A prominent political figure representing the Perthshire area in the Scottish Parliament, Murdo Fraser, is currently the subject of a police investigation. The inquiry stems from a series of comments he made on a public social media platform, following the recent departure of Rangers Football Club’s former manager, Russell Martin.
Mr. Fraser’s post, which quickly drew widespread attention, advocated for a specific type of leadership for the football club, explicitly stating: “No more vegans, Buddhists or Green Party members please.” This remark was widely interpreted as a direct criticism of Mr. Martin, who is known for his support of the Green Party, periods of adhering to a vegan diet for health reasons, and an interest in Buddhist philosophies.
A spokesperson for Mr. Fraser vehemently defended the MSP’s comments, dismissing the formal complaint as “ludicrous.” The spokesperson highlighted concerns that the police investigation itself would be a “clear waste of precious police time,” asserting that “even in SNP Scotland where free speech is under attack it is still not a crime to make football jokes.” This robust defence frames the incident within a broader debate on freedom of expression versus perceived offensive speech.
Police Scotland confirmed that they have received a report regarding the online post and are in the process of assessing the information. This official acknowledgement indicates the seriousness with which such complaints are treated, regardless of the initial intent behind the comments.
The MSP’s comments did not go unchallenged within the political sphere. Pete Wishart, the Member of Parliament for Perth and Kinross-shire, openly branded Mr. Fraser’s remarks as “awful.” Echoing this sentiment, the Scottish Greens unequivocally condemned the post, labelling it as both “divisive and discriminatory.” Such strong reactions from fellow politicians underscore the sensitivity of the issues touched upon by Mr. Fraser’s statement.
The legal framework relevant to this situation is the 2010 Equality Act, a significant piece of legislation in the UK that prohibits discrimination against individuals based on protected characteristics, including religious belief. The mention of ‘Buddhists’ in Mr. Fraser’s post directly engages with this act, raising questions about whether the comment, intended as a football-related joke, could be perceived as discriminatory under law. Previous Incidents and the Local Political Climate
This is not the first instance where Mr. Fraser has found himself embroiled in controversy over his online statements. Last year, he notably threatened legal action against Police Scotland after a ‘non-crime hate incident’ was recorded against him. That incident arose from a comment where he equated identifying as non-binary with “choosing to identify as a cat,” a remark that sparked considerable public and political debate on gender identity and free speech. He subsequently accused the force of acting “outrageously and unlawfully” in their handling of the matter.
For residents of Perth and Kinross, these repeated controversies surrounding their elected representative can contribute to a complex local political landscape. It prompts discussions within the community about the boundaries of free speech, the responsibilities of public figures, and the nature of public discourse in the digital age. As a regional MSP, Mr. Fraser’s statements carry weight and can reflect upon the broader political atmosphere and values of the area he serves.
The ongoing police assessment will determine the next steps, but regardless of the outcome, this incident has reignited important conversations across Perth and Kinross about tolerance, respect, and the impact of words in an increasingly interconnected world.
Mr. Fraser’s post, which quickly drew widespread attention, advocated for a specific type of leadership for the football club, explicitly stating: “No more vegans, Buddhists or Green Party members please.” This remark was widely interpreted as a direct criticism of Mr. Martin, who is known for his support of the Green Party, periods of adhering to a vegan diet for health reasons, and an interest in Buddhist philosophies.
A spokesperson for Mr. Fraser vehemently defended the MSP’s comments, dismissing the formal complaint as “ludicrous.” The spokesperson highlighted concerns that the police investigation itself would be a “clear waste of precious police time,” asserting that “even in SNP Scotland where free speech is under attack it is still not a crime to make football jokes.” This robust defence frames the incident within a broader debate on freedom of expression versus perceived offensive speech.
Police Scotland confirmed that they have received a report regarding the online post and are in the process of assessing the information. This official acknowledgement indicates the seriousness with which such complaints are treated, regardless of the initial intent behind the comments.
The MSP’s comments did not go unchallenged within the political sphere. Pete Wishart, the Member of Parliament for Perth and Kinross-shire, openly branded Mr. Fraser’s remarks as “awful.” Echoing this sentiment, the Scottish Greens unequivocally condemned the post, labelling it as both “divisive and discriminatory.” Such strong reactions from fellow politicians underscore the sensitivity of the issues touched upon by Mr. Fraser’s statement.
The legal framework relevant to this situation is the 2010 Equality Act, a significant piece of legislation in the UK that prohibits discrimination against individuals based on protected characteristics, including religious belief. The mention of ‘Buddhists’ in Mr. Fraser’s post directly engages with this act, raising questions about whether the comment, intended as a football-related joke, could be perceived as discriminatory under law. Previous Incidents and the Local Political Climate
This is not the first instance where Mr. Fraser has found himself embroiled in controversy over his online statements. Last year, he notably threatened legal action against Police Scotland after a ‘non-crime hate incident’ was recorded against him. That incident arose from a comment where he equated identifying as non-binary with “choosing to identify as a cat,” a remark that sparked considerable public and political debate on gender identity and free speech. He subsequently accused the force of acting “outrageously and unlawfully” in their handling of the matter.
For residents of Perth and Kinross, these repeated controversies surrounding their elected representative can contribute to a complex local political landscape. It prompts discussions within the community about the boundaries of free speech, the responsibilities of public figures, and the nature of public discourse in the digital age. As a regional MSP, Mr. Fraser’s statements carry weight and can reflect upon the broader political atmosphere and values of the area he serves.
The ongoing police assessment will determine the next steps, but regardless of the outcome, this incident has reignited important conversations across Perth and Kinross about tolerance, respect, and the impact of words in an increasingly interconnected world.