Alex Salmond was the head of the Scottish National Party until 2018. At this time a series of allegations of sexual assault were leveled against him – by woman who had worked in party or government circles connected with him and come into contact with him.
The Scottish government carried out an inquiry. Salmond launched a legal action against the Scottish government’s handling of this inquiry. A Senior judge found that the inquiry’s procedures had been “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair” and that the process was “tainted with apparent bias”. Salmond won his case. 
In January 2019 Police Scotland charged Salmond with 14 counts of sexual assault. This week Salmond was found not guilty on 12 charges and ‘not proven’ on a 13th. One charge was withdrawn by the Prosecution during the trial. During the trial multiple contradictions emerged in claims made by the anonymous accusers. In short the jury must have decided that many of them were lying or at least were unreliable.
Under UK law and under any concept of due process Mr Salmond is currently 100% innocent of anything.
However, for the Guardian – the flag-bearer of the liberal-progressive ideology on both sides of the Atlantic – Salmond is still guilty. Their response to the not guilty verdicts has been to run a series of articles in which they try to disparage and attack Salmond. This, for example, is a gratuitous tabloid-style article, in which they drag Salmond’s wife into the matter – taunting him that he had an acknowledged affair even while married.
This is the Guardian’s editorial on the subject. It is noteworthy for the following two points:
The article explains that “If nothing else, this [the acquittal] is a difficult environment for victims”. The text is ambiguous as to whether the ‘victims’ referred to here include the people who were not believed by the jury. In either case; the chief point for neutral observers here might be that in some cases of alleged sexual assault the “victims” turn out not to be victims. However in the ideology of victims the “victim” is always a victim and always to be believed. A court acquittal does not alter that at all. The victim ideology is a transcendent one. It is transcendent to any mere court process.
The editorial manages, quite skillfully, to smear Salmond. Firstly, they mention that in court his barrister conceded that Salmond “could have been a better man” and then, having set the ground with that, they cite a former speech writer who called Salmond “sleazy”. The line is; you may have been acquitted and vindicated in court (twice) but we can still damn you as “sleazy” – and thus unfit for office.
The context of this, as Craig Murray explains, is a power struggle in the Scottish National Party between Alex Salmond’s wing of the party and the newer wing led by Nicola Sturgeon. The Guardian is fully aligned with the wing of the party led by Sturgeon. Noteworthy in this regard is Salmond’s opposition to the 2003 Gulf War. There is an alignment here between the new ‘identity politics’ at home and the neo-imperialist agenda abroad. Strangely, people who champion the apparent rights of the individual at home have no qualms about murdering countless people in foreign countries. From the start the case against Salmond looked like a political stitch-up.
We see the same process at work in the attitude of liberal-progressives towards those politicians they incessantly deride as “populist”; Trump, Marie Le Pen, Johnson. (They usually, but not always, omit to mention that the British Labour Party’s Corbyn also tried to ride into power in the 2019 election on a series on unashamedly populist policies). The Guardian must have killed thousands of trees (and taken up heaven knows how much bandwidth) to spread its message that Trump is “populist” and, as a “populist” should not be in office. Yet Trump won an election. And the well-resourced attempt to pretend that somehow this was because of the link between “populist” Trump and “authoritarian” Russia (Russia is another huge hate target for liberal-progressives) failed completely to find any such evidence. But – they moved on to turn an inflated minor inappropriacy (linking a demand to investigate a possibly corrupt Democratic politician with military aid in Ukraine) into an impeachment drama. And, then, when that failed, they tried to discredit Trump using the coronavirus epidemic. Liberal-progressives in America and their media allies at the Guardian have waged a relentless campaign not to defeat Trump at the ballot box, but to remove him from office by any means possible. This precisely shows that these people hold democracy in complete contempt.
It turns out that liberal-progressives only believe in democracy when it returns liberal-progressives to power. If it doesn’t then instead of gritting their teeth and getting down to the hard work of persuading the population to vote for them next time around, they try to overturn the democratic decision by manipulating all available legal processes and savaging and denigrating the people’s choice in their media organs – committing calumny in the process. It is fully characteristic of this ideology that it does not permit its adherents to respect and rationally engage with its opponents. Liberal-progressives appear unable to do this. (Not just unwilling). They have to frame their opponent as someone who is beyond the pale. They don’t want to make and win a rational argument; they want to designate their opponent as someone with whom you cannot talk. They want to exile or obliterate their opponent. This is at its very root the antithesis of democracy and is precisely the behaviour of totalitarian regimes.
Liberal-progressives have no respect for the two fundamental principles of modern European societies; democracy and the rule of law. Liberal-progressives represent an attempt to create a totalitarian society. They simply misunderstand the principle of democracy that states that even if you are fully convinced you are right then you still have to persuade the voting public of that. The principle of democracy precisely allows that people can have different opinions and that all opinions are worth of respect and consideration; they should be defeated by rational argument. Liberal-progressives though try to short-circuit the legal and democratic processes. My own guess is that ultimately they will fail to overturn democracy; but it is an interesting process to watch.