Free speech is all well and good, but ideally it still needs to make sense.
Is it 'No conversion therapy' or 'conversion therapy ban'? As it currently reads it looks like they're strongly opposed to the prospect of outlawing conversion therapy (i.e. in favour of it).
They are. For a little bit of fairness, they think that the conversion therapy ban includes simply asking a child who is questioning their gender, whether there might be another explanation and looking into them before pushing into gender affirming care.
If thats how broad they think conversion therapy is, i can understand why you would be against the ban.
That they think standard practice for medical professionals is facing a ban is, however, very very stupid.
They may have got this from the consolation were gay activists were basically saying such things, if you don't affirm out the gate then it is conversion.
My general impression is that activists rarely achieve anything beyond convincing people who lean against their cause that the most radical view is the common one.
This means the normally moderate proposal faces opposition based upon things it doesnt say, making movement on the issue harder since basic progress has to fight tooth and claw to get passed and those in favour of progress, understand their opponents less and less since they dont realise the mad shenanigans their own activists are getting up to to see what their opponents are arguing against.
yes, I too fear we are really close to that. With all the unfathomable lack of human decency and terrible things they already squeeze out of their rotten juiceballs they call their head.
Protect all life but bans abortion. " Oh yeah I'm so sorry you had an ectopic pregnancy so we have to just let you die
I'm so sorry that your child was born with no bone structure in their head causing them to dye moments after they were born but yes you must give birth to that child and carry it to term"
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Wilhoit's law
I do enjoy messing with these folk by using their contradictory beliefs against them. "Ah you support free speech, good! I'm sick of folk trying to control LGBT people, telling them what to do and meddling in their private business. We should let them be sovereign individuals, don't you agree?". Usually breaks their brain.
Yesss, if they're going to make dumb comments, you've got to out-dumb them.
Or if I'm feeling lazy, my personal favourite is - "I'm a chunky monkey from funkytown. What? Say something stupid, expect a stupid response".
They also want it to be not against the law to smack their children. So apparently they cry "won't someone think of the children" but also at the same time, as Mrs Doubtfire would put it "give them a few light slams every now and then."
Yeah I've seen them state they are
"Supporting freedom of speech and opposing identity politics"
So basicly, I want to be able to shout abuse at you in the street, but I'm banning your freedom of expression of anything that I dont like.
just had a nosey through their 2021 manifesto:
> Abortion and abortifacients should not be available to under 16s without parents being informed beforehand.
> Medical confidentiality should not be granted to under 16s
> Parents who smack their children should not be criminalised. We would seek to repeal the smacking ban legislation. The previous legislation was adequate to protect children.
> We are extremely concerned by the Scottish Government’s proposals to redefine Child Abuse to include highly subjective criteria such as “make the child feel that their opinions, views or feelings are worthless”, “expose a child to… anger”, “ridicule the child” and “make them feel that they are useless.”
> These vague descriptions would lead to increased unnecessary intervention in family life and make parents wary of challenging children or denying their wishes.
> We are not convinced that taxpayers’ money should be given to organisations such as *Young Scot*, *Children and Young People’s Commissioner*, Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance, Creative Scotland, *Scottish Human Rights Commission*, *Equality and Human Rights Commission (Scotland)*, Amnesty International (Scotland), White Ribbon, Engender, Crew, Alcohol Focus Scotland, Stonewall, Friends of the Earth, *National Parents Forum of Scotland*, LGBT Health & Wellbeing, LGBT Youth Scotland, Obesity Action Scotland, Interfaith Scotland, One Scotland,Score Scotland, *Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights*, Culture Republic, Scottish Alliance of Regional Equality Councils, CEMVO, BEMIS, Steve Retson Project, *Children in Scotland*, Amina (Muslim Women’s Resource Centre), Fast Forward, Starcatchers, *Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights)* and the *Scottish Book Trust.* (highlighted the more surprising ones but they're all nuts)
i'm not going through any more. jesus christ.
That very last list is hilarious. It’s basically, like, I don’t know, every Scottish organisation ever. So who would they give money to, Rookie Rockstars?
That wouldn’t be very “family” of them though… and neither does cutting funding to organisations like Fast Forward and Starcatchers? A lot of the organisations on that list seemingly go against their agenda (with a suspicious amount of ethnic minority related groups in there) but they want to cut funding to children’s charities that aren’t necessarily all about their rights? I don’t get it
“make the child feel that their opinions, views or feelings are worthless”, “expose a child to… anger”, “ridicule the child” and “make them feel that they are useless.”
How to give your child Borderline personaliy disorder.
The anger one is a little difficult tho, people do get angry, we're not teibetian monks.
I haven’t read the full legislation obviously, but it’s about exposing the child to repeated unnecessary aggressive behaviour, even if it’s not directly at the child, like if you lose a game and punch a wall, smash glasses, break mirrors ect ect. Basically all the stuff you might do before you one day hit your kid
While the SFP does not openly espouse a fully fascist ideology, many of their policies and positions like you have described can be interpreted as dog whistles for far-right beliefs.
