Gavin Newlands (SNP) Doesn’t Know What Day It Is

Yesterday, Thursday 25 November 2021, the House of Commons debated International Men’s Day in Westminster Hall. Nicholas Fletcher (Con), Scott Benton (Con) and Kemi Badenoch (Con) all gave good speeches. The whole debate is here.

Kemi Badenoch deserves a shout out for mentioning the inclusion of parental alienation in the DA Act Guidance, and praising Phillip Davies for his work on that issue. She also gave Martin Seager and male psychology a mention – excellent.

Gavin Newlands (SNP), on the other hand, seems to have been confused. Perhaps there was an error on his order papers. He appears to have thought the debate was about Violence Against Women and Girls, or perhaps that it was International Women’s Day. Here are some of his contributions,

“International Men’s Day is anathema to me. It is a rather cruel joke concocted in response to feminism, women’s rights and International Women’s Day. My personal view is that international days are usually for the oppressed, the underprivileged or those facing inequality. It is shameful that in 2021 International Women’s Day is still all too necessary, and even sadder that the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women is even more important than ever. It is the bitterest of ironies that this men’s debate takes place today, on that very day. It is also called White Ribbon Day and it marks the start of 16 days of activism.”

“I want to go on to talk about men’s achievements, although I doubt they will be the kinds of achievements that Members want talked about today. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool South will be keen on my remarks. It is fairly easy to make sure that men’s achievements are celebrated regularly when, essentially, the entirety of western society has been run for the convenience and security of men over women since God was a boy. That has also meant that men’s other achievements—the ones that are not so positive—are also pushed down the pecking order.”

“The Femicide Census, published last year, found that more than 1,400 women and girls were killed by men in the decade starting 2009. We know that high-profile cases, for whatever reason, capture the headlines: Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, Nicole Smallman and so on. They are the tragic tip of a much larger iceberg of endemic male violence against females: 92% of defendants in prosecutions relating to domestic abuse are male; 84% of victims relating to sexual offences are female; one in three teenage girls have experienced some form of sexual violence from their partner; and one in five have experienced it since the age of 16. Incidentally, I thoroughly recommend that Members watch the BBC Three documentary by Zara McDermott on rape culture and sexism in our schools, which I watched last night. It is essential viewing.”

“It is men who are overwhelmingly responsible for the violence and misery suffered by millions of our families, friends or colleagues—misery that they suffer purely because they are women. Frankly, I am a bit sick of hearing unadulterated mince about how hard done by men are becoming, as we have heard in this debate as well. We are not the ones who are afraid to go out on the streets, especially after dark, with this time of year effectively keeping many women prisoners in their own homes.”

“We are not the ones who are outnumbered two to one in this place and who have had the right to vote on the same basis as men for less than a century. We are not the ones, 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, still sitting at the sharp end of the gender pay gap. It is not women who are setting the pay rates. Under 40% of FTSE 100 board members are women, and only eight of those companies are headed by women.”

Nicholas Fletcher, bless him, interrupted the diatribe at that point with this bit of reality…

“On the point about how women are not doing as well as men, I pulled together some statistics before the debate to see where we are, especially in Doncaster. Some 27 of the 32 primary school heads are female, and four out of seven secondary school heads are female; chief constable for South Yorkshire Police, female; Doncaster district commander and chief superintendent, female; senior coroner, female; South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue chief fire officer and chief executive, female; chief executive of Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust, female; Doncaster Council directors, two female and three male, and assistant directors nine female and four male; elected Mayor, female; opposition council leader, female; chair of the board of Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, female. Shall I go on? The idea that women are completely oppressed is definitely and utterly incorrect.”

But Gavin Newlands was not to be stopped…

“The patriarchy was not created out of thin air; it is a product of how we and our forefathers have viewed the world and women’s places in it in relation to men. For far too long, that place has been the second-class section of society. Some of those behaviours and attitudes were on display in Parliament when it came to ratifying the Istanbul convention, which is the gold standard in preventing violence against women and girls.”

“I campaigned pretty hard on that issue, and indeed, I spoke about it during my Westminster Hall debate on men’s role in ending violence against women and girls. I was thoroughly delighted when my then colleague Eilidh Whiteford was able to make the ratification of that convention a statutory obligation for the Government. We are now coming up to the fifth anniversary of the Second Reading of her Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017, however, and we still have not ratified the convention.”

