but Jewish communities had always, eventually, been slaughtered – leaving a very poor Jewish community in Jerusalem itself.
Modern Zionism developed the land “between the river and the sea” and made it suitable for a much larger population – this attracted both Jewish and Muslim immigration.
There were severe restrictions on Jewish immigration imposed by the British authorities who took over the land when the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War (no one forced the Ottoman Empire to side with Imperial Germany – the “Young Turk” regime CHOOSE to do that, that made a CHOICE for war). Yet no immigration restrictions were placed on Muslim immigration from Egypt and so on.
This policy of restricting Jewish immigration into a land which “Zionist money”, and Zionist work-and-blood, had built, but NOT restricting Muslim immigration into the land “between the river and the sea” is the root of the present problem.
Although it should be noted that Chairman Arafat, the leader of the “Palestinian Liberation Authority” (which was created by the Soviet KGB) was born and raised in Egypt – and that some of the leaders of Hamas were also not born in “the land between the river and the sea”.
These are Muslim, Islamic, forces – it is NOT a matter of “Palestinian nationalism” – as, historically, there was no such thing.
The people who really do want to “commit genocide” are the people who march in Western cities – demanding that the Jews be wiped out “from the river to the sea” (that is seven million dead Jews), most of these people on these pro genocide marches, Muslim and non Muslim, have no connection to the land “between the river and the sea” and have never been there.
Wikipedia is often the harbinger of definitional change, controlled as it is by its ultra-woke editors.
Per Wikipedia, genocide is ” . . . the intentional destruction of a people, either in whole or in part.”
“A people” is undefined.
“In part” is also undefined.
It appears that, if I kill one Pacific Islander because he is a Pacific Islander, or if I kill one New Yorker because she is a New Yorker, I have committed genocide.
During the First World War terrible mass murder of people was committed by the Young Turk regime – vast numbers of Christians were wiped out. Armenians and other Christians who had lived in these lands (Asia Minor, Mesopotamia) long before there was any such thing as Islam. There were many massacres in the centuries before the Young Turk regime (the idea that Ottoman rule of these lands was “tolerant and peaceful” is one of the more absurd, and vicious, lies taught by modern Western education systems and the media) – but the Young Turk regime was particularly bad.
Some Jewish communities were also slaughtered and it is now clear that the regime intended to wipe out the Jewish and Christian populations of the “Holy Land” (if I may use that term) and were only prevented from doing so by the German General Falkenhayn.
The Islamic population of the Ottoman Empire had been told by various people (including by NON Muslim German agents) that victory in the war would not only mean the end of the Christians and Jews in the Middle East – but also in Europe (they were even told that the Kaiser had converted to Islam – a LIE), that they would get to kill the Christian men in Britain, France, Russia and so on, and take the women for themselves – this is what they were promised by various agents (some of whom were NOT really Muslims – just as some of the people on the pro genocide marched in various Western cities today are NOT Muslims).
It was very hard for General Falkenhayn – he had opposed going to war in 1914, and the war aims (such as the destruction of the Russian Empire and German domination over the Slavs – an aim of the First, not just Second, World War) deeply troubled him, but as a loyal German soldier it was his duty to kill as many of the enemy as possible – and he had killed vast numbers of British and French soldiers (for example at Verdun and the Somme) on the Western front before being sent to the Middle East.
But Ottoman plans to wipe out the civilian population (not all the civilians of course – just the Christians and Jews) of the “Holy Land” disgusted him – and he refused to allow this to take place.
Sadly General Falkenhayn was not in the Middle East earlier – he might (possibly) have been able to save the Armenians, Assyrians and other Christians – who were slaughtered in vast numbers by the Young Turk regime and various irregular Islamic forces.
Maybe the SNP should re-brand itself as the National Socialist Scottish on-the-Dole Party?
Snorri – you have a point Sir.
WRT the Young Turks, i seem to remember reading that it was a mostly secular movement, and that a disproportionate number of them were probably of Jewish origin. Unfortunately i cannot find the article, but iirc it did not “smell” antisemitic.
bobby b – even by this definition the Jewish government is innocent, it has never killed a Muslim “because they are a Muslim”.
Indeed the Jewish government has the same view as other Western governments – that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other groups, have “misinterpreted” or “twisted” Islam. Which is a religion of peace and tolerance.
I am doubtful as to what the Jewish government or the other Western governments base this view if Islam upon – in relation to either Islamic scriptures (where the later Medina suras take precedence over the earlier Mecca suras) or the life (the deeds) of Muhammed. However, if I write more on this matter I make myself liable to arrest and imprisonment by the authorities in the United Kingdom (where I live).
Snorri – no the Young Turks were not Jewish (although although some of them may have had Jewish ancestors – a great many people do, if one looks back far enough).