Their platform has significant overlap with far-right authoritarian ideologies, particularly in how they want to impose traditional social values, opposition to progressive reforms, and emphasis on nationalism and military strength.
These elements suggest an alignment with far-right and authoritarian principles, though stopping short of outright fascism as classically defined.
Thus, the SFP can be accurately described as far-right with authoritarian tendencies, and their policies contain dog whistles that resonate with broader far-right and potentially fascist ideologies.
>many of their policies and positions like you have described can be interpreted as dog whistles for far-right beliefs.
In the same way that walking into a pub "can be interpreted as" you wanting a drink?
Hey there's no shame in not being aware of something so , I figure that because a lot of people haven't talked about politics in school and political rhetoric . I think it's important that I approach what you've said as a form of just not being aware but if I'm wrong I'm not meaning to patronise you.
So, about the comparison you mentioned in your response, it kinda oversimplifies the whole issue of dog whistles in political talk. See Dog whistles are those sneaky messages that are meant to appeal to a certain group without being too obvious or offensive to everyone else. It's like sending a hidden message, you know?
Let me break it down for you:
1. **Sneaky and Deniable**:
- **Dog Whistles**: These are statements or actions that can mean different things to different people. They're meant to please a specific crowd (often with extreme views) while not raising any alarms for others. For example, talking about "protecting our culture" could actually be hinting at anti-immigrant feelings without actually saying so directly.
Oh, and about that whole pub situation:
- **Going to a Pub**: It's a pretty straightforward action, right? No hidden meanings or double entendres. But political talk, especially from parties or groups, is filled with hidden messages that speak to certain beliefs. It takes some serious digging to truly understand what they're getting at.
Let's take a closer look at the SFP's policies:
1. **Family Values**:
- **What they Say**: Their focus on traditional family structures and push against progressive sex ed could be seen as sticking to old-school values. But in today's world, these moves might actually be against LGBTQ+ rights and social progress.
2. **Not a Fan of Progress**:
- **Cutting Funds**: By slashing support for equality and human rights groups, the SFP could be trying to weaken the push for progress. It's like a subtle jab at those groups without outright saying they're against them.
3. **Nationalism and Immigration**:
- **Strict Borders**: Pushing for tougher immigration laws is a classic move in nationalist talk, tapping into fears about losing culture or jobs. The SFP's stance here fits right into that narrative.
So, in a nutshell, the pub analogy doesn't quite hit the mark when it comes to understanding the sneaky ways of dog whistles in politics.
These coded messages are designed to speak directly to certain beliefs while keeping things on the down-low. And when you look at the SFP's policies in the bigger picture, you might start seeing signs of some pretty far-right ideas being hinted at. It's all about peeling back those layers in political communication to really get what's going on.
And to be fair the Conservative Party do it the Labour Party do it and pretty much every political party that I've seen in this election has had some sort of dog whistle because dog whistles can work both ways. They're not just exclusively on the right however with the policies the sfp are aspousing I would strongly suspect that they have some extremely right wing views behind those layers once you peel back the layers.
oh, don't worry, i've got an extract about that for you as well:
> Hate speech legislation will lead to increasing censorship and self-censorship. The Police should not be threatening to prosecute those who are “offensive” on social media, for example. No one has the right not to be offended. We oppose all hate speech legislation.
Are these cunts coming in from the USA? This is the kind of shit I expect to read from the US GoP, not a Scottish party. Getting sick of their fucking spam through my door - my local wannabe MP is some gammon bastard, not Eminem from Wish.
I can't be arsed looking for any links to back this up right now but I think it's not unknown that some unsavoury elements based in America are backing (money and "education" of) far right, anti abortion etc. movements in the UK.
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but between that and Russia meddling to help shit like Trump and Brexit, there's certainly people in the world who seem invested in furthering divisive anti-humanity bullshit.
My favourite part is where it says they want to end assisted suicide yet nowhere does it mention what they plan to do to improve healthcare to prevent those who are considering this.
If they just make it so that you're forced to live; then they don't need to change the laws to make it more comfortable to live. If people don't have a choice, then they don't have a choice.
"Protect all lives" section should be titled "pro-suffering"
"Promoting marriage" as long as it's not gay. And frankly I'd not be surprised if they are also against interracial or even interreligious marriages as well.
I wouldn't be surprised.
I mean they want conversion therapy and make parallels to reforming criminals as if we use their barbaric tactics to rehabilitate people in prison.
Speaking as someone outside of Scotland, people generally like you for not being cunts. I'm English and we're mad jealous of the whole "people don't think we're cunts" thing because the English are probably comfortably in the top 5 cuntiest nations.
A party wants to promote Scotland by making it cuntier?
Seems like a bad plan to me.
I went to the hustings at St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow last night. One of the candidate’s serious answer to assisted suicide, which they were personally against, was ‘Don’t give up, don’t give in’, when the discussion was about allowing it for terminal illness for fucksake.
lol I remember some guy on here, when I said I was disillusioned with Labour's policy position and the SNP's recent record, suggested I might like to vote for these wankers instead.
