Lodged "Defence for the Accused" with Edinburgh Sheriff Court

I have today lodged with Edinburgh Sheriff Court the document of some 32 pages, titled "Defence for the Accused".

Link to view online

This is in relation to my tweet as described in my blog post of Wednesday, 12 November 2025

John Swinney's GESTAPO make fresh false charges against me

The Taliban's useful idiot Sheriff Ian Wallace defamed me "guilty"

This Press and Journal story - Aberdeen ‘political activist’ Peter Dow guilty of sending racist tweets - may be hidden behind a paywall so I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting the text below so that everyone can read it free of charge. Text in pink ink is my own blog editorial comment.

Firstly, to insist that my tweets were neither "racist" nor illegal and that Sheriff Wallace has grossly miscarried justice - he caused a mistrial by refusing to hear the defence case in full, he falsely convicted me and he imposed a cruel fine of £740, which will take me 2 years to pay off at £30 per month, which is all I can afford to pay from my Universal Credit social security benefit.

P&J: Aberdeen ‘political activist’ Peter Dow guilty of sending racist tweets

Peter Dow sent a series of racist messages directed at a former First Minister, calling for mosques to be closed and Muslims deported.

They were meant as public political tweets, they were certainly not "racist" and were not intended as private messages to anyone. I have called for mosques to be closed and for imams to be deported but I have opposed a blanket deportation of all Muslims, because as of now my politics is much more selective about which Muslims I would or would not advise to deport, though I have noted that mass-deportation was once the policy of Spain, see Wikipedia Expulsion of the Moriscos and I have defended the human right of freedom to express "deport them all" rhetoric.

By Reporter                                     December 18 2025, 11:30 am

Peter Dow was found guilty following trial at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. Image: DC Thomson

A self-described political activist and terrorism expert has been found guilty of sending racist tweets aimed at the former First Minister Humza Yousaf and others.

Peter Dow had attempted to defend himself in Aberdeen Sheriff Court over a series of messages he posted to the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, last year.

They included calling for Muslims to be deported and branding Humza Yousaf a “P***”.

Not all Muslims. On multiple occasions in the trial I gave evidence that Malala Yousafsai was an example of a Pakistani and a Muslim in this country whom I love and would never wish to deport, so it is a shame that the P&J story misrepresents my defence.

But at Aberdeen Sheriff Court this week, the 65-year-old discovered he had lost the case and was fined £740.

Trial comes to end with guilty verdict

Dow, who previously told the court his interests included politics, science, and “the ladies”, repeatedly maintained his posts were political rhetoric.

He also urged the court to return his Dell desktop computer, which had been seized in the police raid, calling its absence a “crime against humanity” because he could no longer continue his scientific research.

His attempts to explain why he was distrustful of Pakistan and its government eventually led Sheriff Ian Wallace to remind Dow that his right to hold certain views was not why he was at court.

The sheriff would later remark it was “unfortunate” that the Edinburgh University degree holder made such explanations the core of his defence.

Former First Minister Humza Yousaf.

In sentencing him, Sheriff Wallace said: “It’s not about whether the accused is entitled to hold or express political views. It’s not about whether he’s entitled to criticise, for example, the politics of the government of Pakistan.

Wallace is a lying bastard as this case is precisely an attempt to stop me expressing my political criticisms of the political policies of certain Pakistani diaspora politicians like Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart in their treacherous support of Islam, Islamic terrorism and in particular the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and its lying officials, from consular diplomats to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, as Pakistan secretly supports Islamic terrorism.

“It’s unfortunate he’s made this the focus of his approach to this case.

No, it's unfortunate I was stuck with such an incompetent and malicious sheriff.

“This case is about whether the accused has committed the offence libelled on the specific occasions libelled.”

Sheriff Wallace went on to say that he was “satisfied” that Dow had behaved criminally by sending racially aggravated messages to Mr Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart.

There is nothing "racially aggravated" about the use of the word "Paki" as an abbreviation for "Pakistani", as I use the word.