At this point the Chairman, Virendra Sharma, had had enough and intervened reminding Mr Newlands to “Please confine your speech to International Men’s Day and not to violence against women and girls”. Quite right. But the likes of Mr Newlands cannot tolerate the spotlight of concern being shone upon males at all, ever, not even for 1 hour 22 minutes out of the year. There’ll be close on 650 MPs, bar a few, regurgitating the same stuff he said on a virtually daily basis over the rest of the year, decade, century.

Newlands did not do the Chair the honour of obeying his instruction, however. He was not to be stopped. Unfortunately the short-of-facts, ignorant-of-history, compassionless, sanctimonious, virtue-signaling, One Good Man carried right on,

“To go back to International Men’s Day, as you hoped I would, Mr Sharma, let us talk about the full achievements of men: centuries of subjugating and belittling half of the population, and having to be dragged kicking and screaming to give women the vote. I appreciate that it is all very negative looking backwards, but my point is that we need to accept the reality. Far too many men still do not accept the reality or take responsibility for these actions, which we need to look back on and accept before we can move forward. These actions included locking single mothers up in homes with their babies until the right adoptive parents came along, at which point the male-run state forced those mothers to sign over their own children. That happened not once or twice but hundreds of thousands of times across these isles.”

“Yes, there are issues and challenges specific to men, which must be highlighted and tackled: the attainment gap in education, the lower life expectancies linked to poorer health and care, and the huge human cost of prison and recidivism. However, let us not pretend that the balance sheet is not tipped hugely in favour of men and against women. That culture and our deeply ingrained structures in society contribute to a toxic masculinity that is to the detriment of both men and women.”

Yes, he actually used the phrase “toxic masculinity”. And still he ranted on…

“The combination of our culture and our deeply ingrained societal structure is toxic, but we are gradually moving beyond a model of families and households that treat one partner as inferior towards a model where gender roles are ignored.”

“I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the White Ribbon campaign (why am I not surprised), and I am proud to be an ambassador for both White Ribbon UK and White Ribbon Scotland, whose badge I wear on my lapel today. That campaign, which was referenced already by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, was set up in the wake of a horrific massacre in Montreal, where a self-identified “anti-feminist” murdered 14 women in cold blood. That was in 1989. Decades later we are still seeing that toxic masculinity (again!) embed itself in large parts of society with the rise of the incel movement. What links those is a learned behaviour of men and boys towards women and girls. That behaviour and the social cues and norms that back it up have to be challenged by men—all of us.”

“We have to acknowledge the wrongs we have perpetrated on women for millennia. We must each do our bit to try and roll those wrongs back for the future. The fight for gender equality needs action at the top, from our Governments to our businesses, employers and public services. It also needs individual action from every one of us. We need to tell our friends when their behaviour is unacceptable and tell our colleagues when their actions—while perhaps unintended or unknowing—are helping to continue the cycle of disrespect.”

“If International Men’s Day is to be something worth commemorating each year, it should be as a reflection and acknowledgement of the damage and human suffering that our place, versus that of women, has caused and is still causing. It should be a time when we come together to discuss and debate how best to change our own behaviours to support women and build a better, more equal and fairer society.”

Kemi Badenoch rebuked him in gentle Parliamentary fashion, saying,

“I do not believe that every man is a risk. There are some who have committed atrocious crimes, but I treat people as individuals. My experience—whether in my family, with my father, brother or son, or with my male hon. Friends in this House—has been overwhelmingly positive. As someone who is black, female and an immigrant, when I hear the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North say such things, I can tell he is saying them to sound positive; however, the way he makes those comments is not as constructive as the way Government Members make theirs. Their approach is the better way to resolve those issues. I am very happy to share more of my views on the topic outside of the debate.”

14 thoughts on “Gavin Newlands (SNP) Doesn’t Know What Day It Is

  1. Mike Bell

    I’d like to thank the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for a speech which is an excellent example of toxic masculinity.

  2. Logan

    “… the rise of the incel movement.”

    You have to be a certain kind of turnip-brain to say things like that. The ‘not-in-a-relationship-but-want-to-be movement’ – it’s not a movement – It’s a relationship status. Nobody wants to be a member and there are no political aims. Where is this ‘movement’ nobody wants to be part of moving to, exactly?

    “We have to acknowledge the wrongs we have perpetrated on women for millennia.”