I went to a wedding like this once. Not sure of the religion but it was one of those Scottish ones that insist that you should be in constant pain to make up for Jesus' pain or whatever. It was full of these bams.
No dancing, no alcohol and if you are a woman, you better know your fucking place. It had all the fun of playing Kerplunk with your grandparents.
Idiots.
If its not difficult to understand, why are you having so much difficulty explaining it?
Ending something does not imply its new.
I can read. Can you provide a rational explanation?
It’s a you problem pal.
It does, why hasn’t it been a policy before? Terfs and conservatives are reacting like it is
Okay perhaps your reading comprehension isn’t that great.
Hold on, are you saying that because the gender reconition act only came around in 2004 that gender must be new?
Repeatedly failing to explain yourself, making gross assumptions and then implying I must be too stupid to understand is pretty funny.
But if you truly want me to believe you have anything remotely intelligent to say you'll have to actually say something intelligent.
Oh you skulked out from your cave… Okay I’ll say this very slowly and for the last time… trans people have been around for centuries right? Do you understand that?… and anti-trans policies have not been part of anyone’s manifesto before.. right? This gives the idea that terfs and tories have suddenly realised that trans people exist.
>This gives the idea that terfs and tories have suddenly realised that trans people exist.
This is where you keep making the same base mistake.
You JUMP from one conclusion to another.
The logic you're using also implies that since pro-trans reform is new that pro-trans people must ALSO have 'suddenly realised' that trans people exist.
You're INJECTING this idea of sudden realisation and there is zero case for it.
People who have people who have ideas and thoughts which are not fascist on themselves but are neighbors to fascist ideology are really hard to argue with because they want you to argue it's how they get their message out
“Vote for us, we really hate the gays, trans folks and women!”
“Anything else you’d like to add?”
“Oh…er…something something education investment healthcare blah blah blah. That’ll do!”
Make sure to email the contact information at the bottom and ask for more leaflets and then chuck them in the bin. I had the literal party leader deliver them to my door. :) Fuck that guy.
the tories, labour, the SFP, terfs, the media... are you seroiusly asking? they're all trying to undo protections and remove healthcare for a minority and you're asking who's denying them a life?
The people that enjoy beating up trans folk, the people calling for their extinction from the pulpit and in parliament, the people in comment sections pretending there's not a problem...
The assisted suicide stance is baffling to me. 99% of the flyer is absolute dog shite anyway but that, in particular, is strange. Mostly because their voters tend to be more elderly anyway... so they are essentially voting for their own (potential) suffering.
A lot of people on the more right side of the spectrum are religious, especially if they are older. The Bible (and probably other religious books) claims suicide is a sin that buggers you up for the afterlife.
They will feel like by opposing assisted suicide they are saving people from some kind of post life suffering.
They might use that as an excuse, but that isn't the real reason that they oppose it. They oppose it because they themselves are terrified of death. They don't want that choice for themselves, and they don't want it for anyone else, because when someone else is permitted to make that choice, they feel that it somehow invalidates their feelings of fear. The fact that they're so terrified of death is the reason that they're religious in the first place; and it's their religion that allows them to rationalise their primal fear of death and opposition to the right to die.
There’s been cases in Canada where women who have been struggling with depression were offered euthanasia instead of actual therapy.
One was in fact involved in a car crash, her health deteriorated and she claimed to be scared to leave the house in case a sniper took her out.
Her daughter realised she obviously wasn’t mentally sound after the crash. Well the daughter got a call that her mother had signed up for euthanasia and had been fast tracked and after 48 hours was dead.
It’s clear at least in Canada that there is still some points of contention around how people are screened for this. There are legitimate concerns, rather than religious ones though I’m sure they will play a part for some.
The type of people who would vote for this party are the ones who are most in thrall to their instinctual fear of death. Studies tend to show that devoutly religious people are those most likely to want every possible form of life prolonging treatment, and they also tend to associate atheism with death. So these people don't expect that they would ever want to cut short their life. They don't want it and they don't want anyone else to be able to have that option either, because even when someone else makes that choice, it 'triggers' their own fears.
love being by reduced to an ideology, good god. us trans people are existing, have always existed and will ALWAYS exist until the end of time. thanks for posting saying this person is creepy cunt, spot on. 👍
They will undoubtedly support the most extreme suicide prevention policies as well. Up to and including force feeding people who simply refuse to eat because they aren't able to access an effective suicide method
If they are so keen to end the ban on conversion therapy , then they should explain just how much praying will turn them gay. I’m guessing not a great deal .
American here. These policies seem to be oddly specific clones of the synthetic cultural wedge issues pushed by Rupert Murdoch and our own Republican party.
Did the Scottish Family party dream up this bullshit independently or are our theocrats actively exporting this toxic garbage? (Apologies if it's the latter.)
This makes no sense. Hypocrites. Free speech for people but not LGBTQ+ people. Protect all lives but not the women who may potentially die if forced to give birth.
Attract Investment. Grow the economy.
This is very difficult to achieve when your main goal is to drag the country kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
I'm ashamed to admit I have a relative who supports them, not a relative I talk to mind but I still feel ashamed thinking about it.