He additionally found him guilty of a breach of the peace for a message he sent describing politicians as “surrender monkeys” alongside a hashtag which included the word P***.

I peacefully typed on a keyboard from my own home. I caused no "breach of the peace". The police smashing my door down, arresting me, ransacking my home, stealing my computer was the only "breach of the peace" and it is shameful to hide that truth.

Peter Dow led his own defence

The trial itself had been a protracted affair with Dow attempting to introduce video evidence of crimes committed by Muslims to the court, including a clip of what he said was a woman being stoned to death 

and footage of the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

One witness statement (David Fernandez) said he complained to the police because I was making comments against Muslims. The defence was entitled to rebut the witness statement/testimony and Wallace was wrong to forbid that in full measure.

One of the few clips that he was allowed to play was the introduction to a BBC documentary on Pakistan and its ties to the Taliban, which Dow used to explain why he held his views.

Another clip I was allowed to play was of President Bush using the word "Pakis".

Peter Dow at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. Image: DC Thomson

Dow’s inflammatory messages were sent between February and June 2024 from his personal X account. It has about 170 followers.

The postings call for politicians he was at odds with to “f*** off to Gaza”, the deportation of Imams, the closure of mosques, and referred to Mr Yousaf as a “P*** s***-stirrer” alongside what had been described as “deliberately eye-catching” images intended to draw attention.

“This is a judgment that I’ve come to,” Dow said of Pakistan.

“I’m not prejudiced on a racial basis. It’s got nothing to do with race or colour.”

Dow, leading his own evidence, continued by branding Mr Yousaf’s relationship with Pakistan as “naïve” and suggested that the SNP politician was “privy to Pakistan’s secrets”.

This photograph of Yousaf meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minster was shown but my suggestion is that he, the Pakistani Prime Minister, was privy to Pakistan's secrets but that Yousaf was naïve.

He said: “I don’t believe Pakistan has been held properly to account for killing our soldiers – or helping.

“I’m using it specifically as an abbreviation for Pakistani. It’s like calling a British person a Brit.”

Kaukab Stewart Image: Russell Cheyne/PA Wire

Equalities minister Ms Stewart was also targeted by Dow.

His evidence in defence of racist messages aimed at her online included a screenshot of her Scottish Government profile, which states Ms Stewart was born in Pakistan.

I would never defend "racist" messages but defended my non-racist tweets using the word "Paki" variously for effect - as here in the phrase "pack of Paki lies" and in the "PAKI LIES" large typeface for superposition.

Dow said he used the P-word because it was shorter, and likened it to newspaper headlines.

Collage of selfies with black women

The trial would go on to include unsubstantiated claims by Dow, of Hollybank Place, Aberdeen, that he could have saved thousands of Scottish lives during the Covid pandemic by offering links to “published science documents” he had authored.

Those claims are substantiated elsewhere - Submission to the Scottish COVID-19 inquiry.

When queried by the sheriff on the veracity of the journals in which he was published, Dow revealed: “Well, I published them myself on my blog. As you know, I’m unemployed.

“[The work] sets a picture of me not being recognised for my talents.”

Dow then showed an image he titled “Peter Dow is not a racist”, which was a collage of selfies with black women.

This was the collage shown in court, although it does not appear in the P&J's story.

Noting that there were only black women in the images, some of which he met on dating websites, Dow lamented that there were no Asian women present.

“The point is, I have an open and welcoming attitude towards people of different colours. I am not racially prejudiced. As it happens, these are all mostly black women rather than Asian women, but if I can get an Asian girlfriend, I’ll be very happy,” he said.

Courtroom attack on BBC

Dow also used his time in court on Wednesday to go on to attack the BBC, which he blamed for “brainwashing” people.

The BBC, he claimed, was responsible for this by censoring the word P*** and that it was “really important” he win his court battle so others were free to use the word in future.

He told the court: “The BBC usually gives Pakistanis a free pass by beeping over the word P***.”

Kaukab Stewart was also a target for Dow. Image: PA

‘A good Muslim is going to volunteer to be a suicide bomber or a terrorist’

On Muslims, Dow said he feared a loosening of “checks and balances” as they came to be in positions of authority.

