The Wikipedia page on Maggie Chapmen MSP is here. Hmm, you wouldn’t need to take a second look at her to assume she’s a feminist, would you? I’m just surprised her short hair isn’t (naturally, not dyed) a vivid shade of blue. The photographer did well to capture the fleeting moment she wasn’t scowling. It’s long been known that feminists are recommended by The Fawcett Society to chew on a thick slice of lemon first thing every morning, to set their expressions for the day. Feminists who comply with the recommendation include Jess Phillips, Yvette Balls, Harriet Harman, Janet Street-Porter and half the Labia government cabinet.
The Wiki page reports that in October 2023, the blithering idiot tweeted that the Hamas attack on Israel, which killed 1,300 and took more hostage, was “decolonisation”, not “terrorism”.
Our thanks to the estimable Douglas Wallace for the following, which takes up the remainder of this blog piece:
“Further danger on the horizon in Scotland. You are free to use this email for any publicity on the issue.
In in the Scottish Parliament on 4:13, 7 October 2025, Maggie Chapman MSP, Green, made the feminist stance clear for Scotland, putting men into clear second-citizen position.
Ms Chapman describes herself on X (Twitter) as “Eco-Socialist & Feminist” and is described by various news outlets as “ultra-woke”. She has comments of hers described by the Supreme Court in words like “bigotry” and “hatred”. She has even had the dean of her university call some of her comments “reprehensible” which is strong words from the left. Even The Scotsman (£) has criticised her! AND mumsnet!
The Daily Mail reports that the “legal professionals’ aoprissociation accused Chapman of ‘fail[ing] to respect the rule of law’, ‘creat[ing] a risk of danger to the members of the Court’, and even ‘an egregious breach’ of the law. The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 says members of the Holyrood parliament ‘must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary’.” But still she is there. The Scottish Parliament’s equalities committee voted against removing her, partly because she herself voted not to.
If you didn’t know about Maggie Chapman before, hopefully you now realise that this is someone who can make enemies in high and low places, among her expected adversaries such as the MRM as well as among those generally supportive of words, policies and actions harmful to men and boys, and still remain influential. Men of Scotland: do not let this one pass by! Complain like the devil is after you, your child and your beloved, because she is.
In discussing the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, Maggie Chapman made it clear that evidence-based law was not wanted. She wants bigotry and “victims” claims to be most important:
“Modernisation must be guided by trauma-informed, feminist principles.”
What gets my gall is the way feminists will go on and on about the failure of feminists to solve domestic abuse and always their solution involves giving them more money, and creating more draconian laws to break up .”families on any pretext. Chapman does it in her speech. It is time we stopped paying feminists any public money. It is time we tried another tack that stands a chance of working.
“…survivors of abuse must have choice and control of how they participate in proceedings.”
[Translation: those who complain of abuse (variously called ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ before any legal proof) should be able to tell law courts just how they will come to a guilty decision over the person they claim to have harmed them.]
Here is the real damage if an obviously well-connected leech like Maggie Chapman is allowed to succeed:
“Scottish Women’s Aid has made it clear that those reviews will succeed only if they are independent and transparent, with equal representation from the third sector. Their expertise must be embedded, not merely consulted.”
This means she wants failed feminist policies to not only be considered but to be baked in to the law. A body which consistently fails — according to them — to achieve substantive social results, and receives massive taxpayer money (c. £35m total budget, providing shelter for about 180,000 nights) is wheedling to be treated as an elected body in drawing up legislation. Chapman wants an organisation which doesn’t allow mothers to shelter with teenage boys and which cares not one iota for men to not only be considered an expert but be considered a legislative body.
This must be resisted.
Douglas E Wallace.”
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 