Bogus names discovered on petition that attacked gay marriage

By Andrew Whitaker
Published on Friday 16 December 2011 11:56

DOZENS of names were “falsely added“ to a controversial online petition against gay marriage that was handed to the Scottish Government as part of its consultation on the issue.

Ministers have been asked to “discount” the online petition of more than 9,000 names, amid claims about the “apparent fraudulent nature” of the document.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office confirmed it had received a series of complaints from Scots who claimed their names had been posted on the website of Scotland for Marriage – a coalition including the Catholic Church formed to oppose proposals to change the law to allow same-sex marriage.

Labour MSP Kezia Dugdale said a number of “furious” constituents had contacted her to say their names had been placed on the anti-gay marriage petition, which has been signed by former SNP leader Gordon Wilson, as well as senior figures from Scotland’s Episcopalians, the United Free Church of Scotland and the Evangelical Alliance.

However, Scotland for Marriage rejected claims it had put the false names on its website and suggested its opponents had deliberately posted them to “undermine” the group.

It is understood as many as 27 names have been identified as being “falsely added” to the Scotland for Marriage site, which the group ran alongside a separate campaign that saw 28,000 postcards protesting against gay marriage sent to the government.

A group that campaigns in support of gay marriage, seized on the allegations about the web page to question the validity of the postcard campaign, as well as the online petition.

Tom French, policy co-ordinator for the Equality Network, which sent 24,000 submissions to the consultation, said; “We are very concerned to hear that names have been falsely added to this petition. Officials will now have to consider whether they can trust the validity of the petition and the recent postcard campaign run by Scotland For Marriage.

“This is another good reason why the Scottish Government should make a decision on legalising same-sex marriage based on the strength of the arguments, not on a numbers game.”

Gay-marriage supporter Paul Gray, 21, a medical student at the University of Edinburgh, is among those who have complained their name was placed on the Scotland for Marriage site.

He said he was “shocked” when he saw his name on the group’s petition. “For the past few months, I’ve been really active on Facebook over this issue and have been involved in the equality campaign,” he said.

“Someone from the opposition could have seen my name on the web and just added it to their petition.

“I was completely shocked and feel as though this was about opponents of gay marriage trying to mock us.”

Ms Dugdale’s has written to health secretary Nicola Sturgeon asked her to “discount” the 9,045 names on the Scotland for Marriage petition, which is being considered as part of the gay marriage consultation.

The Labour MSP’s letter talked about the “apparent fraudulent nature” of the petition and said she understood constituents had “directly” raised allegations about their names being “falsely added” to it with the police.

A spokeswoman for the UK Information Commissioner’s Office said it had received a number of complaints alleging that names had falsely been placed on the Scotland for Marriage site.

She said: “We’d advise anyone who didn’t put their name to the petition to contact the campaign and ask it to take their names off. But if they refuse, we’d advise them to get in touch with us and make us aware of it.”

A spokesman for Scotland for Marriage suggested that supporters of gay marriage had placed their own names on the site in an “underhand tactic” to make it appear that Scotland for Marriage had dishonestly added names to the petition.

He said: “This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine the campaign. A police investigation would be welcome.”

The Scottish Government declined to comment on the row.

Comments

There are 8 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

8

Richard Lionheart

Monday, April 30, 2012 at 04:17 PM

If this is the best Stonewall and the "Equality Network" can come up with to detract from a public outcry over their plans then it is a very poor show. It happens that some of our MP's and MSP's were elected by more false votes than 27. If there are only 27 that is pretty good, bearing in mind that it is a public petition and not a voters roll. The Scottish Government does not have the authority to change the definition of marriage and it does not have the political mandate to change it either. Gay couples have full rights under the Civil Partnership arrangements. This demand for marriage to be redefined is about removing right, of free speech and making Christian faith teachings illegal. If passed the Scottish Government will not allow Churches to perform marriages unless they also perform gay marriages. We have the "benefit" of 20 years of gay rights laws at hand to teach us that. Society should consider whether it is time to reverse some of the law changes which have been used to force Government departments and agencies to promote gay relationships above all others.

• Report Unsuitable

7

[e-mail]

Monday, April 9, 2012 at 04:05 AM

Civil rights are not determined by the majority, they are inviolate. For example, African Americans constitute only 14% of the American population and therefore could lose any vote on their civil rights. This is why the US Constitution affords all citizens Equal Protection, irrespective of their numerical supremacy. While it is highly advisable for the LGBT minority to continue its efforts to win the hearts and minds, the approval of heterosexuals while quintessential in the reduction of hostilities, by and of itself does not determine whether or not we are entitled to the same civil rights as other UK citizens.

• Report Unsuitable

6

well informed

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 03:45 PM

So What? As an anti SNP bullsh*t story this one reaches new depths of irrelevance to the SNP. Are there no real journalists in this country who can be employed in the place of such worthless wasters as Whitaker?

• Report Unsuitable

5

allymax

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 03:42 PM

Typical malice from the gay lobby, trying to degrade a genuine political issue in Scotland. Good to see rent-a-gob Dugdale getting 'in' on the 'act' ! Typical Labour 'manufacturing' results, politics, and concern, again in Scotland; when will they learn? And typical rant from thon druid-devil; you are completely wrong about Christian, Muslims, and Jews not having the same God; ex[palin yourself devil-worshipper.

• Report Unsuitable

4

Heinz Doofensmirtz

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 03:37 PM

Is it true Jesus Christ was listed?

• Report Unsuitable

3

Finnzz

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 02:10 PM

#1 Is there an Elmer Fudd??

• Report Unsuitable

2

KINGFISHER1

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 02:08 PM

I REDACT MY COMMENTS. I was in high dudgeon, with the criticism of my comments on the Higgs Boson posts. Minor strawp. I can easily mark as REDACTED, but where does that take us? The moderator has withdrawn my earlier posts, so presumably is unhapy with them. I make comments here as a courtesy, so that others might have some idea of what I am talking about. FUNDAMENTALLY I cannot speak freely. There is clearly massive opposition locally to gay marriage,and the local politicians have no idea what is involved. Clearly if I am criticised on Science matters relative to the KJV, the locals have NO UNDERSTANDING of what is involved. I HAVE EXPLAINED EXACTLY the hows and whys of the EXODUS, but clearly, locally, they are NOT WILLING TO LISTEN!!! I was INSULTED on the HEADPIECE, and I have not had a satisfactory apology!!! Frankly I have no interest, if all the signatures on the particular Petition, are fake! This is technical stuff! It is a species design matter, and advanced genetics!!! FURTHER REDACTED COMMENTS. I am NOT trying to be difficult, but I am EXCEPTIONALLY UPSET!!! AT FORMAL

• Report Unsuitable

1

Wilfred Reborn

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Checked and I'm not there. But there are a few Dicks and a Pratt!

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.