“The more Muslims we appoint as sheriffs, as prosecutors, as politicians making the law, then there’s going to be a process of weakening of those checks and balances,” he said.

“It’s not to do with the colour of skin, I don’t trust Muslims in authority because I’m worried about our country – not immediately, but over the years and decades ahead.

“It’s a horrific prospect.”

Bizarrely, Dow would go on to read a version of the Declaration of Arbroath, which promised to oppose “Muslim rule”.

What would be "bizarre" would be for Scots to surrender our country to a Pakistani- / Muslim takeover by the likes of Humza Yousaf, Kaukab Stewart or Anas Sarwar.

Suicide bomber remarks

Queried on his post that said Muslims should be deported, Dow added “intelligent students” and those opposed to the Taliban would be welcomed.

He explained: “What my policy would be [is] to close the mosques, so that they wouldn’t feel they were welcome as Muslims. Their Muslimness wouldn’t be welcome.

But if academically good students can manage to do without a handy mosque then why not welcome such talent to Scotland?

“A good Muslim is going to volunteer to be a suicide bomber or a terrorist.”

A good Muslim does whatever he is told by an Imam, believing his reward will be in heaven.

The case called at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. Image: DC Thomson.

Defiant to the end

Late into Wednesday afternoon, the trial came to a close with Dow branding the fiscal depute in the case, Alan Townsend, a criminal and calling for him to be disbarred.

He also refused to ever change.

“I feel I’ve got to do these things,” he said.

“It’s my duty. I’m not going to change. I think I’ve got a duty to hold Pakistanis to account and I’m going to keep doing that. And if I think using the word P*** is appropriate, that’s what I’m going to do.

“I’ve got to do this. It’s my duty.

“I’ve tweeted the word P*** in the last year several times a day, many more times than I would have done. And the reason I’ve tweeted it so much, not to Scottish Parliament accounts, is because of the court case.

“So if this court case was a plan to stop me using the word P***,  it’s backfired spectacularly because I’ve used it all over the place.”

As the room emptied, Dow could once more be heard asking Mr Townsend for the return of his desktop computer.

Well I suppose I could always appeal the verdict to the Sheriff Appeal Court.

Aye, right.😒

John Swinney's Paki-SNP Islamic terror - Pakistani takeover at Holyrood, Scotland & Westminster, UK

 

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is secretly organising terrorism to kill our friends and loved ones for the glory of Islam.

Hello. I'm Peter Dow, speaking to you from Aberdeen.

Immigrant Pakistanis and their Muslim sons and daughters are taking over our country -Humza Yousaf, Kaukab Stewart, Anas Sarwar, Sadiq Khan, Shabana Mahmood - they are opening the floodgates for millions of their fellow Muslims to move here and take everything they can get.

Pakistanis may take our lives or simply take our freedom to say one word of criticism against Pakistani rule.

One time, the BBC warned us about Pakistan - in 2011, an excellent BBC Panorama revealed that Pakistan organises terrorists like Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and revealed that Pakistan helped the Taliban to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan.

But the BBC usually gives Pakistanis a free pass, by beeping over the word "Paki", brainwashing our politicians, lawyers, police and journalists to censor the word "Paki", giving Pakistanis an exemption they don't deserve from democratic scrutiny and accountability.

So who in Scotland will defy the woke trends by typing or saying the word "Paki" in defence of our democratic human right of freedom of expression? I will obviously.

But John Swinney won't. Swinney doesn't have the independence of mind to defy the BBC's woke trend-setters.

Swinney is a puppet - and the only question is - who is pulling Swinney's strings this week - is it the UK or is it Pakistan?

John Swinney's GESTAPO make fresh false charges against me

I have received a letter from the Procurator Fiscal EDINBURGH, dated 5 November 2025, notifying me of a new case in respect of this tweet on X.

Let's unpack those images attached to my tweet.

Thankfully there has been no new police raid on my flat so far in association with this case. There's never been any need for any such police raids when I am quite open and honest about owning up to tweets on my @_Peter_Dow account on X.