    ‘We’ don’t live for millennia. Nor do women. ‘We’ haven’t done anything in the past, so we cannot be held accountable for it. On top of that, in the modern world most men have done nothing wrong either. He, on the other hand, is framing history in a very very distorted way, and then expecting male children to be held responsible for it. That’s a particular kind of hatefulness I just can’t get my head around.

  3. Sean

    I made notes of my reactions as I watched on YT, as posted on the j4mb site
    Gavin Newlands
    Huge re- frame going on here. “Relations between men and women.” Not men’s issues, but the judgement of men in the context of a feminist, frame of understanding.
    Wide open door to what I anticipate will be a man- blaming tirade.
    40.27. Like other speakers, insisting on talking about his own family life. As though to make it clear that “the personal is very political,” exactly as dogma dictates.
    41.07. Okay, cards on the table, he opposes formal political consideration of men’s issues; because it offends feminism. Let no- one accuse this fella of open mindedness.
    41.24. First use of word oppression. Right after a challenge to the debate’s very existence.
    43.53. Re- framing. Question is no longer well being of men/ men’s issues in the UK. Question is now m@ae suicide in Scotland. Which another Parliament is dealing with.
    44.15 Straight feminist propaganda, preposterous nonsense.
    44.34 Now we’re going to get a lot more “men are the problem.”
    44.57 Most defendants are male…. couldn’t be pre- trial legal bias, like, for example, the Duluth model, perchance?
    45.04 Zombie factoid bonanza coming.
    45.16 I must be telling the truth because there’s this BBC3 programme and we all know how reliable the BBC is…
    46.03 Totally missing the point. (Nick Fletcher.)
    You’re interrupting a person who will never stop vilifying men. Who will dispute the right of the platform to exist, and then use the platform to vilify men. Man- hatred is the essential force within every shade of feminist opinion. There’s no reasoning with it, no persuading it. Recognise, that for feminism, as exemplified by Gavin Newlands, there is no world, reality or viewpoint outside feminism.
    46.35 See? Before men get any credit for anything at all, men must be shamed and blamed and submit to the One True Faith of which Newlands is the Keeper.
    47.19 The issue at hand? Remember. Newlands opposes this debate. The debate is framed “Men’s day” implying men’s issues. But for Newlands, the issue is men’s culpability. Transparent re- framing.
    47.28. Right. Men are responsible. (For violence) So men’s suffering doesn’t merit consideration. As though men suffering might not lead at times to violence. As though one of the kinds of suffering he apparently doesn’t think merits consideration, isn’t actually being a victim of violence?
    47.37. You’re sick of hearing it? You don’t think there should be a debate. Care to explain your attendance then? Not many other MPs showed up, so if you’re so opposed to the debate and so sick of men’s issues, why burden yourself? Dare I suggest, you’re not sick, you’re angry, and vindictive, and trying to deny the right to exist to an alternative political viewpoint.
    In the name of opposing oppression, ffs!
    47. 43. Idiot. Men experience more violent crime than women., We should be afraid to go out in the streets.
    The public will intervene to rescue a woman in trouble every time. A man in trouble is always on his own.
    48.10. Men’s debate. So let’s all be clear how important women’s complaints are. Because. you know, this is all so new and under- discussed…
    48.29. Feminist displays the urge for collective punishment of all men. The core of feminism is hatred of men. Confirmed.
    49.00 Once again, the person you’re talking to doesn’t care. Doesn’t believe any other viewpoint ( or data set) deserves to exist.
    50.16 What patriarchy?
    51.21. Mind- reading. This person, who thinks the debate shouldn’t happen, now testifiers on the part of other people’s attitudes over decades. No need to tell him what we think, he already knows!
    51.53. More convoluted mind- reading. There shouldn’t be a men’s day. But ( absent MP for Shipley) betrays what people who support men’s day really want. He would rather no- one spoke of men’s issues, but if it has to happen, he will speak on behalf of men. Whether they like it or not.
    Because, you know, oppression, and all that.
    52. 54. Rising numbers of female MPs since 1997 an artefact of sex discrimination embodied by All Women Shortlists. They are evidence of a direct disadvantage imposed on men. So not “brilliant” at all. And no reflection on the merits of women or the demerits of men as politicians.
    53.33 Gosh. Notice. The former leader of the SNP is allowed to be a “person”. That’s a step up from the hated category men. Such is feminst incoherence.
    54.01 Centuries of oblittering? That’s a new one.
    54.08. Not kicking and screaming. Ninety acts of terrorist bombing committed by the Suffragettes.
    54.20. Oh, the clairvoyance. He testifies about what men will or won’t accept, even though he wouldn’t allow us the chance to speak at all, if he had his way. This is how a feminist opposes oppression.
    54.39 What’s that about forced adoption? Did I blink and miss an important point? Fifteen minutes is a long time to wait for new information. If this was the killer fact, why wasn’t above all the “men shouldn’t have a day” stuff?
    55.01 Toxic masculinity. You didn’t hear it here first. Men are the problem. Men must fix it.
    For all his obnoxious no- platforming, and all his preposterous self- appointed pretentiousness, he’s at root just saying the exact same they all said. Mouthing the f3minist complaint doctrine, codified { M=P M>P } (Men are the problem. Men must fix the problem.)
    55.26 (Maria Miller) Again, you don’t appreciate the Newlands position. Feminism will not admit there is an alternative perspective. It says it has all the answers. In Newlands mind, reality is feminism and vice versa.
    Feminism decrees what’s best for men. Newlands has said, what’s best is m@n- blaming and m@n- shaming. Wherever man- silencing cannot be imposed for simplicity.
    56.24. Someone. Ask him when the feminist revolution will stop. When will men have been shamed and blamed sufficiently?
    56.40 Was that bit coherent? What are we gradually moving beyond? Is there a finish line?
    57.45 Do we need to draw any comparisons with Lorena Bobbitt and Valerie Solanis here?
    57.54 What incel movement?
    58.02 Okay, nearly done now. Just reiterate. Men are the problem and men must fix it. {M=P M>P }
    58.10 Demonstrate the wrongs perpetrated by men on women for millennia… if you can.
    58.25 First he doesn’t want the debate at all. Then he uses the debate to instruct us what we must say to our friends and colleagues. Because, you know, we’re so sickening and culpable in his eyes he surely has our best interests at heart.
    58. 50 In conclusion. A fairer and better society will arrive by means of an perpetual, on- going collective, male mea culpa. It’s just that simple.