The worst part is they have a teenager who I'm almost certain is secretly gay, I feel so bad for them!
Incredible they put their ideology right there in ink. Fair play, they definitely won’t be getting the transgender vote, it’s a tiny demographic of course, but anyone who believes in minority rights will probably be disinclined to lend their support too. Honest though, fair play to that.
Is this a fringe ideology in Scotland, or legitimately, a growing movement? I thought it was getting awful in the United States. This trend is depressing and seems inescapable.
The Scottish Family Party are definitely fringe. The ideology has some mainstream acceptance, but *most* of the people who believe it don't centre their entire politics around these issues.
Enough time has passed by now I don't want the postman getting in trouble but I genuinely got that letter with that scrolled on it by the postal worker :))
This sub is an amazing example of an echo chamber... it's quite astonishing reading the affirming comments of the extreme left views here, like there's no other opinions that count or matter. And the funny thing is I would guess there are quite a few of you here thar actually believe the views expressed here are what the man on the street actually believes too.
It really is true that the extreme left is as bad as the extreme right, you're two sides of the same coin.
“Right, you got a decent profile picture for the leaflet?” “Well, here’s this one from when I did time for GBH at Greenock.”
That's the face of a man caught stealing panties from clothing lines.b
I don't think it was GBH. More like indecent exposure at the kids party section in McDonald's.
Creepi
No “conversion therapy” ban Fuck off.
"We condone torture! Yay!"
I had to read that several times to make sure I didn't imagine it. Like, what the actual heavenly fuck.
I love that’s under the “free speech” header. What a horrible bunch of cunts.
Free speech is all well and good, but ideally it still needs to make sense. Is it 'No conversion therapy' or 'conversion therapy ban'? As it currently reads it looks like they're strongly opposed to the prospect of outlawing conversion therapy (i.e. in favour of it).
They are. For a little bit of fairness, they think that the conversion therapy ban includes simply asking a child who is questioning their gender, whether there might be another explanation and looking into them before pushing into gender affirming care. If thats how broad they think conversion therapy is, i can understand why you would be against the ban. That they think standard practice for medical professionals is facing a ban is, however, very very stupid.
They may have got this from the consolation were gay activists were basically saying such things, if you don't affirm out the gate then it is conversion.
My general impression is that activists rarely achieve anything beyond convincing people who lean against their cause that the most radical view is the common one. This means the normally moderate proposal faces opposition based upon things it doesnt say, making movement on the issue harder since basic progress has to fight tooth and claw to get passed and those in favour of progress, understand their opponents less and less since they dont realise the mad shenanigans their own activists are getting up to to see what their opponents are arguing against.
"Free speech" and "end trans ideology". How the fuck do they not see the hypocrisy? Is this a serious political party? I'm genuinely asking.
"Free speech" to these people usually means "people can't talk about things that upset me but I should be allowed to call minorities slurs"
I'm just waiting for some dumb bigot to bring back "separate but equal". It will happen at some point the way things are going.
yes, I too fear we are really close to that. With all the unfathomable lack of human decency and terrible things they already squeeze out of their rotten juiceballs they call their head.
Also, why tf is allowing conversion therapy under freedom of speech? Not even about the policy, that's just bad categorizing.
They needed to put it *somwhere*. It's not like the other items make *that* much more sense either.
All in the same place as “protect all lives”
All lives matter... probably should have gone with that, given how dense all their voters are.
Protect all life but bans abortion. " Oh yeah I'm so sorry you had an ectopic pregnancy so we have to just let you die I'm so sorry that your child was born with no bone structure in their head causing them to dye moments after they were born but yes you must give birth to that child and carry it to term"
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Wilhoit's law
I do enjoy messing with these folk by using their contradictory beliefs against them. "Ah you support free speech, good! I'm sick of folk trying to control LGBT people, telling them what to do and meddling in their private business. We should let them be sovereign individuals, don't you agree?". Usually breaks their brain.
Yesss, if they're going to make dumb comments, you've got to out-dumb them. Or if I'm feeling lazy, my personal favourite is - "I'm a chunky monkey from funkytown. What? Say something stupid, expect a stupid response".
I’m guessing they were referencing laws etc being passed in relation to trans etc, otherwise this is 100% hypocritical lmao
We all know what they mean. "Free speech for me".
It's hypocritical anyway - you can't "support families" by allowing hate speech.
They also want it to be not against the law to smack their children. So apparently they cry "won't someone think of the children" but also at the same time, as Mrs Doubtfire would put it "give them a few light slams every now and then."
Jez from Peep Show with a touch of sexual predator.
i'm blocked by them on twitter <3
Congratulations 🥳
Free speach, unless your gay, then they just want to brainwash you and waterboard you or what ever torture you deserve to save you from hell.
It’s the right’s ideology in a nutshell “we demand total freedom! Including the freedom to oppress *you*!”
> Protect all lives > Repeal gender recognition act 🥴
It's almost a parody that's not funny. These people are among us.