Darren Steadwood is once again the Scottish Parliament GESTAPO witness who has reported my tweet to the police.

Once again, the charges are false and my tweets lawful - so not as mischaracterised by the PF's Edinburgh's complaint, to which I replied using the provided envelope to a mail handling facility in Paisley - pleading NOT GUILTY.

P&J: Aberdeen man insists tweets were not racist and says his prosecution is ‘a crime against humanity’

 

This Press and Journal story - Aberdeen man insists tweets were not racist and says his prosecution is ‘a crime against humanity’ - may be hidden behind a paywall so I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting the text below so that everyone can read it free of charge.

Peter Dow - a self-proclaimed scientist and anti-terror expert - denied posting racially offensive messages and is defending himself in court.

By Reporter

November 6 2025, 6:00 am

An Aberdeen man who allegedly posted racially offensive messages online claimed the only “crime” committed was by the police when they seized his prized computer.

Peter Dow, who described himself as an anti-terrorism expert and scientist, is charged with acting in a racially aggravated manner towards Humza Yousaf, then the First Minister, on dates in February, March and June 2024.

The 64-year-old is also accused of sending similar tweets about Kaukab Stewart, then the SNP’s Equalities Minister, on December 3 last year.

Defending himself at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on Tuesday, Dow told Sheriff Ian Wallace there was no case to answer.

During the hearing, the sheriff had to repeatedly remind him to focus solely on the matter at hand.

Proceedings will continue in December, when Dow, who denies any wrongdoing, will learn whether he successfully argued to have his prosecution abandoned.

‘Crime against humanity’

Dow’s Hollybank Place flat was raided by Police Scotland on December 18 last year.

His desktop computer and mobile phone were seized as potential evidence.

He yesterday branded it a “crime against humanity”, claiming to rely on the device to carry out scientific research.

The court heard he had also used the computer to post on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

On it, he used the term “P***” in posts about both the former First Minister and Mrs Stewart and called for imams to be deported.

In an impassioned address to the court, Dow read from a five-page document and urged Sheriff Wallace to drop the charges.

“It is simply not possible to harass anyone on X because it is so easy to avoid reading any more posts from the same author whose post you’ve taken a dislike to by muting or blocking posts from disliked authors,” he said.

“If you can’t stand to read on X displeasing words which are critical of your favourite politicians, then don’t read them. It is that simple. It is that easy.”

Dow then claimed his work as a scientist was being hindered by the prosecution, claiming that humanity was being impacted.

He told the court: “The interruptions of the duties of a scientist in the service of humanity is a crime against humanity committed with inhumane recklessness by police and prosecutors to this day. That’s true. That’s damning.”

Dow ended by demanding the return of his seized possessions and for the replacement of his front door, which was forced open during the police raid.

Peter Dow said his scientific research has been disrupted by his arrest. Image: DC Thomson

Submission for the Accused - NO CASE TO ANSWER

 IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS

AT
ABERDEEN

SUBMISSION FOR THE ACCUSED
NO CASE TO ANSWER

in
 Procurator Fiscal, ABERDEEN
 against
 ALASTAIR PETER DOW, B.Sc.(Hons)

SCS Ref: SCS/2025-003979
 Local Ref: ABE/2025-000145
 PF Ref: AB25000403-001
 Police Ref: PSSECR53W1224
SCRO No: S129419/83N

Date lodged - 3rd November 2025

Lodged by the accused representing himself

1

DOCUMENT CONTENTS PAGE

• TITLE PAGE 
• DOCUMENT CONTENTS 
• NO CASE TO ANSWER 
• THE CHARGES LIBELLED 
• THE LAW 
• DEMOCRATIC POLITICS 
• WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS DONE 
• WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT DONE 
• OTHER CHARGES 
• THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PEACEFUL 
• PLEAS IN LAW 

NO CASE TO ANSWER

This document for the defence is produced to support a submission that the accused has no case to answer as allowed by Section 160 “No case to answer” of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

THE CHARGES LIBELLED

The charges falsely allege that the Accused did some things

- CONTRARY to the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 Section 50(A)(1)(b) and (5)

- CONTRARY to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, Section 3(1)(b)

THE LAW

Section 50A(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 says

50A [ Racially-aggravated harassment.]