Did some of the Young Turk leaders privately have doubts about Islam – I think you are right, they did. That did not stop them using it – and the people who did the physical work of the killings had no such doubts (they were sincere).
Some of the German agents were not Muslim at all (although some of them were) that did not stop them stirring up the Muslim population with promises of wealth and women – promises that had been made for many centuries (as they knew well).
The KGB who created the Palestinian Liberation Organisation were NOT Muslims (although they used them – such as Chairman Arafat) – the KGB were Marxist atheists from the Soviet Union.
The Marxists in the pro genocide marches in Western cities (“Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” – i.e. seven million dead Jews) are not Muslims either – as Marxists (including Critical Theory Herbert Marcuse style Marxists) are atheists – they are not Muslims, although they are happy to use them.
By the way, before anyone points it out, I am aware that Herbert Marcuse and other Frankfurt School Marxists were of Jewish family origin – it is one of the ironies of history that a movement that now seeks to exterminate the Jews (for it hates the “capitalist Jews” of America just as much as the “capitalist Jews” of Israel) was created by people of Jewish origin – and still has leaders of Jewish origin.
The most famous head of the Spanish Inquisition was also of Jewish origin.
Back in the 1960s people from Jewish families rushed to support the Black Panthers in the United States – and the first target of the Black Panthers were Jewish merchants in the cities.
David Horowitz (then a young socialist) got a friend of his to do the accounts of the Black Panthers – when the lady found out that some of the Comrades were stealing from “the movement” they responded by brutally murdering her.
Mr Horowitz complained about the murder – but was told to shut up by his “liberal” (read socialist) friends, as to complain about the murder “undermined the cause”.
Nothing has changed – many people of Jewish origin will be voting for Harris/Walz.
It is difficult to know whether to laugh or weep.
“SNP MSP John Mason has been stripped of the party whip after …”
Figuring out if I have any fucks to give. Uh, No!
Paul marks: if the word people is undefined and I kill a Hamas fighter because he is a Hamas fighter, isn’t it going to be easy to slip that into their new definition of genocide? My point is that they’ve redefined the word to fit whatever circumstance they desire. Redefinition of words seems to be a central weapon in their arsenal.
Why do parties nowadays so often try to force an immediate yes-or-no answer on an issue, proudly insisting that there should be “no debate”, when it is obvious that in that case many of their own supporters are going to answer “no”?
Oh please Miss ! I know !
Because modern political parties tend asymptotically to become the Bolshevik Party. There is in the end only one policy. Obey the Party Line. What use would debate be ? To the extent that many party supporters are going to answer “No”, the requirement to affirm loyalty to the Party Line becomes a magnificently effective tool for purifying the party of anti-party elements. Those who puts their own opinions above that of the party are, ipso facto, traitors and heretics. Expel them !
Though it’s probably unwise to bleat “Expel them !” – for soon the party line will be “Liquidate them !” and you don’t want to be on the wrong side of the Party Line, even retrospectively.
Thee politics of Scotland are always hilarious these days; the continuing implosion of the ridiculous SNP is great fun to watch.
Gaza has nothing to do with Scotland at all and attempting to make that connection only makes Scottish politics that much more of an absurdity.
The politics of Scotland are always hilarious these days; the continuing implosion of the ridiculous SNP is great fun to watch.
Gaza has nothing to do with Scotland at all and attempting to make that connection only makes Scottish politics that much more of an absurdity.
(Sorry. Somehow I’ve managed to post this twice while attempting to correct a typo. My bad!)
Speaking of redefining words, I note that misogyny is to be a terrorist offence. This combines two redefinitions in one short sentence. Terrorism no longer requires a political motive, and misogyny merely means rejecting the party line that women are sublime creatures who must always be deferred to and allowed to do exactly as they please.
Gaza has nothing to do with Scotland at all and attempting to make that connection only makes Scottish politics that much more of an absurdity.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=green+brigade+palestine&t=iphone&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
It’s not just politics and politicians though is it?
Bobby b – good point Sir.
The supporters of tyranny have long had a habit of redefining words.
When I first read the works of Thomas Hobbes (a very long time ago now) I was shocked by how it got words such as “freedom” or “law” or “justice” and stripped them of their traditional content – using these words to mean things that had not meant before, even things that even directly contradicted what the words had meant before he got his hands on them.
Rousseau openly admitted doing this – “learn my language” he said, to understand what he meant. As he often totally changed the meaning of words – for example the general will (“General Will”) no longer meant the opinion of most people (that was the despised “will of all”) the “General Will” meant what people SHOULD believe – even if only Rousseau himself (the “Lawgiver”) actually held an opinion, and everyone else opposed it.
The most dramatic example is how the word “liberal” has been changed – changed from someone who wanted a smaller state to someone who wants a bigger state, indeed a total state.