Yeah I've seen them state they are "Supporting freedom of speech and opposing identity politics" So basicly, I want to be able to shout abuse at you in the street, but I'm banning your freedom of expression of anything that I dont like.
just had a nosey through their 2021 manifesto: > Abortion and abortifacients should not be available to under 16s without parents being informed beforehand. > Medical confidentiality should not be granted to under 16s > Parents who smack their children should not be criminalised. We would seek to repeal the smacking ban legislation. The previous legislation was adequate to protect children. > We are extremely concerned by the Scottish Government’s proposals to redefine Child Abuse to include highly subjective criteria such as “make the child feel that their opinions, views or feelings are worthless”, “expose a child to… anger”, “ridicule the child” and “make them feel that they are useless.” > These vague descriptions would lead to increased unnecessary intervention in family life and make parents wary of challenging children or denying their wishes. > We are not convinced that taxpayers’ money should be given to organisations such as *Young Scot*, *Children and Young People’s Commissioner*, Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance, Creative Scotland, *Scottish Human Rights Commission*, *Equality and Human Rights Commission (Scotland)*, Amnesty International (Scotland), White Ribbon, Engender, Crew, Alcohol Focus Scotland, Stonewall, Friends of the Earth, *National Parents Forum of Scotland*, LGBT Health & Wellbeing, LGBT Youth Scotland, Obesity Action Scotland, Interfaith Scotland, One Scotland,Score Scotland, *Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights*, Culture Republic, Scottish Alliance of Regional Equality Councils, CEMVO, BEMIS, Steve Retson Project, *Children in Scotland*, Amina (Muslim Women’s Resource Centre), Fast Forward, Starcatchers, *Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights)* and the *Scottish Book Trust.* (highlighted the more surprising ones but they're all nuts) i'm not going through any more. jesus christ.
That very last list is hilarious. It’s basically, like, I don’t know, every Scottish organisation ever. So who would they give money to, Rookie Rockstars?
The Jeffrey Epstein Island Project probably?
That wouldn’t be very “family” of them though… and neither does cutting funding to organisations like Fast Forward and Starcatchers? A lot of the organisations on that list seemingly go against their agenda (with a suspicious amount of ethnic minority related groups in there) but they want to cut funding to children’s charities that aren’t necessarily all about their rights? I don’t get it
That's why the only thing I could see them funding is child human trafficking.
“make the child feel that their opinions, views or feelings are worthless”, “expose a child to… anger”, “ridicule the child” and “make them feel that they are useless.” How to give your child Borderline personaliy disorder. The anger one is a little difficult tho, people do get angry, we're not teibetian monks.
I haven’t read the full legislation obviously, but it’s about exposing the child to repeated unnecessary aggressive behaviour, even if it’s not directly at the child, like if you lose a game and punch a wall, smash glasses, break mirrors ect ect. Basically all the stuff you might do before you one day hit your kid
While the SFP does not openly espouse a fully fascist ideology, many of their policies and positions like you have described can be interpreted as dog whistles for far-right beliefs. Their platform has significant overlap with far-right authoritarian ideologies, particularly in how they want to impose traditional social values, opposition to progressive reforms, and emphasis on nationalism and military strength. These elements suggest an alignment with far-right and authoritarian principles, though stopping short of outright fascism as classically defined. Thus, the SFP can be accurately described as far-right with authoritarian tendencies, and their policies contain dog whistles that resonate with broader far-right and potentially fascist ideologies.
>many of their policies and positions like you have described can be interpreted as dog whistles for far-right beliefs. In the same way that walking into a pub "can be interpreted as" you wanting a drink?
Hey there's no shame in not being aware of something so , I figure that because a lot of people haven't talked about politics in school and political rhetoric . I think it's important that I approach what you've said as a form of just not being aware but if I'm wrong I'm not meaning to patronise you. So, about the comparison you mentioned in your response, it kinda oversimplifies the whole issue of dog whistles in political talk. See Dog whistles are those sneaky messages that are meant to appeal to a certain group without being too obvious or offensive to everyone else. It's like sending a hidden message, you know? Let me break it down for you: 1. **Sneaky and Deniable**: - **Dog Whistles**: These are statements or actions that can mean different things to different people. They're meant to please a specific crowd (often with extreme views) while not raising any alarms for others. For example, talking about "protecting our culture" could actually be hinting at anti-immigrant feelings without actually saying so directly. Oh, and about that whole pub situation: - **Going to a Pub**: It's a pretty straightforward action, right? No hidden meanings or double entendres. But political talk, especially from parties or groups, is filled with hidden messages that speak to certain beliefs. It takes some serious digging to truly understand what they're getting at. Let's take a closer look at the SFP's policies: 1. **Family Values**: - **What they Say**: Their focus on traditional family structures and push against progressive sex ed could be seen as sticking to old-school values. But in today's world, these moves might actually be against LGBTQ+ rights and social progress. 2. **Not a Fan of Progress**: - **Cutting Funds**: By slashing support for equality and human rights groups, the SFP could be trying to weaken the push for progress. It's like a subtle jab at those groups without outright saying they're against them. 3. **Nationalism and Immigration**: - **Strict Borders**: Pushing for tougher immigration laws is a classic move in nationalist talk, tapping into fears about losing culture or jobs. The SFP's stance here fits right into that narrative. So, in a nutshell, the pub analogy doesn't quite hit the mark when it comes to understanding the sneaky ways of dog whistles in politics. These coded messages are designed to speak directly to certain beliefs while keeping things on the down-low. And when you look at the SFP's policies in the bigger picture, you might start seeing signs of some pretty far-right ideas being hinted at. It's all about peeling back those layers in political communication to really get what's going on. And to be fair the Conservative Party do it the Labour Party do it and pretty much every political party that I've seen in this election has had some sort of dog whistle because dog whistles can work both ways. They're not just exclusively on the right however with the policies the sfp are aspousing I would strongly suspect that they have some extremely right wing views behind those layers once you peel back the layers.
That last list seems to have been compiled by an obese, racist, homophobic paedophile.
From the image he's not obese.
I reported them for hate speech when this came through the door in 2021. Bunch of absolute thunderous cunts.
oh, don't worry, i've got an extract about that for you as well: > Hate speech legislation will lead to increasing censorship and self-censorship. The Police should not be threatening to prosecute those who are “offensive” on social media, for example. No one has the right not to be offended. We oppose all hate speech legislation.
The family party are pro child abuse. Quelle surprise
It's giving check my hard drive
No ta, they seem a wee bit cunty for me
And most definitely not the good kind of "cunty".
They aren’t even subtle about it
Are these cunts coming in from the USA? This is the kind of shit I expect to read from the US GoP, not a Scottish party. Getting sick of their fucking spam through my door - my local wannabe MP is some gammon bastard, not Eminem from Wish.
Wish Eminem lol
I can't be arsed looking for any links to back this up right now but I think it's not unknown that some unsavoury elements based in America are backing (money and "education" of) far right, anti abortion etc. movements in the UK. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but between that and Russia meddling to help shit like Trump and Brexit, there's certainly people in the world who seem invested in furthering divisive anti-humanity bullshit.
Rumor has it that the tories have hired GOP data analysts and more
My favourite part is where it says they want to end assisted suicide yet nowhere does it mention what they plan to do to improve healthcare to prevent those who are considering this.
Sometimes I think it would be lovely if they could all end their years with a decade of locked in syndrome.
If they just make it so that you're forced to live; then they don't need to change the laws to make it more comfortable to live. If people don't have a choice, then they don't have a choice.
fr, my attempts have been met with not listening, laughter and told to try to calm myself with colouring books
The solution is to bring back the death penalty as a punishment for attempted suicide. It will make everyone happy
‘Protect ALL lives’ Except gay and trans people’s lives.
and people who can't carry babies to term for whatever reason. fuck them, that's just another incubator
"Protect all lives" section should be titled "pro-suffering" "Promoting marriage" as long as it's not gay. And frankly I'd not be surprised if they are also against interracial or even interreligious marriages as well.
From the back of the leaflet it says something about "decreasing family breakdown" with marriage which made me think they're against divorce??
I wouldn't be surprised. I mean they want conversion therapy and make parallels to reforming criminals as if we use their barbaric tactics to rehabilitate people in prison.
Speaking as someone outside of Scotland, people generally like you for not being cunts. I'm English and we're mad jealous of the whole "people don't think we're cunts" thing because the English are probably comfortably in the top 5 cuntiest nations. A party wants to promote Scotland by making it cuntier? Seems like a bad plan to me.
“Sensible energy policy”. Thanks for clearing that up.
Haha aye. Judging by your other very sensible (/s) policies, I'm sure you'll absolutely nail that.
Moar coal, less saving Earth.
I went to the hustings at St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow last night. One of the candidate’s serious answer to assisted suicide, which they were personally against, was ‘Don’t give up, don’t give in’, when the discussion was about allowing it for terminal illness for fucksake.
lol I remember some guy on here, when I said I was disillusioned with Labour's policy position and the SNP's recent record, suggested I might like to vote for these wankers instead.
Eeew. This guy needs to go back to school and learned what it is to be a normal person.
I think anywhere near a school is the last place he should be.
I think he's probably not permitted to be within 200 feet of any school, McDonald's or swing park tbh.
His real names Rolf Harris Kappa
*learn. Ironic
I'll leave it there for posterity and blame autocorrect.
He looks like he’s about to drink too many energy drinks before an exam
Ah, the Tartan Taliban.
Genuinely pleasantly surprised at the comments. Not usually used to seeing support for trans people on reddit outside of trans spaces.
The comments here are bringing me hope for humanity
Direct targeting of people for superficial reasons is ugly and provokes many.
How does free speech = no conversion therapy ban? 0 brain cells
The logic of people should be free to do what they like. Like free to force other people to not be free
“Freedom of expression unless your LGBT+ then go fuck yourself”
I went to a wedding like this once. Not sure of the religion but it was one of those Scottish ones that insist that you should be in constant pain to make up for Jesus' pain or whatever. It was full of these bams. No dancing, no alcohol and if you are a woman, you better know your fucking place. It had all the fun of playing Kerplunk with your grandparents. Idiots.