(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he—

(a) ..

(b) acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or is intended to cause, a person alarm or distress.

Section 3(1)(b) of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 says

3. Racially aggravated harassment

(1) A person comments an offence if the person-

(a) ..

(b) acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or intended to cause, another person alarm or distress

DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

The method of democratic politics is to criticise a politician for his or her policies (or for their actual misbehaviour other than pursuing their declared policies) so as to hold that politician accountable before the court of public opinion so that voters are better informed so as to choose whether or not to withdraw their support and their vote for that criticised politician.

The method of democratic politics is absolutely not to “cause politicians alarm or distress” which would not strengthen a criticism, but which, if anything would be a gift to the politician of attracting sympathy for alarm and distress and therefore would be counter-productive for holding the politician to account.

It may well be that if and when a politician loses support following criticism and is at risk of losing votes and elections then the politician or their loyal party supporters may be very displeased about that criticism - so displeased that they may engage in malicious actions to undermine the credibility of the critic, including making malicious complaints to the police. 

The difference between the two malicious witnesses is that no-one is paying David Fernandez to be professionally malicious to the Accused, unlike Darren Steadwood whose job, that is akin to a Scottish Parliament Gestapo officer, encourages him to make malicious complaints to the police.

WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS DONE

The Accused has posted comments on X using his username @_Peter_Dow, comments which admittedly, are very critical of the politicians Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart, but always in a manner in accordance with X site rules and the law of Scotland. It is simply not possible to “harrass” anyone on X because it is so easy to avoid reading any more posts from the same author whose posts you have taken a dislike to, by muting or blocking posts from disliked authors. Darren Steadwood is paid to search for posts he doesn’t like and David Fernandez deliberately made no effort to mute or block social media posts from @_Peter_Dow. In their own different ways, both were hunters seeking people to deem “offensive”, but neither witness provided any evidence of anyone being a victim of harassment by the Accused.

WHAT THE ACCUSED HAS NOT DONE

The Accused has not posted anything which was intended to cause alarm or distress to either Humza Yousaf and Kaukab Stewart. There was no evidence to suggest that alarm or distress was caused to anyone or that was the Accused’s intent.

What the Accused has also done is take responsibility for his own social media posts and apologise to anyone who found them offensive.

However in apologising to those who are comparatively easily offended, the Accused has never pleaded guilty to the charges libelled. Some sensitive people get easily offended in politics by perfectly lawful criticisms but if they can’t stand the heat, then they shouldn’t go into the kitchen, so to speak. In other words, if you can’t stand to read, on X, displeasing words which are critical of your favourite politicians then don’t read them. It is that simple. It is that easy.

OTHER CHARGES

The prosecutor fiscal depute has floated in court the suggestion that if the Sheriff was not minded to convict on the charges libelled, the prosecution would switch to a charge of breach of the peace.

THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PEACEFUL

The Accused is responsible for his own actions, peacefully typing on a keyboard from his own home, but the Accused is not responsible for the disproportionate actions of the police, who, truth be told, did breach the peace by forcing entry into the Accused’s home on the morning of the 18th December 2024 and the police did commit other crimes such as criminal damage of the Accused’s flat front door when police forced entry and for the crimes of theft in taking the Accused’s digital devices for which ultimately the prosecution had no use for but whose data was critical for the uninterrupted performance of the Accused’s duties as a scientist and a political activist.

In particular, the interruption of the duties of a scientist in the service of humanity is a crime against humanity - committed with inhumane recklessness by police and prosecutors to this day.

Perhaps the policy solution to crimes against humanity would be to establish a specialist branch of the police or the military dedicated to arresting just this sort of inhumane police and court actions against scientists.