Even as far back as the 1920s some supporters of the Soviet Union, the worst tyranny on the planet at that time, were calling themselves “liberals” – and getting away with it.
The Collectivists are the children of Plato – not only in their Collectivism, but also in their love of the “noble” lie.
“There can be no room in the SNP for this kind of intolerance.”
LMAO🤣 🤣🤣
dmm – the SNP are defining “intolerance” as NOT wishing to exterminate Jews, in their language “genocide” is what normal people call “resisting genocide” trying to prevent it.
It will not stop in the Middle East and it will not just be Jews – the “educated” classes in the West are riddled with hatred for Western civilisation and have a fanatical desire for the West to be destroyed.
Sadly this is applies to a lot more than just the SNP.
John: “It’s not just politics and politicians though is it?”
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply just politicians but Scottish politics more generally.
Regarding the Green Brigade, it has finally succeeded in ending my long-held “tribal” enthusiasm for Celtic FC (my mother was from Glasgow).
Gaza and Scotland become more similar daily.
A commenter here, Kirk, often says that you can try to change the meaning of words, or say that red is blue, but the underlying thing, the reality, is still there.
And it doesn’t go away and people quickly realize your new use of a word is useless and it is ignored. They return to the underlying thing, the reality.
What Kirk might be missing (might! I do not suppose to know his mind or be smarter than him or anyone else!) is that the “change the words” tactic only works in the short run, but it works long enough for the bastards to win. They win enough votes, enough popular sympathy, enough whatever to prevail.
And once they win completely, they will return to the plain meaning of words and simply tell us “give up, unlock your door, hand over your illegal gun because we are coming for you”.
“They may tek our Lives but they’ll nivver tek us seriously”.
One of the great flaws in the SNP’s thinking is that nobody South of Berwick actually gives a toss.
“40,000” of which, if you take the number at face value (a big ask), roughly 16,000 would be Hamas combatant and the remainder civilians. That is a damn good combatant to civilian death ratio, virtually unprecedented even, particularly when considering love to put rocket launchers on apartment buildings then lock civilians inside so they get some good pictures when there’s inevitably a military strike.
Gaza and Scotland become more similar daily.
Well, hopefully the guys with blue on their faces will not launch a brutal raid on their neighbours any time soon.
Johnathan Pearce.
If what is left of manufacturing and farming are destroyed then people in Britain generally are going to be launching brutal raids on their neighbours.
It is sometimes claimed that Switzerland proves that one can have a society without farming and manufacturing – but, in reality, Switzerland has lots of both.
The United Kingdom is not even in the top ten of manufacturing countries any more – and its farming can only support a small fraction of the population this country now has.
If you build a psuedo-military base under a primary school and use that base to launch a raid to rape, torture, pillage and murder then you are to blame for whatever follows. Whatever. You deserve something Biblical and I am not talking AGM-114 Hellfires. I’m Talking much more Old Testament than that.
JP,
“Well, hopefully the guys with blue on their faces will not launch a brutal raid on their neighbours any time soon.”
Way back. Medieval times. The Porridge Wogs besieged the city of my birth, Newcastle. They threatened to shell the Cathedral and specifically it’s rather spendid lantern spire. So, what did the Geordies do? They marched their PoWs up to the top of the tower and yelled, “Bring it on!” The Devils in Skirts withdrew. I used to have a respect for the Shortbreads but after the SNP… I know Scotsmen have worn skirts for centuries but really Nicola? Really!
And, yes, I know Scotland going Woker than San Fran is not the only issue but Hell’s Teeth! I expected more from the nation of Adam Smith and James Maxwell.
I know I sound deeply Scotophobic here but (a) I’m a Geordie so I make no apologies for taking up a blade against the Jockulent (Ginger) Fringe of these Shittish Isles for it is in my blood and (b) I’m actually more dissapointed than anything. If Scotland really wants true independence then it’s gotta start by stopping blaming the English for everything. A truly independent nation is one that stands for itself and does not define itself by a deranged sense of oppression.
Renton kinda almost got it bang-on. But not quite.
@NickM
And, yes, I know Scotland going Woker than San Fran is not the only issue but Hell’s Teeth! I expected more from the nation of Adam Smith and James Maxwell.
I grew up in Glasgow and I totally agree. It is jaw dropping that the Scottish people, who have always been a very practical, pragmatic people, have got sucked into this utter insanity. But having said that almost every news story I see these days is jaw dropping.
(a) I’m a Geordie so I make no apologies for taking up a blade against the Jockulent
FWIW, I think the Scots would say of the Geordies, “Aye I they’re no too bad, for Englishmen anyway.”
If Scotland really wants true independence then it’s gotta start by stopping blaming the English for everything.
That’s true, and perhaps it explains the changes, after all wokeness is at its core a victimhood cult, and we Scots have been doing that for a few hundred years.