    1. Douglas

      Newlands’ recurring theme was that men have to take responsibility for past wrongs.
      These past wrongs, of course, remain either unproven or unproven to be the collective responsibility even of men at the time.
      But most of all, why should I take responsibility for someone else’s actions? When I wasn’t even alive?
      When I see Newlands line up for the firing squad to take responsibility for the actions of Adolf Hitler, or even of Saddam Hussein, I will take it seriously that he means what he says. I still won’t agree with it but let us see him take responsibility for others, first.
      And why should it be only men taking responsibility? Why not look at the bad things ever done by people with freckles and ask everyone with freckles to atone today? This aspect of feminism should be one of the most obviously stupid things to keep people from being indoctrinated in that hateful ideology.

  4. Andy in Germany

    I get similar responses when I simply suggest that we recognise international men’s day; oddly generally not from my fellow professionals in social care: here at the sharp end we can see who is getting the resources and assistance and it isn’t men, but from the self proclaimed “activists” for whom many of us have little time.
    As you said yourself, they seem to be horrified by the very thought of being taken out of the spotlight even for a day…

  5. Douglas

    ‘Kemi Badenoch deserves a shout out for mentioning the inclusion of parental alienation in the DA Act Guidance’
    What Badenoch said was
    “…the draft statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which highlights parental alienation…”

    But the problem is that it FAILED to highlight parental alienation. In the draft, parental alienation is only mentioned in a footnote. That is not what I would even call ‘including’ let alone ‘highlighting’. Badenoch just added to the heap of misinformation the government has been spreading about the Domestic Abuse Act and the Guidance published under it.

    Badenoch also tried slipping in the excuse for spending more money on Women over Covid. I’ll give her that she did at least admit Covid hits men hardest but the excuses not to care about men never have made sense.

    Then she actually had the cheek to mention the Suicide Prevention Strategy. Women are 65% of the victims of domestic violence, so they get a strategy all to themselves, along with around 99% of the government funding. Men are around 75% of suicides and the government refuse to consider a strategy for men. Their latest progress report did have a section for men, in which the most significant matter was to deal with gambling issues. Divorce, domestic violence, homelessness and joblessness, which are the top events leading to suicide, are not covered.
    (There is always an option. If you feel suicidal, please contact the Mankind Initiative. They can help.)

