There is much to admire about the work of former British diplomat turned activist Craig Murray. His willingness to sacrifice a well-remunerated career as an ambassador over a point of principle is something to be applauded, as is his readiness to go to jail for his exposure of the SNP leadership's stitch-up of their former leader, Alex Salmond. When a man is getting something manifestly wrong, it should be stated plainly and openly in the hope that we can learn from his mistakes. In the case of Craig Murray, he has spent several days being incredibly wrong about the Sandie Peggie case as well as the wider issues of gender ideology.
For those who are unfamiliar with the case of Sandie Peggie, I will summarise the case. This is the case of a woman who is a nurse employed by NHS Fife in Scotland who was victimised by her employer for objecting to being forced to share changing room space with a male doctor who “identifies” as a woman. This resulted in Sandie Peggie being victimised by her employer (for transphobia) and denied proper representation by her union (UNISON), leading to her quitting that wretched excuse for a trade union. The question under consideration is whether women have the right to single sex spaces and if those spaces should be protected from any men who try to gain access to them.
In a series of Twitter/X posts over the last few days, Craig Murray waded into this ongoing controversy. In so doing, Murray revealed himself not only to have taken a deeply foolish position but also to be fond of using the same tactics that have often been used on him by his opponents. Namely, smearing, guilt by association, the construction of straw (non) men, and constantly shifting the goal posts.
In his initial Twitter post, Murray claims that there should have been some kind of compromise possible between Peggie and the man who insisted upon entering the women’s changing room.
It is worth noting at this stage that Murray’s call for “compromise” on this issue flies in the face of the pronouncements on the issue made by George Galloway, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain (WPB). This is relevant because Craig Murray stood for the WPB at the last general election despite Galloway's many pronouncements against gender ideology. Clearly, this issue didn’t stop him from standing for this party in Blackburn last year.
This raises the rather obvious retort of why such a compromise should be forced upon women workers.
If it is the case that:
A) Do women have the right to single sex spaces - Yes
B) Was this right violated by Sandie Peggie’s employer? - Yes
C) Was Sandie Peggie failed by her trade union - Yes
If we take the view that women are entitled to single sex spaces and no man, no matter what is going on in his head, should have access to these spaces, then what kind of “compromise” could Murray possibly have in mind here that would not violate the rights of the women concerned?
Having failed in round one of his attempt to tweet himself out of the deep rhetorical hole into which he had posted himself, Murray changed tack.
Now he adopted the (standard) leftist response to anyone who dares question gender ideology, attacking on other issues where he feels more secure. This took the form of Murray seizing upon the fact that Sandie Peggie has been a member of a WhatsApp group chat that contained racist comments and jokes. This information has been made public over the last week in order to discredit Peggie, who has gained a large amount of public sympathy as her case has become more widely known. The problem those who have seized upon this face is that it is utterly irrelevant to the case at hand. Peggie is not accused of racism, and the dispute is between her (a white woman) and the doctor concerned (a white man), nor has she been accused of racist conduct in her long career within the NHS. Anyone who has done trade union work knows very well that we often represent workers who have all kinds of views on issues that may well be at odds with our own or the views of the union, but if the worker has a case (as Peggie does), then we should represent them on that basis. Is Murray seriously suggesting that if workers have expressed reactionary views at any point, then trade unionists should simply refuse to represent them? That is the view of the wretched UNISON leadership, of course, and it is part of the reason why that union is becoming ever more irrelevant. Again, we come back to the point of whether Sandie Peggie has the right to a single sex changing room or not. That is what is at issue here, not group chat contents or whatever views she holds on other issues. Murray is simply trying to muddy the waters by bringing this up, as he cannot justify his position on the case itself.
Having tried to engage in character assassination, Murray then turns to a wider point. In another series of tweets regarding women who criticise gender ideology (often referred to as gender critical feminists), Murray then makes the ludicrous claim that most of them are supporters of the genocidal Israeli regime.
That Murray can claim this at all is based on high-profile feminists such as Julie Bindel, who have disgraced themselves by loudly endorsing the genocidal Zionist regime. Murray, therefore, tries to force guilt by association on all women who have raised their voices against gender ideology and proceeds to ignore those who maintain a critique of gender ideology and who also continue to engage in solidarity actions with the Palestinian people. With regards to Bindel, it must be said that her views are disgraceful, racialist nonsense; but for Murray to try to suggest that her endorsement of Israel comes from her gender-critical views is nonsense.
The Israeli regime routinely paints itself as the wokest place on earth, it is very pro trans and is publicly acknowledged as a bolt hole for Western male sex offenders. On all of those grounds, any feminist should hate it, but the likes of Bindel endorse it because for them, their chauvinism, western supremacism and racism trump everything else, including their gender critical views. In making his claims here, Murray has become guilty of the normal, sleazy leftist move, and that is guilt by association, because some are pro-Zionist and anti-gender ideology, then no leftist can have anything to do with gender critical points of view, according to Murray. This is utter nonsense, of course, and if we applied this standard, then we would have to abandon any struggle for free speech, against restrictive anti-protest laws or the Terrorism Act 2000, as reactionary figures have taken positions against all of these things.
What Craig Murray is doing by approaching the issue in this fashion is to boost support for the very reactionary forces he claims to hate. It is well established by now that reactionary viewpoints on every issue get boosted via the various social media algorithms. That is why you’ll have your feed filled with the videos of Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes if you have watched any anti-Israel content on YouTube. That’s why anti-Jewish clowns such as Dan Bilzerian get promoted on Twitter. The game aims to make such issues be associated with reactionaries of one form or another, and therefore (those in charge hope) to make anti-Zionism synonymous with anti-Jewish rhetoric, thus strengthening Zionism. The same game is played on every issue, of course. The hundreds of left-wing, anti gender ideology women don’t get promoted on social media, a few high-profile reactionaries do. In trying to brand all those who oppose gender ideology as reactionaries, Craig Murray is helping those who seek to promote these reactionaries and is trying to erase the existence of left-wing, anti-imperialist women who critique gender ideology. Given how he had been treated by the ruling class press and the left in the past, I would hope that Craig Murray would know better than to engage in such tactics. Unfortunately, he has proved me wrong thus far. If he is open to learning, though, I recommend that he read the following texts on the reactionary nature of gender ideology:
 | A guest post by
|