‘That’s just how democracy works’

ONE of the strangest aspects of the three-day debate on the new anti-discrimination legislation was the way so many deputies spent much of their time wailing about alleged bullying by equality campaigners.

I say strange because, unless I am living in a parallel universe, 99% of that campaigning was both civilised and restrained.

Very restrained given the very real prospect that the anti-discrimination law the States had promised for so very long could have been about to go for a burton. That would have been the effect of several of the amendments laid against the law.

Had they been passed, the law would have been a pale shadow of its unamended self. No wonder campaigners were beside themselves with worry, and even anger. They had a decade or more of passionate and genuine concern for Guernsey’s most vulnerable invested in this debate.

So I want to speak up for them, because I think they have been traduced, even though I definitely don’t excuse any bullying, rudeness or threatening behaviour. I will come on to that in a moment but first let’s talk about what doesn’t qualify as bullying.

I was astonished to hear bitter complaints from some of my fellow deputies because some campaigners had seemingly urged others to ‘never vote for these deputies again’. So what? It’s surely a perfectly legitimate articulation of political disagreement.

Similar sentiments have been expressed about me on countless occasions. So often it’s a wonder I have survived in politics. Whenever such comments are made I always think, ‘fair enough – that’s just how democracy works’.

Candidates offer themselves for election explaining their policies and their political philosophy. Voters take a look at that smorgasbord and make their selection. And in the case of sitting deputies one of the factors they take into account is how those deputies have voted on matters they care about in the past.

It is inherent to democracy that however decent, talented or able a politician may be, if they are too far out of kilter with public opinion they get the old heave-ho. Of course I never wanted to lose my seat (that would be perverse) but I have always accepted that possibility. It goes with the territory. So when threatened with ‘I/we will never vote for you again’, I have always thought ‘that’s reasonable, why should they if I don’t sufficiently reflect their views’.

Of course I couldn’t see all of the interaction between deputies and the public so there may have been some inappropriate stuff being said. In which case I heartily condemn it, but personally I saw little evidence of it. Quite the opposite. It all seemed very polite and respectful.

Certainly any grief that might have given was very minor compared to some of the vile abuse and threats made to colleagues and their families at the time of the great ‘two school debate’. And yet some of those complaining loudest last week didn’t really seem that perturbed back then.

And compared to some of the real bile spouted by a minority of anti-abortion campaigners back in the 90s any possible bullying in relation to the anti-discrimination law was so mild that only the most delicate of snowflakes would worry about it. Where did all this excessively thin skin suddenly come from?

After all, the things that did seem to cause such great offence were hardly extreme. While personally I would never seek to undermine the legitimacy of any ‘stale, white, males’ (why on earth would I?) it is hardly the stuff of extreme abuse.

What made all of the outrage particularly hard to fathom was that most of those seemingly so badly bruised by all of those ‘vicious equality campaigners’ were real political bruisers themselves who are never backward in handing out a bit of verbal. Those who are the first to claim that no one has a right not to be offended seemed to think that uniquely they did indeed have such a right.

Call me a cynic but sometimes it seems to me that some people think the best way to mask their own faults is by accusing others of doing the same thing. A bit like President Putin telling Ukraine they ‘have to stop the war they started in 2014’. Or those who indulge most in personality politics being the first to point fingers at others for allegedly doing so.

Well in some cases I think the complaints about bullying of States members probably fitted that pattern. Or else it was the only way by which deputies who realised they were definitely not on the high ground could pretend to be so by taking self-righteous outrage.

As for Deputy Chris Le Tissier [AKA ‘The Pirate’] complaining bitterly about ‘keyboard warriors’, that really did take the biscuit. My irony meter exploded.

There was one focus of the complaints which might have some validity – but again I thought it was exaggerated for effect. I know nothing of hashtags and nor do I speak the language of ‘text’. So if someone tries to use the number 4 in place of the word ‘for’ it goes straight over my head. I only see a number not a word. So when I saw the hashtag H8TE all I saw was random, meaningless characters but I am told 90% of people would read it as ‘hate’.

One group (not the GDA by the way) used such a hashtag to express their hate for amendment eight. An amendment they had every right to hate. Alas they used it on an online document which also showed three deputies’ faces and thus it could – at a stretch – be read as inviting people to hate them.

As soon as this was pointed out they took it down. I am 100% convinced it was a genuine mistake. But it should not have happened, it was an error of judgement, and in my view it should be apologised for.

That is not the point. The point is that the way this slip-up in what was otherwise a very civilised campaign from people who really care about something was latched on to and dominated debate speaks volumes. To me it says that those trying to emasculate the new anti-discrimination legislation knew they had few good arguments on the issue itself and so instead had to fall back on faux outrage.