    There were some quite healthy parts of Kemi Badenoch’s speech. If held in the main chamber (and on International Men’s Day) like the speech on International Women’s Day is, it might have been more useful. But I’m sure feminists like Newlands would say that being relegated to a secondary meeting room as though men are second-class citizens is some kind of proof of men’s privilege.

    Newlands’ very appearance was an insult, flouting the anti-male White Ribbon badge on a speech supposed to be about men and boys. He took up far too much time, and was terrible. It is interesting that when it suits them, feminists will say that the judicial system is built around punishment for men, yet when it suits them they come out with this kind of garbage:
    “…men’s other achievements—the ones that are not so positive—are also pushed down the pecking order”

    It takes real gall, though, in the face of even the government’s official figures showing that around 65% of domestic violence is committed by men, to believe that “92% of defendants in prosecutions relating to domestic abuse are male” is somehow a sign that it is men who are privileged!

    When Newlands talks of the Istanbul Convention as being “the gold standard in preventing violence against women and girls” he shows true ignorance. Perhaps he should ask himself why two countries have challenged it for constitutional legality, one country has denounced it and women spread over Europe are protesting against it. Those who have read it, that is.

    The only sign of toxic masculinity in that debate was Newlands himself. He is clearly only caring about his feminist indoctrination, and is toxic to males.

    But I had not realised just how old Newlands is. He is thousands of years old, apparently, because he says ““We have to acknowledge the wrongs we have perpetrated on women for millennia.” Personally, I have not even been around a century so could not possibly have been doing any wrong millennia ago. I don’t know where Newlands comes from but even my ancestors were not, on the whole, doing any wrong to women. I know that because those women wouldn’t have had anything to do with them, and I wouldn’t be here.

    It was good to hear Anneliese Dodds putting across a message that Labour will be doing things for men. If that carries into their manifesto for the next election, they will deserve a vote from every man in the country, to show all parties that you care for men or you don’t get a man’s vote.

    She went wrong on domestic violence but joined with Maria Miller in making it clear that doing well for men need not mean doing any worse for women. I concur: while feminists must lose out if men start getting equality, that equality need not generally be at the expense of women.

    I thought Nicholas Fletcher’s final remarks were good: standing up for children and intact families, the bedrock of a healthy society in any culture.

    1. William Collins Post author

      You may underestimate the significance of Guidance, as opposed to the primary legislation. And I’ll take small wins where we get them.

      1. Nigel

        In my experience “statutary guidance” trumps the letter of the law. Firstly because the courts(Judges) take it to represent the “intentions of Parliament ” when there is some ambiguity in the legislation. Secondly because it is written in more readable form than the actual legislation, so people working in public services, such as I was, read the Guidance rather than the law. Now over time test cases and case law starts to become more influential, however until there are such cases (and many laws are actually rarely used in this way) the Guidance is the basis upon which all policies, strategies and practice is based.
        A good example of this is the Equality Act, itself sex neutral in wording. However Guidance and the public sector “Duty” are written about the protection etc. of women, and unsurprisingly public services presume the Act is intended to always favour women. However there have been a constant stream of cases demonstrating that when tested in Court the impression is wrong as courts have rules that men, even white heterosexual men, are protected by the law, even if left out of the Guidance.
        Statutary Guidance is thus extremely important in how public services actually implement law. Specially in the absence of case law and in the policy, procedure and priorities of public services.

  6. Mike Bell

    Gavin Newlands is to be congratulated at making our case for us. He made so many ignorant, easily-disprovable statements that he was even contradicted by the women speakers.
    Go Gavin! Keep up the good work.

      1. Nigel Johnson

        Indeed dummy well and truly dumped out of his pram. And well done Nicholas Fletcher for pointing out the obvious flaws in the powerless women diatribe. Perhaps the SNP member has been blinded to the sex of the leader of his party and first minister in Scotland!
        I would point out that Mr. Fletchers examples are all from public services, overall “dominated” by women as they are 80% of those in the public sector overall. A fact that seems to be ignored by those who claim various public services should “reflect the communities they serve”. Personally it is a pointless goal as there are many practical and boring reasons so many of those employed at public expense are women. But it does expose the idiocy of the claims of “equality” when the government so clearly does little to reflect the almost 50/50 split in the community!
        And excellent so see the debate happening again.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *