IT was interesting to read about the First Minister chairing an abortion summit in Edinburgh that seeks to re-affirm a woman’s right to choose whilst the consistently controversial MSP John Mason vociferously espouses an alternative view.
Mr Mason, not surprisingly for those who have encountered him previously, believes that the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v Wade ruling is “good for democracy”. This places him firmly in the same camp as former President Trump and his followers in celebrating a decision that transparently attacks women’s rights and opens the way to further erosion of human rights for individuals and groups within the USA.
READ MORE: SNP MSP criticised for supporting Supreme Court abortion decision
One of the Supreme Court judges, Justice Thomas, now wishes the court to reconsider the rights of individuals to have access to contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage. This represents a long-standing right-wing fundamentalist agenda that seeks to curtail widespread and hard-fought social liberties and turn the clock back to a blinkered and bigoted age of discrimination and legalised prejudice.
In short, considering his previous homophobic and misogynistic utterances and attendance at anti- abortion vigils outside hospitals, the MSP for Shettleston appears to support these paleoconservative views that are not welcome in the Scottish independence movement or amongst most reasonable people.
READ MORE: Glasgow and Edinburgh should introduce buffer zones, Nicola Sturgeon says
His adherence to extreme religious fundamentalism appears to be intolerant, unfair and out of touch with the basic rights and freedoms we would expect to enjoy in a modern democratic state. He has been something of an embarrassment to his party and leader for some time now and his contention that the SNP is a broad church with a plethora of different views cannot disguise his immoderate and frankly distasteful opinions, which are more in line with the Taliban than an egalitarian, representative democratic state.
Individuals with views like the puritanical Mr Mason would be more at home in the DUP or Reform UK. He should resign from the SNP and reconsider his political future.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
I GUESS I wouldn’t look to someone who had surrendered their critical faculty to religious mythology for logic or consistency. Mr Mason confirms my assessment.
His assessment that the Supreme Court’s decision is “good for democracy”, because decisions are devolved from the federal to the state level, is flawed. The logical extension of his “reasoning” is that the decision should be further devolved to the individual woman who is freed to make a choice that is the business of no other.
Yep. Religious mythology and logic are not natural bedfellows.
Archie Drummond
Tillicoultry
READ MORE: Roe v Wade news proves now is the time to take action against anti-abortion 'vigils'
SPEAKING as a reasonably well-educated lover of language, I am wilting under the pressure of abusive evolution.
Obviously language changes over time, through usage, innovation, invention, social development etc etc. I have no problem with the fact that we no longer share the vocabulary of Chaucer and refer to shepherds as “shitten,” but I do object, and strongly, to adaptation through ignorance.
I have long deplored the seeming inability of degree-qualified radio presenters to understand the function and meaning of the preposition where, typically, “to” is substituted for “by”, especially when referring to the losing side in a football match: it is right up there alongside the fact that most politicians seem to have no idea what the meaning of the word “question” is.
Over the years during which a major part of my job was to precis the contents of reports on events composed by people who had a distressing tendency to appropriate polysyllabic words, of which they clearly had no idea of the meaning, and beat them to death, I thought retirement might relieve me of that frustration. But no, I am daily bombarded with words which must be utterly bewildered by their enforced insertion in the wrong place, the wrong context and the wrong definition.
The latest is the word “reticence” (Letters, June 27)! Please print a banner headline stating, “RETICENCE IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR RELUCTANCE” and relieve me of at least a modicum of exasperation.
I know that you edit letters: you have occasionally shortened some of mine, and may yet do so with this one. Could you not perhaps employ someone who actually has a command of the language and eradicate these errors?
Les Hunter
Lanark
SEAGULLS can be aggressive but although I have some sympathy with Edward Burns (Letters, Jun 26) I have no wish to see “thousands drop down dead”. I think when you look at factory farming procedures as just one example, our treatment of cattle, sheep, chickens etc is barbaric. We have no need to extend our cruelty to seagulls as well. Perhaps Mr Burns would calm himself down by taking time to reflect on which species is rapidly killing our planet. It is certainly not seagulls (which are in fact highly intelligent)!
Alan Woodcock
Dundee
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