So if anyone should face a charge of breach of the peace it should be the police to face that charge but in truth, the speedy return of the Accused’s digital devices and the payment to the Accused of civil compensation, paid by the police, to replace the Accused’s front door would be more useful and the preference of the Accused.

PLEAS IN LAW

The evidence led by the prosecution being insufficient in law to justify the Accused being convicted of any charge, the Defence submits that there is no case to answer and that the Accused should be acquitted, under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Section 160.

Motion to recall Gestapo Officer Darren Steadwood

  IN THE SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS

AT
ABERDEEN

MOTION FOR THE ACCUSED RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD

in

Procurator Fiscal, ABERDEEN

against

ALASTAIR PETER DOW, B.Sc.(Hons)

SCS Ref: SCS/2025-003979
Local Ref: ABE/2025-000145
PF Ref: AB25000403-001
Police Ref: PSSECR53W1224
SCRO No: S129419/83N

Date  lodged -  27th October 2025
Lodged by the accused representing himself

---

DOCUMENT CONTENTS 

• TITLE PAGE
• DOCUMENT CONTENTS
• RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD
• HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025
• WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD
• LINE OF QUESTIONING
• RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION
• SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING
• NO PHOTOGRAPH
• PLEAS IN LAW

RECALL WITNESS STEADWOOD

The Accused moves the court to recall the prosecution’s witness Darren Steadwood, for further cross-examination by the defence, at the next or a subsequent trial diet of this case.

The Accused was arrested after his social media post was referred to the police by Darren Steadwood, an “Information Security Analyst” of the Scottish Parliament’s “Social Media Monitoring Service” - a euphemism for a fledgling Scottish Parliament Gestapo.

HEARING OF 17th SEPTEMBER 2025

WITNESS DARREN STEADWOOD

The prosecution called a witness Darren Steadwood to testify before Sheriff Ian Wallace presiding in an Aberdeen Sheriff Court at a hearing on 17th September 2025.

Sheriff Wallace stopped the defence’s cross-examination of Steadwood in a manner reported on by the Press and Journal - September 18, 2025 - quoted below.

‘You are not asking him about Call of Duty’

When Dow’s questioning then turned to Mr Steadwood’s use of the computer game Call of Duty 2, where players shoot members of the Taliban, the sheriff halted the proceedings and asked the witness to step outside of the courtroom.

Turning to Dow, Sheriff Wallace said: “We don’t have time to unpick all the reasons why that question is just not relevant.

“You are not asking him about Call of Duty.”

When the trial resumed and Dow’s cross-examination continued, he asked Mr Steadwood about his YouTube channel – featuring him playing Call of Duty.

Sheriff Wallace interrupted again and brought the cross-examination to a close and asked the witness to leave the court.

“I’m not allowing you to ask any more questions,” he told Dow.

Time may have been short towards the end of the hearing of September 17th but there has since been plenty of time for the defence to produce this document herein to show the reasons why that question was intended to be the beginning of a very relevant indeed line of questioning, illustrated below.

A competent sheriff who takes the time and who has the patience to indulge the defence’s list of questions, reproduced below, can understand how such questioning intends to reveal the inconsistency, hypocrisy, arrogance and intellectual laziness of the witness Darren Steadwood.

The defence’s cross-examination is intended to scrutinise Steadwood’s failure to recognise and to admit that the Accused’s X post, reported to police by Steadwood, is transparently for a reliable witness not motivated by “racial hatred” in its criticism of Pakistan and Pakistanis for secretly supporting terrorism etc. - but the Accused’s post is just as non-racist as Steadwood’s game-playing and just as non-racist as this country’s military fighting our enemies.

LINE OF QUESTIONING

The defence has this important line of questioning still to put to the witness Darren Steadwood which Sheriff Wallace did not allow the defence to develop at the previous hearing.

1. Mr Steadwood, do you or have ever you played the Call of Duty computer-game?

“Call of Duty is a first-person shooter military video game series and media franchise” - Wikipedia

2. There was a YouTube channel in the name of “Darren Steadwood” (see snapshot image saved by the defence below) which featured recorded gameplay from the “Call of Duty” game but which channel has recently been deleted - was that your channel?