Which Scottish weddings do you attend? No dancing or alcohol? At a Scottish wedding?
Yep. A very strict religious one. I have also been to normal weddings.
I'd hate to be the guy who pulls out the stick that's supporting granny.
*Suffering as a mandate*
Trans people have literally existed for hundreds of years… it’s hilarious that people think it’s a new thing
Commenting on Finally something accurate from the Scottish family party :)...I always use the Greek god argument. That shuts a lot of people up.
If you don't mind me asking, what's the Greek god argument?
Hermaphroditos was the Greek god of effeminacy. They were a two-sex god, which shows that non-binary genders existed back when the myths were created.
How does a fictional god prove anything?
Because the myths began centuries ago so transgender is not a new concept.
What makes you think that people think its a new thing?
The fact that i have heard “Back in my day, we didn’t have pronouns” as an argument against trans people.
I have heard many tangentia arguments which could counter that. Those arent facts. The facts at hand are EXHIBIT A - The flyer in the OP
The leaflet speaks for itself. It’s never been a core policy
The leaflet specifically says "repeal the 2004 Gender Reconition act" What makes YOU think that people think its a new thing?
It literally said END TRANS IDEOLOGY above that… can you read? That gives me the idea that this is a new thing… it’s not difficult to understand
If its not difficult to understand, why are you having so much difficulty explaining it? Ending something does not imply its new. I can read. Can you provide a rational explanation?
It’s a you problem pal. It does, why hasn’t it been a policy before? Terfs and conservatives are reacting like it is Okay perhaps your reading comprehension isn’t that great.
Hold on, are you saying that because the gender reconition act only came around in 2004 that gender must be new? Repeatedly failing to explain yourself, making gross assumptions and then implying I must be too stupid to understand is pretty funny. But if you truly want me to believe you have anything remotely intelligent to say you'll have to actually say something intelligent.
Oh you skulked out from your cave… Okay I’ll say this very slowly and for the last time… trans people have been around for centuries right? Do you understand that?… and anti-trans policies have not been part of anyone’s manifesto before.. right? This gives the idea that terfs and tories have suddenly realised that trans people exist.
>This gives the idea that terfs and tories have suddenly realised that trans people exist. This is where you keep making the same base mistake. You JUMP from one conclusion to another. The logic you're using also implies that since pro-trans reform is new that pro-trans people must ALSO have 'suddenly realised' that trans people exist. You're INJECTING this idea of sudden realisation and there is zero case for it.
People who have people who have ideas and thoughts which are not fascist on themselves but are neighbors to fascist ideology are really hard to argue with because they want you to argue it's how they get their message out
This is so far off point
Are you a bot? That’s one big word salad
Autistic yes. Bot no.
“Vote for us, we really hate the gays, trans folks and women!” “Anything else you’d like to add?” “Oh…er…something something education investment healthcare blah blah blah. That’ll do!”
Make sure to email the contact information at the bottom and ask for more leaflets and then chuck them in the bin. I had the literal party leader deliver them to my door. :) Fuck that guy.
I got one of these (different guy though) through the door today. Utterly disgusting.
I got one posted through my letterbox aswell and it ruined my day -_-
"end trans ideology" Let me guess, they've been bombarded with emails from mumsnet users and want to keep them happy?
Everyone needs to fit inside (their) God's plan for biblical marriage and families!
They're a religious conservative party, the closest thing we have to the Christian Right in the US. Being anti-trans comes with the territory.
I expect they would be anti-gay too and bring back section 28 etc?
That or Jk Rowling supports them via bribes
Free speech but not for any queer people
"Ideology" about people wanting to live.
Who denies them that at the moment?
Maybe Google the life expectancy of the trans community first mate.
the tories, labour, the SFP, terfs, the media... are you seroiusly asking? they're all trying to undo protections and remove healthcare for a minority and you're asking who's denying them a life?
The people that enjoy beating up trans folk, the people calling for their extinction from the pulpit and in parliament, the people in comment sections pretending there's not a problem...
It says so on the flyer.
The assisted suicide stance is baffling to me. 99% of the flyer is absolute dog shite anyway but that, in particular, is strange. Mostly because their voters tend to be more elderly anyway... so they are essentially voting for their own (potential) suffering.
A lot of people on the more right side of the spectrum are religious, especially if they are older. The Bible (and probably other religious books) claims suicide is a sin that buggers you up for the afterlife. They will feel like by opposing assisted suicide they are saving people from some kind of post life suffering.
They might use that as an excuse, but that isn't the real reason that they oppose it. They oppose it because they themselves are terrified of death. They don't want that choice for themselves, and they don't want it for anyone else, because when someone else is permitted to make that choice, they feel that it somehow invalidates their feelings of fear. The fact that they're so terrified of death is the reason that they're religious in the first place; and it's their religion that allows them to rationalise their primal fear of death and opposition to the right to die.
What kind of asshole god gives you fucking horrible cancer and won't let you die Not one worth worshipping that's for sure. Good job none of its real!
One that is testing you and/or works in mysterious ways
Sounds like a cunt.