3. Did you delete your Youtube channel after it was unexpectedly mentioned in court by the defence at the earlier September hearing?

4. You weren’t attempting to hide evidence which the defence considers to be of relevance to this case to attempt to defeat the ends of justice, were you, Mr Steadwood?

5. So presumably as an experienced player of Call of Duty you are aware that many of the games of Call of Duty are set in Afghanistan?

6. Perhaps you may or may not be aware that in one level (Fallen Angel) of one game (Black Ops II), the enemy fighters are the Pakistani ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence?

7. But can we presume that in these Call of Duty war games, whether set in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, there is no incitement to a racial hatred motivation for players in any of the game plots? Players are not encouraged to shoot enemy fighters, for any reasons of “racial hatred” against Afghans or Pakistanis, correct?

8. Do you agree that, in the real 20 year war in Afghanistan, British soldiers and our American and coalition allies were also not fighting for “racial hatred” reasons but were fighting the Taliban, their Al Qaeda terrorist guests in Afghanistan, or on occasion in Pakistan, for War on Terrorism aims which are to defend our people from terrorist attacks organised by Al Qaeda, assisted by their Taliban hosts and by the Pakistani ISI? Our real war was against terrorism, not for “racial hatred”, correct?

9. Is it also reasonable to state that it would appear to be malicious to falsely attribute “racial hatred” motivations to either gameplayers or governments who deployed our soldiers to Afghanistan?

10. Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda was tracked by the CIA to a Pakistani safehouse where he was killed by US Special Forces without prior notice to, or the cooperation of, the Pakistani authorities?

11. Will you please view with the court this 2 minute video, which shows the introduction of a 2011 BBC Panorama “Secret Pakistan” series revealing the extent of the complicity of the Pakistani military in supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists.

- Display with loud sound the defence’s digital production video “BBC’s Secret Pakistan - introduction”

12. Do you accept at face value the truth of the revelations which the introduction to the BBC Panorama programme makes about Pakistan -that Pakistan in international relations plays a double game, secretly supporting our terrorist enemies while pretending to be our good-faith allies in the War on Terrorism?

13. Do you accept that the Accused’s social media criticism of Pakistan and Pakistanis, including Scottish-Pakistani Scottish Government minister Kaukab Stewart MSP, could reasonably be motivated by the same intent of the War on Terrorism which is to defend the people, in particular our people in this country against terrorism secretly organised by Pakistan?

14. Are you aware how the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, supported by Pakistan, abuses, violates the human rights of or executes Afghan girls and women?

15. Will you please view with the court this video downloaded from a post on X of the Pakistani-supported Taliban stoning an Afghan girl to death?

- Display with loud sound the defence’s digital production video “Afghan girl stoned to death by the Taliban”. Length 26 seconds.

16. Do you accept that it is reasonable for the Accused to criticise Scottish-Pakistani Kaukab Stewart for her uncritical political support for Pakistan in the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament and for her failure to criticise Pakistan for its role in supporting the Taliban abusing the women and girls of Afghanistan, thereby betraying the Scottish Government, Parliament and People as “Equalities Minister”?

17. Wasn’t it very unfair for you to malign the Accused’s social media post referencing his sound reasons for criticising Kaukab Stewart as something his post is not - “racially abusive” - simply on the pretext that the Accused used the abbreviation “Paki” in place of the unabbreviated word “Pakistani”?

18. Your job is intended to censor, not merely to “monitor” social media posting isn’t it? Do you even know what the word “monitor” means? In medicine, a heart monitor provides helpful information to doctors about how the patient’s heart is working. That’s “monitoring”. Whereas in crime, a stab to heart can kill the victim. Stabbing is not heart “monitoring”. Your reporting of my post to the police for censorship was more like a stab to the heart, killing my democratic freedom of expression than it was like a heart monitor, wasn’t it? As far as democracy is concerned, your job employs you as a state-criminal, a Gestapo officer, to stab at Scotland’s democratic freedoms, doesn’t it?