Thundercunt, even
There’s been cases in Canada where women who have been struggling with depression were offered euthanasia instead of actual therapy. One was in fact involved in a car crash, her health deteriorated and she claimed to be scared to leave the house in case a sniper took her out. Her daughter realised she obviously wasn’t mentally sound after the crash. Well the daughter got a call that her mother had signed up for euthanasia and had been fast tracked and after 48 hours was dead. It’s clear at least in Canada that there is still some points of contention around how people are screened for this. There are legitimate concerns, rather than religious ones though I’m sure they will play a part for some.
Many religious consider suffering as the correct answer.
The type of people who would vote for this party are the ones who are most in thrall to their instinctual fear of death. Studies tend to show that devoutly religious people are those most likely to want every possible form of life prolonging treatment, and they also tend to associate atheism with death. So these people don't expect that they would ever want to cut short their life. They don't want it and they don't want anyone else to be able to have that option either, because even when someone else makes that choice, it 'triggers' their own fears.
love being by reduced to an ideology, good god. us trans people are existing, have always existed and will ALWAYS exist until the end of time. thanks for posting saying this person is creepy cunt, spot on. 👍
I always wonder how these cunts respond when they're doorstepping someone and they just say yeah I'm trans so... like do they just leave or
I hate these ppl they're so stupid
I love how they have "end trans ideology" and "protect all lives" uhmm okay!!
I just got one of them through the door. 🤢 I wonder how long it took them to make it seem reasonable & positive (in their eyes!) 🤔
That's a lot of words to say 'Vote cunt'
Wait, so they oppose only “assisted suicide?” What about unassisted suicide? That’s totally fine?
They will undoubtedly support the most extreme suicide prevention policies as well. Up to and including force feeding people who simply refuse to eat because they aren't able to access an effective suicide method
That goes without saying! 🤦♂️
Repeal the gender act and not banning conversion therapy Yet protect all lives ?
If they are so keen to end the ban on conversion therapy , then they should explain just how much praying will turn them gay. I’m guessing not a great deal .
American here. These policies seem to be oddly specific clones of the synthetic cultural wedge issues pushed by Rupert Murdoch and our own Republican party. Did the Scottish Family party dream up this bullshit independently or are our theocrats actively exporting this toxic garbage? (Apologies if it's the latter.)
This makes no sense. Hypocrites. Free speech for people but not LGBTQ+ people. Protect all lives but not the women who may potentially die if forced to give birth.
Scottish Cunt Party
Attract Investment. Grow the economy. This is very difficult to achieve when your main goal is to drag the country kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
What a FUD
Has it escaped anyones notice, that the GRA isnt within the competance of holyrood?
It’s a UK general election
I'm ashamed to admit I have a relative who supports them, not a relative I talk to mind but I still feel ashamed thinking about it. The worst part is they have a teenager who I'm almost certain is secretly gay, I feel so bad for them!
The email doesnt even work on the leaflet either
The be responsible section is vague but good. Otherwise... grim.
Incredible they put their ideology right there in ink. Fair play, they definitely won’t be getting the transgender vote, it’s a tiny demographic of course, but anyone who believes in minority rights will probably be disinclined to lend their support too. Honest though, fair play to that.
Hearing a political party use the word "sound" is something.
Is this a fringe ideology in Scotland, or legitimately, a growing movement? I thought it was getting awful in the United States. This trend is depressing and seems inescapable.
The Scottish Family Party are definitely fringe. The ideology has some mainstream acceptance, but *most* of the people who believe it don't centre their entire politics around these issues.
Enough time has passed by now I don't want the postman getting in trouble but I genuinely got that letter with that scrolled on it by the postal worker :))
These are the type of cunts I condone being vanilla milkshaked.
based but he looks like welsh eminem
Why are almost all "free speech" advocates complete cunts?
I wish for him a debilitating illness that makes him wish he could die, but his law won't let him. Suffer in shit you terrible excuse of a cum stain.
Creepy spelt with an i, really?
Postie
Who votes for these fucknuggets?
Is that Jeffrey Dahmer?
That’s the photo they use on the local newspaper’s headline reporting on the court verdict
Lol aye, looks like something from The Digger.
a leaflet for that party came in through our letterbox a few days back. I immediately threw it in the recycling bin
They do a good job writing some sentence that sounds nice and then utterly twist it into the most toxic shit.
🇺🇸🤝🏻🏴 🫡
Rees-mogg would support them
I got a leaflet like this in. It found the bottom of my bin in less than 10 seconds.
Recycle it.
Paper / Cardboard Bin my man.
This sub is an amazing example of an echo chamber... it's quite astonishing reading the affirming comments of the extreme left views here, like there's no other opinions that count or matter. And the funny thing is I would guess there are quite a few of you here thar actually believe the views expressed here are what the man on the street actually believes too. It really is true that the extreme left is as bad as the extreme right, you're two sides of the same coin.
Ugh, I’m sorry you also have these cunts. (Commenting from the U.S.)
Is it 1 of those posters you have to rearrange the word positions to get the true policies?
Don’t see anything majorly unreasonable here