19. What is the name of your immediate supervisor of your unit - the man who was formerly employed as a police inspector? We know that you are the number 2 Gestapo officer at the Scottish Parliament but Scotland’s democrats would like to learn the name of the number 1 Gestapo officer too? You have sworn to tell the whole truth so tell us the whole truth about who supervises you in your job? What’s his name?

So this line of questioning leads from a starting point of Steadwood’s own non-racist game-playing behaviour, in a logical progression, to the Accused’s also non-racist social media posting behaviour.

Both persons, the Accused and the witness, exhibit, whether in game-play or in social media posting, not entirely unrelated non-racist, anti-terrorist inspirations, motivations and intent.

If an equivalently non-racial-hatred intent to oppose related game/real world enemies can hopefully be agreed in cross-examination then Steadwood may oblige the defence by accepting his error in reporting the Accused’s social media post to the police.

Alternatively, if Steadwood stubbornly maintains that unlike game-players like him, real world political activists like the Accused strangely “cannot” have non-racial-hatred intentions against real world enemies often represented in game-play then this witness can be shown to be inconsistent, a hypocrite, arrogant, intellectually lazy and therefore an unreliable witness.

RECALL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

Considering all of the above, the defence insists that, in the interests of justice, to allow the defence a full and a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, Sheriff Wallace is obliged to support the defence’s motion and order Darren Steadwood be recalled for further cross-examination by the defence at the next or a subsequent trial diet.

Alternatively, if Sheriff Wallace unjustly and maliciously refuses to permit a further hearing of cross-examination of the witness Darren Steadwood, thereby wilfully sabotaging the defence’s cross-examination of this witness in order to defeat the ends of justice, then in the interests of justice, Sheriff Wallace should recuse himself from any further involvement in this case, leaving another Sheriff to pick up the legal pieces.

“I’m not allowing you to ask any more questions,” - Sheriff Wallace

Sheriff Wallace may refuse to reverse himself and refuse to recuse himself believing arrogantly that he can follow Steadwood and the Scottish Parliament’s fledgling Gestapo unit to tell vile lies about the Accused and fit the Accused up on these false charges with no consequences to his legal career. If so, good luck with that, Wallace.

SHERIFF IAN WALLACE PRESIDING

Ian Wallace studied at the University of Glasgow and the Free University of Berlin. He graduated with first class honours in Scots Law and German Language. He started his traineeship with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2003. He then worked as a Procurator Fiscal Depute in Dumfries, Edinburgh, and Crown Office. In 2014, he qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and was appointed an Advocate Depute. He was appointed as a Summary Sheriff in 2018. He was appointed as a Sheriff in 2021.

        - From the Judiciary Scotland website

NO PHOTOGRAPH

The defence could not find a photograph of Ian Wallace online to reproduce here, unfortunately. Photographs of judges and prosecutors should be published for the purpose of holding those who misrule us accountable.

So given that the defence’s preliminary pleas and objections to this Gestapo-style arrest, charges and undemocratic prosecution have been so cursorily overruled and the prosecution’s case not been lawfully dismissed at an earlier diet but rather indulged firstly by Sheriff Johnston and then by Sheriff Wallace, somewhat in the manner of a Nazi political show-trial, the defence has substituted here the photograph of an infamous Nazi judge, Roland Freisler.

The defence assumes that Sheriff Wallace would not wish his court to suffer any further comparison with a Nazi court nor he with Freisler, an enemy of justice who was fortuitously killed when his Berlin court building was bombed by the US Air Force in 1945. His Nazi colleagues faced justice at a Nuremberg tribunal.

The defence presumes that Sheriff Wallace was educated about how the Nazis perverted the German legal system and so the defence asks that he not allow Aberdeen Sheriff Court to be likewise perverted as this prosecution intends.

PLEAS IN LAW

The motion to recall witness Darren Steadwood to this Sheriff Court trial is craved with reference to the legal power for the presiding judge which is specified in Section 263 (5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

“(5) In any trial, on the motion of either party, the presiding judge may permit a witness who has been examined to be recalled.”